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: Firearms Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal 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: May 2815
Description[?]:
| For the safety of our citizens, Michael Faulkner, The Liberal Democratic Party's candidate for Head of Government, proposes that firearms should be removed from our society. Only by removing the culture of gun ownership can the streets of Rutania ever be safe again. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The weapons used by police forces.
Old value:: Police officers carry standard firearms.
Current: Police officers may only carry non-lethal weapons apart from specially trained firearms units.
Proposed: Police officers may only carry non-lethal weapons apart from specially trained firearms units.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Weapons allowed to private citizens.
Old value:: 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.
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, and there are further restrictions on places where they may be carried.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Weapon concealment.
Old value:: Any legal weapon may be concealed when carried.
Current: Local governments may set and enforce concealed carry laws.
Proposed: People must first obtain a permit in order to carry concealed weapons.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:48:18, September 08, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Elitist Party | To | Debating the Firearms Bill |
| Message | We would like to ask the LDP as well to leave time for debate before putting a bill to vote. The REP does not support this bill because of several reasons. Article 1 would be acceptable but the other two make us impossible to support he legislation as a whole. |
| Date | 22:49:52, September 08, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Elitist Party | To | Debating the Firearms Bill |
| Message | In the case of Article 2 and 3 we prefer the current legislations which are legally well fundamented, based on the principles of individual freedom and on the individial's right to defend itself. |
| Date | 02:08:46, September 09, 2009 CET | From | Rutanian Heritage Party | To | Debating the Firearms Bill |
| Message | We oppose this legislation for several reasons - firstly, we believe that it is vital that police officers are well-equipped to deal with potentially violent criminals, who threaten to harm them and the general public. On many occassions, this will mean defending themselves against offenders carrying firearms - in such circumstances, 'non-lethal' weapons will be virtually useless, and will put our officers in a position of great disadvantage, as well as putting their lives at great risk. Police-officers should be issued with fire-arms that will allow them to defend themselves and others in these circumstances, rare as they may be. Secondly, we see no reason why law-abiding gun-owners should not be allowed to carry their personal firearms wherever they want, except at the discretion of private property owners. The LDP's proposed legislation essentially presumes that law-abiding gun-owners are violent psycopaths - the party's focus would better be directed towards preventing and punishing violent crime, rather than punishing law-abiding citizens who merely want to defend themselves and their communities from the perpetrators of such crimes. The LDP seem to have conflated those who attack others in aggression with the tools they use to do so - we should turn our attentions to those pulling the trigger, rather than focussing our efforts on the guns themselves. Thirdly, while we can certainly see the reason behind permits for gun ownership - i.e. to ensure criminals and the mentally ill cannot purchase and own guns - we are less convinced about the requirement of permits for concealment. We believe this would be ineffectual, and we do not think it would achieve what the LDP may be hoping it will. Once again, this is an issue of misguided focus - we should focus on preventing criminals from obtaining firearms, whether legally or otherwise, rather than over-regulating law-abiding citizens. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 305 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy isn't just a game, it also has a forum, where players meet up to discuss role-playing, talk about in-game stuff, run their own newspaper or organisation and even discuss non-game and real-life issues! Check it out: http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: The U.N. is a place where governments opposed to free speech demand to be heard. - MAD Magazine |