Interesting article on RKBA

[breacher]

Yes - we have a right to self defence under common law.

But carrying ANYTHING intending to use it for that purpose is in itself illegal ( offensive weapon, intended )

We are permitted to "instant arm" - pick up whatever comes to hand.

And this is where that has led to:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 74676.html

I don't have much sympathy for Sir Craig Mackey - he should have ordered his driver to give Masood a taste of his own medicine and run the b****** down. Instead fleeing was high on his agenda. But at least he now appreciates how helpless the ordinary citizen in the street is when confronted with violence. Not that will help us - but ordinary coppers will probably be more protected and armed. Try to be standing next to one when a knife-wielding nutter threatens you.

Yes - it is a catch 22 - being allowed to defend yourself yet not allowed to possess anything that you intend for such use !

[Racalman]

Yes - it is a catch 22 - being allowed to defend yourself yet not allowed to possess anything that you intend for such use !

Indeed.

Forgive me for being persistent (and possibly ignorant), but the question I'm trying to answer is this.

Where is the legislation that says a civilian who happens to be a police officer can carry a weapon for self defence, but a civilian who isn't can't?

[Sim G]

Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prevented the carrying of weapons in public. Firearms Act 1968 prevented self defence from being good reason for a firearm certificate. Again, the 1968 Act, section 54 provides the exemption for Crown servants with amendments from the Police Reform Act 2002 to extend this to civilian staff employed in specific roles. (CNC, NCA etc)

[Sim G]

I’ve just read the article that was linked in the OP and found it was written by Richard Law. I came across Richard several times in the 90s as he was a partner in a range complex where I did some part time work instructing. Richard I would possibly describe as lazy in his approach. I’ve got several books by him and he does seem to cherry pick. At the time of Dunblane, he was in the company of Michael Yardley an awful lot. Yardley was the “more convincing of the pair....”

As an aside, I read this in the article...

“Richard Law did some research in the 1980s and could find no evidence that Winston Churchill had ever held a firearm certificate. Churchill wasn’t into shooting as a sport, but he certainly kept firearms for defence, notably a Colt M1911...”

I remember reading a number of years ago and went straight to the book on my shelf and read clearly that at the time of his death Churchill did have an FAC, issued by Kent Police Number 6206. There were six firearms held, with a Browning Hi-Power, serial number 13709 his “defence” pistol...

Churchill was a great proponent of personal arms.

[Racalman]

Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prevented the carrying of weapons in public. Firearms Act 1968 prevented self defence from being good reason for a firearm certificate. Again, the 1968 Act, section 54 provides the exemption for Crown servants with amendments from the Police Reform Act 2002 to extend this to civilian staff employed in specific roles. (CNC, NCA etc)

Thanks Sim, that's very helpful.

I note that the 1953 act is for "Prohibition of the carrying of offensive weapons without lawful authority or reasonable excuse". I presume some judge subsequently decided that self defence wasn't a reasonable excuse.

[Sim G]

Ultimately yes. Cases brought before the courts watered down and then eventually eroded the common law right of being armed until the said said was utterly criminalised unless instant and in the heat of the moment.

It matters not that subsequent laws, including this Principal Act are arguably illegal given proclamations previously, of which the BoR was one. To affect change would take a brave man with deep pockets!

I am personally an ardent believer in personal arms. And despite spending the last 27 years employed in the criminal justice system, I still believe there are more good people out there than bad. But undoubtably there is a need for people to be able to preemptively arm themselves for when evil is visited upon them....

[Blackstuff]

Churchill was a great proponent of HIS personal arms.

FIFY. I can't accept that anyone who had a genuine belief in the use of arms for self-defence could have been Prime Minister when the ironically named Prevention of Crime Acvt 1953 was brought into force.

[Sim G]

Hansard for the debate of the Bill is very interesting. The subject of self defence and the arms for that, features an awful lot. Ironically, given the reasoning behind the majority of the Bill that is making its progress currently, it’s the same situation that brought about the Prevention of Crime Act. Namely gangs of youths stabbing and slashing each other most of the time...

No lesson learned from that part of history then....

And to quote Churchill at the time, “Every British household requires good insurance and a sturdy revolver....”

[Racalman]

The attached court report is from a firearms incident in London in 1897 and they still haven't found a way to prevent criminals from possessing firearms (only people of good character ...).

Times 25 Nov 1897.JPG (46.57 KiB) Viewed 634 times