We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Local Options for Law Enforcement
Details
Submitted by[?]: Tuesday Is Coming
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: March 2090
Description[?]:
| As a curfew, on minors or othewise, is sometimes requested by law enforcement, we feel that local governments should be permitted to use, or not use, this method as they see fit. In no case shall this bill be construed to require a curfew for any area. Police precincts shall be allowed to set, or not set, curfew times for citizens in those areas. This shall apply to all citizens within an age range specified by each precinct. The Age ranges and curfew times shall not be permitted to be outside of the following parameters: Start time cannot be any earlier than 12:00AM(midnight) End time cannot be any later than 6:00AM Adults older than twenty-five years of age shall never be subject to any curfew |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Curfew policy (curfew time to be determined in the bill description).
Old value:: No curfew policies may be established.
Current: The national government may impose curfews, but only if a state of emergency has been declared.
Proposed: Local governments may set curfews, but national government does not.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:11:17, July 30, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | (just a note, this entire law did not exist until recently. The current value is the default, and this issue hasnt been debated yet.) |
| Date | 15:24:42, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | Not for us TiC. Curfew is restriction of freedom. The only people that should have this authority are parents. (And then it should not be abused.) |
| Date | 19:05:16, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | We see the curfew as a legitimate power of the government, when properly applied and limited. Law enforcement should be able to use this tool when there are limits properly applied to it. Therefore we set some, and devolve it to localities. I actually expected this bill to fail, but felt that our position should be known to the voters. ((Ironically, in RL, I have only been pulled over twice, once was curfew(the other was speeding))) |
| Date | 19:08:33, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | We could accept the ability to enforce a curfew under exceptional circumstances, and then only by judicial order and applicable only to a very specific area identified in that order. We do not consider that this is a political issue. This is a law and order issue that should be determined by the minister of the Interior or by the supreme court. (Depending on which system we have) |
| Date | 19:53:40, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | opposed to curfews. Yet another statist power grab by "libertarians." |
| Date | 19:53:58, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | opposed to curfews. This is yet another statist power grab by "libertarians." |
| Date | 22:31:22, July 30, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | ((??? - Could you explain that comment GA)) |
| Date | 02:09:50, July 31, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | "We could accept the ability to enforce a curfew under exceptional circumstances, and then only by judicial order and applicable only to a very specific area identified in that order." I feel that if the police of a certain area are having trouble with 17 year olds commiting crimes at 3 AM, they should be able to use curfews to discourage this. "We do not consider that this is a political issue. This is a law and order issue that should be determined by the minister of the Interior or by the supreme court. (Depending on which system we have)" We agree that this is not a political issue, which is why we proposed to devolve this issue to localities. "opposed to curfews. This is yet another statist power grab by "libertarians." Rather we are reducing federal government power on this issue. |
| Date | 17:33:30, July 31, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | we have NO curfews at the moment. The TIC wants to allow local governments to impose them. Hardly consistent with Lodamun's civil liberties. We can see clearly that it's claims to be the guardian of individual freedoms are hollow. |
| Date | 20:35:54, July 31, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | While we do not agree with TiC on this issue, we can see the genuine motivation for this on a personal freedom basis. We imagine that no member of the GA has ever lived on a road where there is a night club, or a popular music bar or sports venue etc. If you had you would realise just how much a curfew can provide the individual with the freedom to sleep when they have to get up the next morning for work, with the freedom to not have their property damaged by drunken fights between groups of rival supporters. Individual freedom is limited by the freedoms of other individuals. A curfew may be one way of enforcing this limitation. As we indicated though, we do not agree with this, as we do not feel that this is the right way of dealing with this type of problem. We prefer voluntary co-operation with the license to hold public events being at risk if this co-operation is not forthcoming. |
| Date | 04:11:17, August 01, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | We just felt that, while curfews are not necessary in nearly all areas of Lodamun, some areas may require them. The local precincts should have every tool at their disposal to protect and serve the citizens of their area. To prevent abuse by local governments, we have instated some limits. We believe that most government should be as close as possible to the people. The duties of the federal government are to prevent abuses from the local governments and to protect the nation from attack. The duties of the local governments are civil dispute resolution, and protecting the citizens of their area though law enforcement/police. Neither government has any rights, nor duties, to infringe upon the freedoms of their constituents. As curfews are very area specific, we would delegate these to local governments, as not all curfews violate any liberties. If a local government feels that a certain area should not have any teenage activity between the hours of 2 and 3 AM, why should we stop them? |
| Date | 17:14:36, August 01, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | a complete contradiction to the TuesdayCorp's refusal to allow local governments to legislate on matters such as sports. We can see clearly that TuesdayCorp is only intersted in protecting mony, and has no interest in protecting individual liberties like freedom of movement. |
| Date | 02:22:26, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | Local Governments, in fact all governments, have a right and a duty to protect their people. No government has any such right to become involved in sports. "Freedom of movement" is one thing. Freedom of 19 year olds to roam outside at 2:30 AM when the local authority has reasons to prohibit this is a completely different matter. |
| Date | 04:31:01, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | If there are no suggestions for compromise, this bill will be proposed, to get it out of the way at least. |
| Date | 19:22:43, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | We can not support this. Specific restrictions on specific individuals, orderd by courtrs are acceptable, but a 19 year old at 02:30 on the street may well be on their way to or from work, or to or from studying. To ban this in this generaluised way is not acceptable to us. |
| Date | 19:51:39, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | We agree that there are certain situations such as work, etc. Which is why individual police officers should have discretion over this. If there isnt a reason, such as crime, for a certain part of town to have a curfew, then no curfew will be enacted. This bill, at least for TiC, isnt a support of curfews, it just says that curfews are only the business of the national government so far as preventing local governments from abusing them. The existence of a curfew doesnt mean abuse. Other than that, it is none of the national government's business. |
| Date | 00:02:03, August 03, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | Since when has Lodamun become a police state? Completely opposed. |
| Date | 04:43:43, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Local Options for Law Enforcement |
| Message | Since when has the national government concerned itself with how the police are permitted to their job? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 67 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 337 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 46 |
| Random fact: Role-play is most enjoyable and successful when there is good communication and friendly relations between all players involved. |
| Random quote: "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." - Mahatma Gandhi |