I seem to recall opposing the original piece when it went to vote. And if this repeal was just a little shaky, I'd probably still support it.Repeal "Child Firearm Safety Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#235
Proposed by: The Last Homely House Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #235: Child Firearm Safety Act (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Argument: CONGRATULATING the efforts made by GA#235,
CONCERNED the measures taken by GA#235 are unspecific and inadequate for proper safety,
REALIZING the definition of a minor is inefficient for its purpose and can be easily changeable by a nation so that a majority age could be as low as they wish or a minority race may be unable to wield a gun,
HIGHLIGHTS a "reasonable manner" for the storage of a gun is not clearly defined and is open for broad interpretation,
SHOCKED that a child is not allowed to receive a gun because they can only receive a gun after demonstrating knowledge of proper usage and would have to receive the gun before demonstrating their knowledge, thus making it impossible for a child to demonstrate their knowledge,
BELIEVING an individual should not need to demonstrate their knowledge of the use of a gun if they wish to attain the gun for emergency purposes and has no intent of using the gun,
HEREBY repeals GA#235.
CO-AUTHOR Saveyou Island
It's much worse than a little shaky.
The problem is that the repeal contains at least one outright falsehood.
"SHOCKED that a child is not allowed to receive a gun because they can only receive a gun after demonstrating knowledge of proper usage and would have to receive the gun before demonstrating their knowledge, thus making it impossible for a child to demonstrate their knowledge,"
This is patently untrue, as the resolution in question contains this clause: "CLARIFIES that notwithstanding the above provisions, it is not unlawful under this Act to provide a firearm to a child under proper supervision for the purposes of educating the child in firearm safety and proper use."
As for the rest, well, I'm appalled that the writer of the repeal seems to have no real knowledge of guns(the argument that people oughta not have to know anything about guns in order to own them in case of emergencies is just weird).
It also makes an issue of the terms "reasonable" and the definition of minor. Both of those are useful definitions that allow nations to decide the basic details of this resolution's effects.
I suggest we vote against this repeal.
