[Accelerator - GA] Repeal: “Child Firearm Safety Act”

---

General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Concerned that the Child Firearm Safety Act uses vague, overly broad terminology which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner, such as:

• The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards can vary,
• The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; which could lead to its application where children are not present around firearms, and
• The use of the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3, as this nebulously defined standard can vary,

Further concerned that the Act imposes unnecessary barriers upon the ability of militias and military forces to provide combat training to minors, thus posing a potential security risk to jurisdictions that would rely on individually previously trained when they were minors to aid in combat operations,

Dismayed that the Act fails to recognize the inherent differences between a jurisdiction in which individuals face constant threats from criminal or militant elements, where the securing of a firearm may be untenable given a continual level of threat; and a jurisdiction in which threats from such criminal or militant elements are not constant threats, where the securing of a firearm in accordance with the Act would be tenable,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".

Click to expand...

Note: This is an internal discussion on a draft proposal accepted to the WA Accelerator Program. Please rip this draft apart and offer any comments you may have; the objective here is to help the author make this proposal better. If the author does not have access to this subforum, comments will be communicated to them by the Minister or an assigned Deputy. Detailed feedback is appreciated and encouraged!

---

Sponsorship Voting Instructions (Optional):

• Vote Accept if you want the Ministry and Delegate to sponsor the proposal upon submission.
• Vote Reject if you want the Ministry and Delegate to not sponsor the proposal upon submission.

Detailed opinions on whether to sponsor this proposal are likewise appreciated and encouraged!

---

Noting, however, that the Act does not define "firearm", potentially including:

• Recreational soft air and paintball guns,
• Signalling and flare guns, and
• Pellet guns for pest control,

Click to expand...

Firearm doesn’t need definition. It’s like getting in a cats vs. dogs argument and declaring that your opponent is wrong because they haven’t defined a cat.

Recognizing that Article 3 of the Act permits agents of a member state to enter a residence under dubious circumstances, ostensibly to ensure compliance with this provision; a power that this Assembly regards as highly intrusive and open for abuse against disenfranchised populations and dissidents,

Click to expand...

What? No it doesn’t.

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Click to expand...

This isn’t even an argument. If you’re making at natsov argument don’t disguise it behind obscure wording.

Regarding Article 3's requirement to "eliminate" the risk of injury or death to a child as unrealistic, as there is no way to truly eliminate the risk posed by any object to a child,

Click to expand...

I fail to see how this manners.

Comfed:

Firearm doesn’t need definition. It’s like getting in a cats vs. dogs argument and declaring that your opponent is wrong because they haven’t defined a cat.

What? No it doesn’t.

This isn’t even an argument. If you’re making at natsov argument don’t disguise it behind obscure wording.

I fail to see how this manners.

Click to expand...

The lack of definition for firearm becomes a concern because member states can use more loose definitions of firearms than other nations. Airsoft and paintball guns shouldn't be treated the same as semi-automatic rifles chambered in .223, neither should pest control guns be treated the same as 12-gauge shotguns. This argument isn't without precedent, it was successfully argued by Mousebumples argued to repeal GAR #134 "Guns and Mental Capacity".

The reasoning I had when I added the 'recognizing' clause was the matter of how exactly member states would ensure compliance with this provision- ostensibly by evaluating the premises themselves. However, I see how it comes off as a stretch, so I'll remove it.

As for the 'believing' clause, circumstances and situations vary significantly from one place to another. What is considered a "reasonable" (IA wrote an excellent post explaining why that term is flawed) manner for firearms storage in one jurisdiction can be considered too strict or too loose in another jurisdiction. I do not align with the NatSov movement, as civil rights and the treatment of individuals should be protected and fought for zealously; even at the expense of a nation's internal legislative sovereignty. However, I believe that no matter what legislation on the international level regarding firearms is passed, it is ultimately impossible to account for all circumstances and situations of firearms ownership and storage without causing additional harm.

Reject until my suggestion is implemented

Greater Cesnica:

The lack of definition for firearm becomes a concern because member states can use more loose definitions of firearms than other nations. Airsoft and paintball guns shouldn't be treated the same as semi-automatic rifles chambered in .223, neither should pest control guns be treated the same as 12-gauge shotguns.

Click to expand...

Would a reasonable nation actually treat them the same under the target? Ambiguity works both ways. Regardless, you should at least explain why this vague term is a bad thing.

Greater Cesnica:

This argument isn't without precedent, it was successfully argued by Mousebumples argued to repeal GAR #134 "Guns and Mental Capacity".

Click to expand...

I like to think that repeal standards have risen a bit since 2011.

Recognizing that Article 3 of the Act permits agents of a member state to enter a residence under dubious circumstances, ostensibly to ensure compliance with this provision; a power that this Assembly regards as highly intrusive and open for abuse against disenfranchised populations and dissidents,

Click to expand...

This isn't how compliance works.

The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards vary from nation to nation,

Click to expand...

Fair, though arguably irrelevant.

The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; which could lead to its application where children are not present around firearms, and

Click to expand...

Again, think about how a reasonable nation would apply this clause.

The use of the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3, as this nebulously defined standard varies from one member state to another,

Click to expand...

Yeah, the wording's flimsy. I will note that there's no need to say it varies specifically between member states when it could easily vary within a state (same applies to the "proper" clause). There's also the fact that this clause could be read to apply to any risk of injury or death, not just stemming from firearms.

Cretox State:

Would a reasonable nation actually treat them the same under the target? Ambiguity works both ways. Regardless, you should at least explain why this vague term is a bad thing.

Click to expand...

Yep, I'll add an explanation in my draft. Though I should mention regarding IRL matters, Canada does treat paintball guns the same as firearms, and is about to do the same with airsoft guns. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Cretox State:

I like to think that repeal standards have risen a bit since 2011.

Click to expand...

Fair. I'll still back up my reasoning in the draft.

Cretox State:

This isn't how compliance works.

Click to expand...

I already got rid of this yesterday, the OP should probably be edited to reflect that lol

Cretox State:

Again, think about how a reasonable nation would apply this clause.

Click to expand...

My reasoning when I added that critique was that I wanted to ensure member states didn't abuse this legislation in a way the authors didn't account for.

Cretox State:

Yeah, the wording's flimsy. I will note that there's no need to say it varies specifically between member states when it could easily vary within a state (same applies to the "proper" clause). There's also the fact that this clause could be read to apply to any risk of injury or death, not just stemming from firearms.

Click to expand...

Oooh, good point! I'll reword this clause and implement that latter point.

So I added to the draft my reasoning for why the lack of a definition for "firearm" is bad. As for the point about Article 3 having the potential to be read to apply to any risk of injury or death, I believe my "regarding" clause already covers that.

i was thinking over your examples for "firearms", and I was wondering if "Recreational soft air and paintball guns" could be considered a firearm if it does not cause hurt, which is a typical used definition of "firearm".

Fregerson:

i was thinking over your examples for "firearms", and I was wondering if "Recreational soft air and paintball guns" could be considered a firearm if it does not cause hurt, which is a typical used definition of "firearm".

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the lack of definition is the inherent problem- we cannot adequately rule out what isn't a "firearm", because no definition was provided.

Hi! Just popping in to see if there's any more feedback regarding this :p I have once again updated the draft:

Greater Cesnica:

Unfortunately, the lack of definition is the inherent problem- we cannot adequately rule out what isn't a "firearm", because no definition was provided.

Click to expand...

Also I backtracked on this point.