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: Firearm Rights and Self-Defence Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Rutanian Heritage Party
Status[?]: passed
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: July 2810
Description[?]:
| Upon the passing of this legislation, individuals will be granted the legally protected right to self-defense - that is, any individual who acts in self-defense against an aggressor, a robber, or a trespasser on their property - whether the offender is killed in the process or not - will be given impunity by law. The following are the conditions upon which an individual will be deemed to have acted in 'self-defense': A) If an individual is attacked in any place, any action they take to defend themselves will be pardoned by the law. B) If an individual's home or place of business is invaded by an intruder, whose intention is to harm individuals or to steal property, any action taken against this intruder will be pardoned by law. C) If an individual's vehicle is invaded by another individual in an attempt to steal the vehicle, any action the they take against the offender will be pardoned by law. D) If an individual acts to defend another individual who is being attacked or robbed by someone, whether a family member, neighbor, friend, or an individual with whom they are not acquainted, any action they take against the offender will be pardoned by law. In addition, upon the passing of this legislation, individuals will be allowed to carry legal firearms wherever they wish, except at the discretion of private property owners. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Weapons allowed to private citizens.
Old value:: Only certain types of weapons may be owned by the general public, and there are further restrictions on places where they may be carried.
Current: Only certain types of weapons may be owned by the general public, and there are further restrictions on places where they may be carried.
Proposed: Only certain types of weapons may be owned by the general public, but these may be carried anywhere except as determined by the property owner.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:24:28, August 26, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Elitist Party | To | Debating the Firearm Rights and Self-Defence Reform Act |
| Message | We naturally support this piece of legislation. |
| Date | 00:58:38, August 27, 2009 CET | From | Revolutionary Workers Party | To | Debating the Firearm Rights and Self-Defence Reform Act |
| Message | What would the legal repercussions of maing a carte-blanche proposal such as this? Should it not be done on a case-by-case basis? We are worried that in unwitnessed incidents this can be a legal loophole to freedom - where does the burden of proof lie when someone says they were acting in self-defence? |
| Date | 10:02:39, August 27, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Firearm Rights and Self-Defence Reform Act |
| Message | We acknowledge the RWP's argument, and this is certainly something that the RHP considered at great length when constructing this legislation. Unfortunately, there is no resolution to this issue but to determine whether or not the act was in self-defense on a case-by-case basis. If there were witnesses, this would obviously aid in this process. Furthermore, if the individual who acted in self-defense had several prior criminal convictions, this would indicate that it may not have been an act of self-defense at all, where if they were a law-abiding citizen with no record, it would be far more feasible. The record of the person harmed or killed in self-defense may also be of some assistance in this process. We understand that there are holes in these laws, just as there are holes in any laws concerning crimes to which there are no witnesses - such as rape and domestic violence - and where it is essentially one individual's word against another. However, overall, we believe it is far more important that citizens be granted the legally protected right to defend themselves, their lives and their property, rather than the alternative - all we can do is reduce the possibility of this law's exploitation. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 305 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Treaty-locking", or ratifiying treaties that completely or nearly completely forbid any proposals to change laws, is not allowed. Amongst other possible sanctions, Moderation reserves the discretion to delete treaties and/or subject parties to a seat reset if this is necessary in order to reverse a treaty-lock situation. |
| Random quote: "Up against the corporate government, voters find themselves asked to choose between look-alike candidates from two parties vying to see who takes the marching orders from their campaign paymasters and their future employers. The money of vested interest nullifies genuine voter choice and trust." - Ralph Nader |