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: Liberty Of Personal Security Act (LOPS Act)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Alliance 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: September 3679
Description[?]:
| The Conservative Alliance Party submits the Liberty of Personal Security Act (LOPS Act) to the Presidium for debate and voting; WHEREAS - The Great Democratic Republic of Lodamun recognizes the right, of each individual, to defend him or herself to the best of their collective ability - The Great Democratic Republic of Lodamun recognizes the liberty of each individual to purchase and carry weapons as they may be attacked with - The Great Democratic Republic of Lodamun hereby reaffirms its commitment to the safety and well being of its citizens THEREFORE ARTICLE 1. OWNERSHIP OF GUNS A. All citizens of Lodamun are free to own any type, model, quantity, or configured weapon. B. License registry's are hereby disbanded and destroyed to protect civilian liberties. ARTICLE 2. LEGALITY OF DUELING A. Dueling is legal for citizens of Lodamun to enact. B. Dueling is defined as voluntary agreement by two separate parties to solve a dispute by firing a weapon, as agreed upon, at the opposing party per the safety and distance agreed upon at the moment. Consensual agreement is necessary and mandatory. ARTICLE 3. WEAPON ACCESS A. Citizens may own any type, model, or quantity of weapon. B. Weapons may be carried anywhere outside of private property, where it is upon the discretion of the property owner. C. The Government of Lodamun will designate certain areas "Weapon Denied Zones" as needed. ARTICLE 4. IMPLEMENTATION A. The Ministry of Justice will implement this Act upon the successful completion and passage through the Presidium. B. Full implementation is expected upon 6 months of the passage of this Act. |
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.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The legality of dueling.
Old value:: This matter is left for the local governments to decide upon.
Current: Dueling is illegal.
Proposed: Dueling is legal and unregulated.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Weapons allowed to private citizens.
Old value:: Citizens may own any type of weapons, but certain types are restricted to designated places.
Current: Citizens may own any type of weapon. They may be carried anywhere except as determined by the property owner.
Proposed: Citizens may own any type of weapon. They may be carried anywhere except as determined by the property owner.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:11:23, June 07, 2014 CET | From | Conservative Alliance Party | To | Debating the Liberty Of Personal Security Act (LOPS Act) |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, The Conservative Alliance Party is honoured to bring this important legislation to the Presidium. We must respect the liberty of our citizens to their personal security and to operate their lives in mutual understanding and unregulated freedom. The LOPS Act will set new standards in weapon and personal security freedoms and liberties, and we herald this Act as a notion of the CAP's commitment to individual rights and freedoms. - Larry Holdman Justice Critic for the CAP |
| Date | 18:19:47, June 07, 2014 CET | From | Grand Nationalist Fraction | To | Debating the Liberty Of Personal Security Act (LOPS Act) |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, we have fought to obtain a registration of weapons and their owners. Please note that the de facto police forces are there to serve and protect the citizens. We do not want everybody to run around with weapons in order to 'protect themselves', do we? We will not support this. Ted Urbain P&A Chairman |
| Date | 02:01:15, June 08, 2014 CET | From |  Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Liberty Of Personal Security Act (LOPS Act) |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We are neutral on the matter. -- Eric Fertig, GNRG Spokesman on Internal Affairs |
| Date | 02:18:19, June 08, 2014 CET | From | Conservative Alliance Party | To | Debating the Liberty Of Personal Security Act (LOPS Act) |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, To address the concerns of the Progressive and Alternative party; yes we do want our fellow citizens to be safe, and yes we do believe that their ability to arm and defend themselves is integral to their security of person within our great nation. There is no correlation between more weapons and more violence, as per the myth of those who favor gun restrictions. Police at the moment are unable to administer direct response and control of a situation involving lethal weapons, as our regular officers do not carry them. Instead we wait upon a specialized team of officers licensed to carry weapons? No, every single citizen needs this law to be adequately safe and secure. - Larry Holdman Justice Critic for the CAP |
| Date | 05:12:29, June 08, 2014 CET | From | Great National Republican Guard | To | Debating the Liberty Of Personal Security Act (LOPS Act) |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, There is a misunderstanding of the context of our laws. There are 2 types of security contracts that are issued. Regular security firms may get internal affairs contracts, while paramilitaries get internal affairs contracts and external affairs contracts at the same time. - Paramilitaries are allowed as part of each political party; http://classic.particracy.net/viewvariable.php?variable=PARAMILITARIES - The government retains a part time, professional army, navy and air force in alignment with paramilitary groups; http://classic.particracy.net/viewvariable.php?variable=NATIONAL_MILITARY_POLICY - The government competitively subcontracts security management to private security firms; http://classic.particracy.net/viewvariable.php?variable=POLICE - The military acts as a de-facto police force, with powers of arrest; http://classic.particracy.net/viewvariable.php?variable=MILITARY_POLICE We have, in a recent discussion, clarified that paramilitaries are private groups contracted for state defence. We hire other security firms for law enforcement as well, but these other groups aren't armed. The paramilitaries are still armed and they have police powers. Why do you think they're paid when the country isn't involved in a war? The paramilitaries have lethal weapons, while the regular security firms don't. They're still both readily available to respond to anything occurring in Lodamun, as we witnessed during the Hosian riots; http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=57&start=290#p70995 -- Eric Fertig, GNRG Spokesman on Internal Affairs |
| Date | 19:11:17, June 09, 2014 CET | From | Conservative Alliance Party | To | Debating the Liberty Of Personal Security Act (LOPS Act) |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, While we recognize the ability of paramilitaries to police our state, the most capable police are not able to prevent all crimes; a sad fact we must recognize. At the moment of life or death, our citizens must be able to defend themselves to the best of their ability. The CAP stands for peace and for unregulated freedoms for our citizens. The LOPS Act is one column of the Conservative Alliance's election platform, and we will wait under after the election to bring this vote. - Larry Holdman Justice Critic for the CAP |
| Date | 21:02:48, June 09, 2014 CET | From | Grand Nationalist Fraction | To | Debating the Liberty Of Personal Security Act (LOPS Act) |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, read my lips: unregulated freedom equals chaos. Ted Urbain P&A chairman |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 599 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Nation raiding" or a malevolent coordinated effort by a single user or group of users to interrupt the gameplay, significantly alter the culture or direction of a nation is strictly prohibited. Players interacting in nation raiding will be sanctioned. |
| Random quote: "For every action there is an equal and opposite government program." - Bob Wells |