[PASSED] Right to Self-Defense

[Midnight Sparkle]

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

Ashamed that this Assembly does not already guarantee or recognize the right of an individual to defend themselves and family from an imminent threat,

Cognizant that some governments deliberately oppose affording the right of self-protection in order to suppress the freedoms and liberties of the individuals and maintain a controlling presence on the populace,

Acknowledging that government services put in place to protect the lives of public and safety from harm - such as a police force - are not always readily available in a dire situation that may endanger the life of an individual and/or the lives of their family,

Hereby,

1. Defines “family” as someone related to an individual by blood, in marriage, in law, or of some substantial and tangible relationship,

2. Further defines “arms” as any weapons, munitions, or equipment designed to inflict bodily harm or physical damage, including, but not limited to, firearms, knives, explosives, etc.

3. Affirms the right to self-defense, of oneself and/or his or her family, and declares that nations are to permit and accept the exercise of this right as an affirmative defense in cases, so long as:

a) The threat poses a clear and immediate danger to the life of the individual or his or her family,

b) The force used in response is not excessive with regards to the threat of the situation presented,

4. Assures member states the right to attest the legality of the claim that a use of force was in self-defense, as according to the conditions established in Clause 3, in the court of law of the respective nation,

5. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be read to void, infringe, or adversely impact any other right to or regulation of arms affirmed by this Assembly, but prohibits any extant criminalization of an exercise of defensive force either with any common object or unarmed, in self-protection,

Co-authored with Dirito-Opolis.

[Midnight Sparkle]

I am currently of the opinion that this proposal should be voted against, as I see this proposal as seeking to serve in a capacity as anti-gun control legislation, which regardless of my personal views is not something I think should be done this way.

[Cormac]

The use of the word "attest" rather than "contest" in clause 4 renders that clause unintelligible. I'm sure they meant "contest," but "attest" makes no sense there.

Against.

[Salem]

I'm voting Against.

[Lukatonia]

Against, it's trying to be similar to gun control

[Lynxi]

Against.

[Alrengard/Xencesen]

Nay, too similar to gun control