Awaiting Assent Protected Area Redemption Act

[EATB]

A
BILL
To

Amend the Criminal Code to reinstate modified Protected Areas for Government Buildings to prevent civilian weapon possession that may destabilise the Commonwealth​

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

1 - Short Title and Enactment

(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Protected Area Redemption Act'.

(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.

(3) This Act has been authored by EATB.

(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by RealImza.

2 - Reasons
(1) The Open Carry Act removed protections of Capitol and Government buildings from civilian weapon possession.

(2) The crime of Possession of a Weapon in a Protected Area shall be edited so that a person commits an offence if the person possesses weapons in their primary or off-hand instead of just having them in their inventory, and doing this in safe zones such as the Capitol, Government House, Courthouse, and new additions - Polling Stations, Town Council Buildings.

3 - Amend Part IX of the Criminal Code to read as the following:

"26 - Possession of a Weapon in a Protected Area

Offence Type: Summary

Penalty:

(a) First offence - 1 Penalty Units;

(b) Second offence - 2 Penalty Units; 5 min imprisonment;

(c) Subsequent offences - 3 Penalty Units; 10 min imprisonment

A person commits an offence if the person:

(a) Possesses weapons in their primary hand or off-hand in safe zones such as the Capitol, Government House, Courthouse, Town Council Buildings, or Polling Stations.
(b) Is not the President of the Commonwealth, or an Employee of the Department of Homeland Security, and does not have prior authorisation of the Department of Homeland Security to possess a weapon in a Protected Area.

Relevant Law: Bill: Draft - Criminal Terminology Act"

 

[Smami]

Aye, while I view this bill as largely purposeless, it will not cause harm to disallow the potential to intimidate or threaten people within polling places or our government buildings

 

[juniperfig]

Veto

While I understand the intent behind this legislation, I cannot sign it into law in its current form. The core problem is that the bill hinges on the term “safe zones” without ever defining what a safe zone is.

The text reads:

“in safe zones such as the Capitol, Government House, Courthouse, Town Council Buildings, or Polling Stations.”

There are two issues here:

1. By the ordinary-meaning canon, undefined terms are read according to common usage. In Redmont, “safe zone” naturally means PVP-disabled areas. Yet the bill lists places that are not PVP-disabled (Capitol, Government House, etc.), while omitting the areas that the community overwhelmingly understands as safe zones (spawn, hospital). That leaves “safe zone” as an odd hybrid that has no clear definition.
2. By using “such as,” the list is illustrative, not exclusive. This list would therefore include department buildings and other government properties. This is not clarified, and I doubt the DHS could enforce it consistently.

The bill therefore produces a major ambiguity: does it simply label those listed government buildings as safe zones, or does it actually make them PVP-disabled? If it is the latter, the text should say so explicitly. If it is the former, then the term “safe zone” is being used in a way that conflicts with its ordinary meaning. Either way, the result is unclear and unworkable.

Because of this lack of clarity, I am choosing to veto the bill. The current text does not provide DHS or the courts with a workable definition of “safe zones” and risks producing unintended consequences.