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: Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun
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: April 2083
Description[?]:
| I first proposed this bill 3 years ago in April of 2080 and I had someone operating under my name doing the work for me. They moved the bill to voting without first reading the opinions of my opponents. So, this time around I'd like to include what CCF-Greens and the Adam Smith Party requested: 1. Weapons are defined as following: any instrument or object instrumentality used in physical combat that has no other practical use. These include, but are not limited to: I. Projectile weapons: hand guns, rifles, shotguns, any automatic or assault firearms, dart guns, crossbows, bow and arrows, etc. a. These do not include toy or novelty guns or potential weapons that have other specific purposes such as squirt guns, pellet pistols/rifles, nail/staple guns, II. Blades: bayonets (when attached to a firearm), swords, lightsabers, etc. a. These do not include any kitchen, hunting, or blades that are commonly used as tools (pocketknives, scythes, machetes, letter openers, exacto knives, shaving blades, etc.) 2. In order to obtain a weapon, adults must first attend a series of classes explaining the risks of weapon ownership and ways that the risks can be prevented. I. Once they have finished the class they will have to pass a standard exam with both a written portion and a physical exam testing their ability to use the weapon. a. The WRITTEN portion will consist of questions invloving proper use of the weapon. It will have to be passed with at least 70% accuracy. b. the FIELD portion will be designed by the instructor but will still be standard among every student and loosely regulated by the government. 3. If the adult wishes to purchase a fore-mentioned weapon they must first register it with the government. I. Licensing costs for weapons will be supported through minor taxes on ammunition and parts sales. II. People cannot be denied licenses based on their race, social status, age (as long as they are legal adults), sex, or sexual preference. 4. To obtain ammunition or parts for a weapon you must have a license to own a weapon. NO EXTRA LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO PURCHASE AMMUNITION/PARTS JUST THE ONE RECEIVED TO PURCHASE THE WEAPON INITIALLY. This is not an attempt to take away the right to bear arms. It is just a step towards making sure that those who do bear them do it responsibly and that those who won’t cannot use them. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Ownership of guns by private individuals.
Old value:: Adult individuals are allowed to own and purchase guns freely.
Current: Adult individuals may own guns under strict license conditions.
Proposed: Adult individuals may own guns under strict license conditions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 07:23:45, July 14, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080) |
| Message | Oppose. Oppose. Oppose. Why: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" – Adolph Hitler [1935] The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany. |
| Date | 08:37:40, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080) |
| Message | thats an unfair comparison. I doubt ASP plans to take over the nation with a wave of violence pending on the outcome of this bill. |
| Date | 14:59:23, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080) |
| Message | Of course we do. ;-) On this issue we are really undecided. We would still like to see the proposal specify weapon rather than firearm. What we do not understand about the objection from TiC is that this is just a licensing requirement. It is not a removal of the right to bear arms, it is a removal of the right to bear arms irresponsibly. It simply requires that anyone who wishes to own a weapon must not have a criminal record, must understand the nature of the weapon and how to storee and maintain it safely. It also requires that they learn how to use the weapon so as to avoid as far as possible any accidental harm being caused to innocent parties. Could TiC please explain why licensing of individuals to own a weapon is any more problematic than licensing them to drive a car. At the moment we are inclined to vote in favour if the proposal is changed to state weapon. This is however only an inclination, and we can be swayed by coherent argument ((preferably posted rather than linked to)). |
| Date | 18:30:36, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080) |
| Message | This seems fine on the whole. Firearms registries can be quite expensive, and it does not seem 100% fair that the taxpayers should have to bear this cost. Perhaps it might be funded through a small user fee to obtain the gun permit? |
| Date | 18:41:21, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080) |
| Message | So the CCF is happy that the government pays for the militia in foreign countries to buy weapons, nbut is concerned about the cost of making Lodamun a safer place. We think that you may have your financial priorities a little confused. Perhaps we should fund our foreign aid by charging user fees to the recipients of such aid. :-) Additionally the charging of a fee for such a license would discriminate against the poorer people in our nation, making them more vulnerable or forcing them to look to illegal sources of weapons. What would be acceptable is to increase the taxation on amunition to cover the cost of such licensing. Thus those that want guns for defense and never use them ar4e not charged, but those that want them for recreation pay to use them in this way. |
| Date | 20:10:04, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080) |
| Message | Gun registration enables a Hitler, should he come to power, to more easily collect guns from law abiding citizens. Look at the quote above, "registration". The fact remains that criminals will still not register any gun, while this can serve as a severe handicap to other citizens wishing to obtain them. Also, lisencing laws have a history of discrimination: ((From the link posted above: "White supremacy eventually prevailed, though, and the South became the first region of the United States to institute gun control. During the Jim Crow era around 1900, when racial oppression was at its peak, several states enacted handgun registration and licensing laws. As one Florida judge explained, the laws were "passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers . . . [and] never intended to be applied to the white population.")) Finally, Licensing doesnt work the way it is supposed to: (("Although opinion polls indicate that most Americans favor some form of gun licensing (for the same reasons they approve of auto licensing), 69 percent of Americans oppose laws giving the police power to decide who may or may not own a firearm. That is exactly what licensing is. Permits tend to be granted not to those who are most at risk but to those with whom the police get along. In St. Louis, for example, permits have routinely been denied to homosexuals, nonvoters, and wives who lack their husbands' permission. Other police departments have denied permits on the basis of race, sex, and political affiliation, or by determining that hunting or target shooting is not an adequate reason for owning a handgun. Class discrimination pervades the process. New York City taxi drivers, who are more at risk of robbery than anyone else in the city, are denied gun permits, since they carry less than $2,000 in cash. (Of course, most taxi drivers carry weapons anyway, and only rookie police officers arrest them for doing so.) As the courts have ruled, ordinary citizens and storeowners in the city may not receive so-called carry permits because they have no greater need for protection than anyone else in the city. Carry permits are apparently reserved for New Yorkers such as the Rockefellers, John Lindsay, the publisher of the New York Times, (all of them gun control advocates), and the husband of Dr. Joyce Brothers. Other licensees include an aide to a city councilman widely regarded as corrupt, several major slumlords, a Teamsters Union boss who is a defendant in a major racketeering suit, and a restaurateur identified with organized crime and alleged to control important segments of the hauling industry--hardly proof that licensing restricts gun ownership to upstanding citizens. The licensing process can be more than a minor imposition on the purchaser of a gun. In Illinois the automated licensing system takes 60 days to authorize a clearance. Although New Jersey law requires that the authorities act on gun license applications within 30 days, delays of 90 days are routine; some applications are delayed for years, for no valid reason. Licensing fees may be raised so high as to keep guns out of the hands of the poor. Until recently Dade County, Florida, which includes Miami, charged $500 for a license; nearby Monroe County charged $2,000.These excessive fees on a means of self- defense are the equivalent of a poll tax. Or licensing may simply turn into prohibition. Mayor Richard Hatcher of Gary, Indiana, ordered his police department never to give anyone license application forms. The police department in New York City has refused to issue legally required licenses, even when commanded by courts to do so. The department has also refused to even hand out blank application forms. In addition to police abuse of licensing discretion, there is also the problem of the massive data collection that would result from a comprehensive licensing scheme. For example, New York City asks a pistol permit applicant: Have you ever . . . Been discharged from any employment? Been subpoenaed to, or attended [!] a hearing or inquiry conducted by any executive, legislative, or judicial body? Been denied appointment in a civil service system, Federal, State, Local? Had any license or permit issued to you by any City, State, or Federal Agency? Applicants for a business premises gun permit in New York City must also supply personal income-tax returns, daily bank deposit slips, and bank statements. Photocopies are not acceptable. A grocer in the South Bronx may wonder what the size ofhis bank deposits has to do with his right to protection. A national licensing system would require the collection of dossiers on half the households in the United States (or a quarter, for handgun-only record-keeping). Finally, licensing is not going to stop determined criminals. The most thorough study of the weapons behavior of felony prisoners (the Wright-Rossi project funded by the National Institute of Justice) found that five-sixths of the felons did not buy their handguns from a retail outlet anyway. (Many of the rest used a legal, surrogate buyer, such as a girlfriend.) As noted above, felons have little trouble buying stolen guns on the streets. In sum, it remains to be proven that gun licensing would significantly reduce crime. Given the very clear civil liberties problems with licensing, it cannot be said that the benefits outweigh the costs. ")) |
| Date | 20:25:14, July 14, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080) |
| Message | Those are all very convincing arguments to oppose a corrupt and politically motivcated licensing scheme, but they have no force whatsoever against a true general licensing scheme ((such as that in place in the UK.)) Where ther is a political will to abuse power, then no licensing or otherwise of weapons will make any difference. The argument that only the legitimate user will obtain a license is one of the strong points for licensing. The illegitimate user, the criminal, can be arrested and prosecuted for owning an unlicensed gun even if nothing else can be provewn. If we make the penalty for the unlicensed possession of a weapon severe enough, this will have the effect of reducing the presence of weapons at petty crime events. No licensing will noit stop a determined criminal, but nothing will. It will however stop the opportunist criminal that currently is empowered by their possession of a weapon. We recognise that the criminal fraternity do not walk into the local sports, hunting and fishing goods shop and buy their weapons, but it does provide a means for the police to act pre-emptively when they find someone with an unlicensed weapon. There are no civil liberty issues with licensing. You have drivers licenses, wedding licenses, pilots licenses, etc. etc. Why not weapons licenses? The data will be collected on you regardless of whether these exist or not. All the data will show if you have a license is that you have chosen to make yourself less vulnerable to violent assault. Rather like the data on drivers licenses shows that you have chosen to spend less money on taxis. There is no proposal here that a purchaser has to meet some financial status or show motive for wanting to own a weapon. All that is wanted is that they learn how to use the weapon safely, is that so unreasonable? |
| Date | 01:35:37, July 15, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080) |
| Message | hat is made uncorrupted now can later be corrupted in legislation or enforcement. Even the bill now is wide open to corruption. "There is no proposal here that a purchaser has to meet some financial status or show motive for wanting to own a weapon. All that is wanted is that they learn how to use the weapon safely, is that so unreasonable?" "1. In order to obtain a firearm, adults must first attend a series of classes explaining the risks of gun ownership and ways that the risks can be prevented. They then must pass an exam with above 70% accuracy. They will have the chance to repeat the class and/or exam if needed." 70% accuracy? What does that mean? 70% accuracy on a moving target? if so, how fast? 70% accuracy on what size target? A movie theatre screen or an insect? 70% accuracy for what distance? 70% accuracy for what types of guns? A shotgun is much more "accurate" at close to mid range, than a handgun. A hunting rifle with a scope is quite accurate as well. Who would decide which tests would be applied to each gun? Who would determine the curricula of the course? The civil liberties issues at risk is that this gives the government a powerful tool that has been used by other governments in the past to oppress the people of a nation. None of the parties here may be willing to do this, but how do we know this and who can say what the next decade or century will bring? ((See ancient Rome, the people who formed the Republic would hardly have expected the Empire to be formed from it. They wanted to do away with a kinglike figure)) Pilots or driver's licenses determine how you can travel. Wedding licenses determine who you marry. Gun licenses determine whether you are permitted to defend your person when attacked. These licensing requirements will discourage many from owning firearms. Why bother when there is no intent to use the weapon? And criminals thrive when there are disarmed victims. Regardless, licenses only apply to law abiding citizens. Criminals have no strong motive for complying with the law. ((To more fully answer the automobile analogy, another quote from the cato link above "Gun registration is essentially useless in crime detection. Tracing the history of a recovered firearm generally leads to the discovery that it was stolen from a legal owner and that its subsequent pattern of ownership is unknown. Analogies are sometimes drawn between gun registration and automobile registration. Indeed, a majority of the public seems to favor gun registration not because a reduction in crime is expected but because automobiles and guns are both intrinsically dangerous objects that the government should keep track of. The analogy, though, is flawed. Gun owners, unlike drivers, do not need to leave private property and enter a public roadway. No one has ever demanded that prospective drivers prove a unique need for a car and offer compelling reasons why they cannot rely solely on public transportation. No Department of Motor Vehicles has ever adopted the policy of reducing to a minimum the number of cars in private hands. Automobile registration is not advocated or feared as a first step toward confiscation of all automobiles. However, registration lists did facilitate gun confiscation in Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, and Bermuda. The Washington, D.C., city council considered (but did not enact) a proposal to use registration lists to confiscate all shotguns and handguns in the city. When reminded that the registration plan had been enacted with the explicit promise to gun owners that it would not be used for confiscation, the confiscation's sponsor retorted, "Well, I never promised them anything!" The Evanston, Illinois, police department also attempted to use state registration lists to enforce a gun ban. Unlike automobiles, guns are specifically protected by the Constitution, and it is improper to require that people possess- ing constitutionally protected objects register themselves with the government, especially when the benefits of registration are so trivial. The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the government from registering purchasers of newspapers and magazines, even of foreign Communist propaganda. The same principle should apply to the Second Amendment: the tools of political dissent should be privately owned and unregistered.")) |
| Date | 15:45:07, July 15, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080) |
| Message | ((Guns are not specifically protected by the constitution We are not the USA and many of us are not from the USA. The fear of confiscation is ridiculous. There would have to be a law to make this possible above and beyond the licensing law. Additionally you have not shown any reason why weapons should be allowed in society. I come from a society where they are not allowed, and the homicide rate there is miniscule compared to both the USA and Brazil where I now live. Guns do kill things, and that is their only purpose. Arguing on the basis of what has been done by Hitler or some US states is not relevant to this discussion as we have no law that would allow any confiscation. The civil liberties issue comes into play with any law that would allow the government to co-opt private property in this way, such as the land reform act that just failed here. Registration and licensing have no connection whatsoever with civil liberties. - I sense a gut reaction here, rather than consideration of the points. As to the 70% item, that we have to ask the proposer to clarify. I assume it means a static target at a medium range and is just indicative of being able to at least get the bullet to go in the general direction desired. Licensing does not discourage people from getting married, owning a dog in the UK or driving a car, why should it have any such effect on owning a gun if the intent is not criminal? If it discourages potential criminal acts then I see that as a benefit not a disadvantage. There is no evidence whatsoever that licensing would disarm the population. It would in fact make the population at large more competent and more capable of defending themselves. Owning a gun is just giving a present to the criminal unless you know how to use it. The licensing requirements ensure that the owner knows how to use it. What do you mean people will not go into the public space with a weapon? Nothing here prevents the carrying of weapons in public, and they will do so. The arguments from Cato assume that a need for a weapon has to be shown. That again is not being proposed. If it were I would oppose. All that is being proposed here is that to own a gun you have to prove that you know how to use a gun. What is the problem with that?)) |
| Date | 18:37:47, July 15, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080) |
| Message | I updated the terms of the bill. See if they are more satisfactory to you, ASP and TiC.. |
| Date | 19:09:06, July 15, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080) |
| Message | We object to the licensing being charged. This is to force either criminal status or vulnerability on that sector of the community that most need to protect the little they have. As we indicated earlier the cost of this procedure can eaily be offset by a small surplus tax on ammunition. That way those that use the weapons for sport rather than for security are voluntarily paying to have this privelege. |
| Date | 21:04:28, July 15, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080) |
| Message | which part of the fee do you object to? I. Licenses for antiques, or weapons not regularly used for hunting will be paid for, in full, by the purchaser. II. Licenses for common hunting weapons will be partially supported through taxes with a minor fee for the purchaser. |
| Date | 21:28:12, July 15, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080) |
| Message | We consider that both parts are unnecessary, but the grouping together of antiques and weapons not regularly used for hunting places hand guns for personal protection in the same category as collectors items. We also are more than a little confused as to exactly what is being licensed here. We had understood it was to be the person who is to obtain a license and not the weapon. If this is the case what would a person who both hunted and collected pay? If this is not the case then does the individual concerned have to take the written test for each gun they wish to buy? Or are there to be different categories of licenses, hand gun, shot gun, carbine, semi automatic, automatic, black powder etc, each with a specific safety course. We personally feel that an individual should obtain a weapons license, which permits that person to buy and own weapons. This license should not carry a fee as it can be paid for by purchase tax on the weapons and/or ammunition. This simplifies the whole procedure, and puts the emphasis much more on the psychological preparation to own a weapon rather than on the technical details of the use of any particular weapon. |
| Date | 00:31:43, July 17, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080) |
| Message | "I updated the terms of the bill. See if they are more satisfactory to you, ASP and TiC.." I apologize if I my friend mislead you. We dont believe that we could ever vote for a bill that restricted in any way the right of citizens to reasonably defend themselves. No matter this bills description, the current proposal setting is our most preffered one and therefore we would oppose any change to this. Do not feel as if you need to waste time trying to satisfy us on this bill, we doubt that it is possible(Though we do appreciate the attempt. In the past we have found your party to be quite similar to ours on many issues.) The 70% notion was brought up to illustrate the ability of even the most simple sounding things to become corrupted. This is something we cannot allow for this kind of law. Minister of Justice T. Narragansett. ((I will have limited access for the next week. I should be able to vote, but debate will not be very extensive. Sorry...)) |
| Date | 04:59:07, July 19, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080) |
| Message | ((I was about to support it, but then read that I need to register my lightsaber.)) Supported. |
| Date | 11:23:10, July 19, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080) |
| Message | We remain opposed: 1. By attempting to be specific about what constitutes "weapons", it relies on the courts to define in each case which items have "no other practical use". 2. Criminals use unlicensed guns. 3. A huge proportion of spree-killing incidents have involved licensed guns. 4. The people have a right to protect themselves against the government. |
| Date | 20:19:05, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Guns in the Right Hands Act (May 2080) |
| Message | In response to Equitista's points. 1. It is easy to establish if an item is a weapon or not. Yes, rulings would have to be made on new developments, and that is reasonable, but for existing technology the categorisation is clear. 2. So one more way of arresting the criminal. Is that a problem? 3. The intention of licensing is to ensure that the law abiding, well intentioned citizen is not placed at risk by their own actions, not to protect them from the actions of others. 4. Licensing does nothing to prohibit people from having weapons. It just insists that if they are to have them they have to know how to use them. Surely this enables them to protect themselves further against the government than having a weapon without knowing how to use it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 255 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 169 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 26 |
| Random fact: When it comes to creating a Cultural Protocol in a Culturally Open nation, players are not necessarily required to provide a plausible backstory for how the nation's cultural background developed. However, the provision of a plausible backstory may be a factor in whether Moderation approves the Cultural Protocol if players in surrounding nations question its appropriateness for their region of the game map. |
| Random quote: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson |