A re-proposal of Clauses within the Capital Vessels Act II

Alyn_Stark

Date: Saturday, 25 Aug 2012, 12:26 PM | Message # 1

Generalissimo

Group: Users

Messages: 1359

Awards: 2

Reputation: 1

Status: Offline

Re-proposal of Clauses Within the Capital Vessels Act II

Purpose-

Realizing that certain clauses within the Capital Vessels Act II were useful for Imperial member worlds, this re-proposal will bring these specific clauses back into law.

I. The sale of ships with excessive compliments of fighters or landing ships will be prohibited (No more than one-hundred fighters or other militarized spacecraft aboard).

II. An exemption shall exist for vessels in Section I, if said vessels are modified to be 'defensive ships', responsibility shall be vested in all member worlds to bring any vessels they purchase or own in line with the regulations governing 'defensive ships'.

III. Planets shall be encouraged to maintain static defensive emplacements, rather than mobile vessels which have the potential for aggression.

IV. Vessels mounting super-heavy weaponry such as the Prow Heavy Turbolaser Cannon shall be banned from purchase by planetary defense forces from the time of the passing of this act. Any vessels currently in Imperial member-world service that currently mount this particular type of weaponry will be required to have it removed from their defense vessels or face penalties including seizure of the ships mounting said weaponry. However, any Imperial member world that complies with this clause and removes said weaponry will be granted a 2% tax reduction for one fiscal year following the removal of said weaponry.

- No defensive vessel will mount more than twelve quad turbolasers.

Alyn Stark
Lord of Kinyov
Senior Captain, Retired, Republic Navy
Head of House Malos (former)
Licensed bounty hunter
Majority shareholder, Lorrd Engineering
Owner, Stark Defense Conglomerate
Civilian Medal of Honor recipient
Representative, Lorrd (10 BBY-9 BBY)

Message edited by Alyn_Stark - Saturday, 25 Aug 2012, 2:11 PM

Senator_Cambrist

Date: Saturday, 25 Aug 2012, 1:13 PM | Message # 2

Lieutenant general

Group: Users

Messages: 761

Awards: 6

Reputation: -5

Status: Offline

Clause 3 isn't necessary, Representative. While I admit there are some useful provisions of the Capital Vessels Acts that should not have been repealed, and should be re-proposed, this particular one has been covered in the Peace and Parity Act, and I quote, "any capital-class vessel or any other vessel of a naval persuasion intended for regional use only, with a hyperdrive of Class 10 or higher is automatically exempt from any and all sector regulations on the possession of capital-class vessels, the armament of such vessels, etc." (1.3).

I also question the necessity of Clause 5. It's simply too onerous to comply with this requirement, and, as the Clause says, it is intended to prevent war among Imperial member worlds. However, there are laws in place to prevent war among Imperial member worlds, and a law in place concerning the regulation of turbolasers, etc. In fact, under the Peace and Parity Act, countless Imperial Governors have established rules concerning turbolasers on the principle that "planets should not maintain any vessels of a naval persuasion that are not necessary for the protection of its people, property" (1.1a). It simply isn't necessary for the Senate to step on the toes of these Moffs, the Senate having given the Moffs authority to regulate capital ships.

The language of Clause 5 is flawed, as it was when Senator Oriel proposed it. As I said, it is too onerous. If the Senate does intend to ban certain turbolasers, let us ban the sale of them from this point on rather than requiring costly modifications. Let us encourage worlds to undertake these modifications (with tax incentives, perhaps) rather than requiring them to do so.

Alyn_Stark

Date: Saturday, 25 Aug 2012, 2:12 PM | Message # 3

Generalissimo

Group: Users

Messages: 1359

Awards: 2

Reputation: 1

Status: Offline

I have conducted a few repairs to the bill, Senator Cambrist. Do let me know what you think.

Ilanah_Thanatos

Date: Monday, 27 Aug 2012, 3:42 PM | Message # 4

Colonel general

Group: Users

Messages: 891

Awards: 3

Reputation: 4

Status: Offline

I think that the re-wording of the fifth clause looks much improved, Mr. Stark. Chandrila votes in favor, naturally, to the addition of these clauses to the second Capital Vessels act.

Ilanah R. Thanatos
Senator of Chandrila

LomenRyuun

Date: Wednesday, 29 Aug 2012, 8:12 AM | Message # 5

Lieutenant general

Group: Users

Messages: 696

Awards: 1

Reputation: 1

Status: Offline

These seem acceptable to me, Representative. I applaud any man who wishes to make the galaxy safer and cut down on interplanetary issues by lessening the deadly weapons. While I am a little surprised to see such a re-proposal coming from a man heavily invested in the defense industry, I am pleased to say Druckenwell votes in favor.

Lomen Ryuun
Senator, Doldur Sector
Senator, Druckenwell
Representative, Monor II (10 BBY - 9 BBY)
Representative, Geridard
Representative, Boranall
Representative, Therenor Prime
Vice-chairman, Defense Committee (Temporarily suspended)
Controlling Shareholder - Druckenwell Arms Corporation