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: Citizen's Right to Bear Arms Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Williams Family
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 3299
Description[?]:
| Gives more of our citizens their right (in our opinion) to carry weapons to defend themselves by relaxing the requirements a bit. |
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: Individuals are allowed to own firearms as long as they do not have a history of dangerous mental illness or a violent criminality.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:20:38, May 03, 2012 CET | From |  Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Citizen's Right to Bear Arms Act |
| Message | Your proposal will involve too much bureaucracy, where researching personal history is concerned. It's better to lay out something flat out, so that firearms are registered. |
| Date | 19:41:00, May 03, 2012 CET | From | Williams Family | To | Debating the Citizen's Right to Bear Arms Act |
| Message | Bureaucracy? Surely keeping a record of those individuals with mental conditions (as soon as such conditions are discovered by a psychiatrist or individuals with violent criminal history (as soon as they are convicted of such crime(s) wouldn't be difficult. Also, "strict license conditions" and their enforcement aren't any simpler really. My proposal is no more challenging than the current rule but will make it easier for individuals to own firearms for their protection without worrying too much about complying with "strict license conditions". At the same time, individuals who have shown themselves unqualified for the responsibility of carrying a lethal weapon will not be allowed to endanger themselves and others. |
| Date | 19:47:24, May 03, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Citizen's Right to Bear Arms Act |
| Message | Leave such suggestions to North Beluzia... They were the ones who voted for that: http://classic.particracy.net/viewnews.php?newsid=296222&nation=9 South Beluzians appreciate the regulation, which is done in their best interest. |
| Date | 21:38:01, May 03, 2012 CET | From | Patterson House | To | Debating the Citizen's Right to Bear Arms Act |
| Message | You say that this gives more citizens the right to bear arms. But this actually limits the amount of citizens that can own guns. |
| Date | 21:43:55, May 03, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Citizen's Right to Bear Arms Act |
| Message | Patterson logic in this matter may be referring to failed amnesty for released "criminals" After serving time, a person is possibly more vulnerable to danger, and should be allowed to bear arms. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 38 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 61 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real-life places should not be referenced in Particracy. |
| Random quote: "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." - Plato |