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: Gun reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Protectorate Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: February 2071
Description[?]:
| A debate to compose our definition of what are "strict" regulations. currently: outlawed weapons: military grade equipment (anything above or including .50 caliber, automatics, explosive rounds) require licensing: must meet requirements outlined below to receive license. training: 20 hr course on handling, and responsibilities, law background checks: insure no history of violent crime. waiting period: long enough to complete background check. registration: every change of ownership, with barrel pattern recorded storage: must store in locked cabinet or with trigger lock, unloaded, with ammo in seperate locked container. Subsidies to encourage biometric locks. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:47:14, June 16, 2005 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | We support licensing and training as well as background checks. We do not support limits on handguns. Where and when they are permitted to be carried we feel should be left to the local governments. |
| Date | 22:26:51, June 16, 2005 CET | From | Independent Combat Weapons Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | We support only low powered weaponsand we agrees with PP about th other things. |
| Date | 22:27:18, June 16, 2005 CET | From | Independent Combat Weapons Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | and we agree* |
| Date | 00:48:18, June 17, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | We applaud this initiative by the PP - this is indeed an area that needs clarification. We would support a ban on handguns and military-style semi-automatic weapons, although perhaps with exceptions for collectors (but then such weapons should be disabled). We also suggest a ban on carrying any firearms in public (except obviously if there's a lawful reason, and then only unloaded and with the bolt removed). We agree with the PP that we should require licensing, training and background checks, and we would add strict conditions for storage (locked cabinets, guns and ammo stored separately, etc). |
| Date | 02:16:52, June 17, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | In regards to registration, we suggest (OOC: i cannot remember what they are called but when a bullet can be traced to a particular weapon based on the marks left by the bore of the gun) be recorded for each weapon sold at every change of possession. And of course each change of possession must be recorded. We will support storage conditions, though doubt how well they can be enforced. |
| Date | 04:26:31, June 17, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | We should also look at requirements for gun manufacturers with regards to the inclusion of certain safety measure in their weapons. Some handguns are now sold with a biometric identification system included, which only allows the registered users to fire the weapon. This is a uniquely effective method of controlling the proliferation of illegal weapons, and is less onerous than legislative methods. Clearly there needs to be a waiting period whenever purchasing weapons in order to allow effective and thorough background checks. We are pleasantly surprised to hear the PP supports national databases to register all gun owners and the barrel patterns of their weapons, a proposition we fully support. |
| Date | 05:02:56, June 17, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | We fully support regulation, we dislike limits or bans of weapons. We would like to see where a lawfully user is free to own the gun they wish, and similiarly any crime committed with a weapon be tracked to its owner, as well as limiting the possibility of such a crime. How effective is the biometric locks on weapons? |
| Date | 09:06:45, June 17, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | Firstly, clearly the PP is for some bans on weapons, unless they're going to allow citizens to own rocket launchers, miniguns, grendade launchers etc. We should not allow the general sale of 'military' weapons, such as .50 caliber rifles or miniguns. A biometric lock is, potentially, 100% effective; the system is typically in the handle of the gun and scans the users fingerprints when they grip the weapon. The verification takes only a fraction of a second, and unless the criminal intends to make a glove out of the severed hand of the original owner, prevents anyone from using the weapon unless they bypass the electronic lock. This would require opening up the weapon and replacing the microchip, and at the point where someone is capable of doing that they can probably just buy a gun illegally anyway, so we're not preventing anything. Biometric locks are doubly valuable for preventing accidental shootings if a child does manage to get their hands on an improperly stored weapon, because as noted, while we can and should mandate gunlocks and locked gun cabinets, enforcing those standards isn't realistically feasible. |
| Date | 11:17:18, June 17, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | Why should handguns be available to anyone? What lawful purpose could they serve, other than for the military or the police? |
| Date | 20:12:07, June 17, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | biometric system, pretty expensive it seems to us. maybe then only the rich people can buy guns, which will mean the next time the government tries to take away their property they can defend their land. other than that we support strong background checks. and most of the things mentioned here. when it comes to a vote, could we put all of the agree upon terms into the proposition intro at the top? |
| Date | 22:08:23, June 17, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | modified the above discription to reflect the agreed upon changes thus far. |
| Date | 22:23:02, June 17, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | Good so far, but we still need to decide what types of firearm are allowed. |
| Date | 12:07:10, June 18, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | we agree with the new additions. as for gun types, anything automatic is not on. |
| Date | 15:32:31, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | So no automatics or military grade weapons, anything else? We would like to limit as few as possible and rely for now on our other programs to prevent the weapons from being used illegally. |
| Date | 16:10:32, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | of course, but what on earth would anyone need a machine gun for? |
| Date | 02:28:54, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | squirrel hunting. Them varmints ar' quick. Perhaps rocket launchers should be permitted as well, then we can bbq them as we hunt em. |
| Date | 02:35:17, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | modified discription above again. (OOC: not much for guns so if the above discription is missing something let me know ie basing caliber from LevP post, can't think of a reason for explosive rounds etc) |
| Date | 10:52:53, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | change the training course to 7 hours and we support everything. |
| Date | 11:22:32, June 21, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | We still see no reason to allow handguns. And why 7 hours rather than 20, FRP? |
| Date | 15:20:27, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | 7 hrs seems a bit too short to learn the regulations as well as good gun handling. 20 maybe a bit lengthy but provides a nice round number. We could be convinced 15 will work as well. But we want it so it cannot be completed in one day. We do not support handgun bans. Individuals should have the right to own a gun to protect themselves and their loved ones. |
| Date | 17:41:10, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | how about 4 2 hour courses each taken within a week of each other? |
| Date | 19:02:06, June 21, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | Individuals who use guns to try to protect themselves are often shot with their own guns. Restricting the supply of handguns to criminals is more important - that way people are much less likely to need to resort to such extreme measures to defend themselves in the first place. |
| Date | 21:51:05, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | The training is there to help prevent the accidental shootings, this is the other reason we support a longer training session. We do not think that the supply of handguns can effectively be kept out of the criminal hands and support instead increased punishment for crimes with guns and careful tracking of the weapons legally in our system. |
| Date | 23:23:19, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | We will vote for this now, but we intend to introduce legislation to make biometrics required during the next election cycle. |
| Date | 00:37:26, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Radical Centrists | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | Good work. |
| Date | 12:09:50, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | agreed, this was a really good combined effort. well done PP. |
| Date | 15:05:48, June 23, 2005 CET | From | Independent Combat Weapons Party | To | Debating the Gun reform |
| Message | That was very good. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 100 | |||||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 0 | |||||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow official national flags of real-life nations or flags which are very prominent and recognisable (eg. the flags of the European Union, the United Nations, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or the Confederate States of America). |
| Random quote: "Benefits should be conferred gradually; and in that way they will taste better." - Niccolo Machiavelli |