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: Right to Bear Arms Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Civic Democratic Party
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: January 2118
Description[?]:
| Whereas the right to bear arms should be an inalienable right for all Rutanians; Whereas current restrictions placed upon firearms take away this right; Whereas guns should not be overly regulated but should be kept out of the hands of criminals as much as possible; Resolves that the following be made into law. ADDENDUM I All guns buyers will be subject to an instant background check as well as a longer more thorough search if anything suspect appears on the background check. ADDENDUM II No person with a criminal record may own or buy a firearm. Any person with a criminal record who is found with a fun in his posession will face weapons violation charges and may be sent to jail. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Ownership of guns by private individuals.
Old value:: Adult individuals may own guns under strict license conditions.
Current: Adult individuals may own guns under strict license conditions.
Proposed: Adult individuals are allowed to own and purchase guns freely.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 12:10:15, September 25, 2005 CET | From |  Freedom Party | To | Debating the Right to Bear Arms Act |
| Message | We support this. Gun rights for almost everyone |
| Date | 12:15:06, September 25, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Right to Bear Arms Act |
| Message | " "ADDENDUM I All guns buyers will be subject to an instant background check as well as a longer more thorough search if anything suspect appears on the background check. ADDENDUM II No person with a criminal record may own or buy a firearm. Any person with a criminal record who is found with a fun in his posession will face weapons violation charges and may be sent to jail." The hypocricy.... You add this to make it appear as if there are "strict license conditions" while you would abolish them. |
| Date | 12:15:51, September 25, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Right to Bear Arms Act |
| Message | Strict license conditions are necessary to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands and to ensure that people who buy guns at least know how to responsibly handle them. |
| Date | 13:35:39, September 25, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Right to Bear Arms Act |
| Message | This is silly. Against. |
| Date | 16:40:42, September 25, 2005 CET | From | Civic Democratic Party | To | Debating the Right to Bear Arms Act |
| Message | "This is silly. Against." What a wonderful argument LIP. *rolls eyes* Seriously what makes this silly? To the RSDP I read strict licensing agreements to mean that you need to obtain a government permit to own a gun and that a gun can only be owned at the government's behest. This, on the other hand, allows all people to purchase them freely except for criminals, which is why their is a background check in place. |
| Date | 23:39:56, September 25, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Right to Bear Arms Act |
| Message | You're suggesting that people be allowed to buy guns with a pathetically shallow background check. Believe it or not, "criminals" are not a seperate race of people who are marked out at birth. You dont know they're criminals until they ACTUALLY COMMIT A CRIME at which point it's too late. It should be HARD to get a firearm, not easy. |
| Date | 15:01:16, September 26, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Right to Bear Arms Act |
| Message | There should be an option that is in between the two, in between strict and freely |
| Date | 15:22:51, September 26, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Right to Bear Arms Act |
| Message | [OOC: What Im getting at is that employers can fire striking workers, not that they go to prison. By "illegal" I mean "not enshrined in law".] |
| Date | 13:15:39, September 27, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Right to Bear Arms Act |
| Message | wth... why did it post something I wrote on strikes in here... |
| Date | 13:05:43, September 28, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Right to Bear Arms Act |
| Message | We have rethought our policy on this and decided that licence conditions are favourable |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 206 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 393 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Cabinet ministers who disagree seriously with the head of government would usually be expected to resign. Parties within the cabinet may attempt to manoeuvre to replace the head of government though, for example by proposing a new cabinet bill or voting for an early election. |
| Random quote: "Poverty is like punishment for a crime you didn't commit." - Eli Khamarov |