GA Resolution: Right To Self-Defense

[Lenlyvit]

Right To Self-Defense

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Nueva Rico

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.

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[Jabberwocky]

While I like the concept, the author's logic is specious. He says,

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

I don't think that is necessarily a government's rationale.
Also, #2 is ill defined. Explosives to defend my family? Overall, the language is fuzzy, non specific. I say NAY.

[Grahnol]

I feel like it's vague in many areas. I like the idea so I'm in favour of the resolution although I don't like how vague it is in many areas.