Erika
So you do shoot then you do hold a firearms certificate you have shot hand guns competitively and this is what drives you to want them re instated otherwise what would be your interest. What is your primary Club if you live Local may be you would like to attend one of our guest days and discuss your views with my fellow club members our oldest member was at Dunkirk and was a career soldier the rest of the Guys have been shooting for a average of 30 years.
ERIKA
Our first guest day is in march you are welcome to attend as my guest the Northern Representative of BASC will be there so a good opportunity for you to meet the Guys and put forward your views.
I am taking it for granted that you have a firearms certificate and will bring your own firearms and ammunition. If this is not the case then let me know by PM and I will arrange club guns and ammunition and one to one tuition. If you wish to bring a partner that can be catered for just let me know.
If you wish to shoot a hand gun I can arrange for black powder revolvers to be available put please let me know in advance.
Last edited by Alpha1 on Sat Feb 08, 2014 1:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
Post subject: Re: Repealing the Firearms (Amendment) No.2 Act
PostPosted: Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:12 am
Online
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 2420
Quote:
Erika
So you do shoot then you do hold a firearms certificate you have shot hand guns competitively and this is what drives you to want them re instated otherwise what would be your interest. What is your primary Club if you live Local may be you would like to attend one of our guest days and discuss your views with my fellow club members our oldest member was at Dunkirk and was a career soldier the rest of the Guys have been shooting for a average of 30 years.
ERIKA
Our first guest day is in march you are welcome to attend as my guest the Northern Representative of BASC will be there so a good opportunity for you to meet the Guys and put forward your views.
I am taking it for granted that you have a firearms certificate and will bring your own firearms and ammunition. If this is not the case then let me know by PM and I will arrange club guns and ammunition and one to one tuition. If you wish to bring a partner that can be catered for just let me know.
If you wish to shoot a hand gun I can arrange for black powder revolvers to be available put please let me know in advance.
Last edited by Alpha1 on Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
Just wanted to make sure you got my message ERIKA> I am at the range to morrow and will tell the guys of your impending visit.
If any one of you guys should want to come to one of our shoots as my guest and discuss your points of view with my fellow club members you are more than welcome.
Gaz's sweeping comments are not entirely correct. I'll try to give as concise and potted explanation as possible, but, in the words of Starship Troopers, "Do you want to know more?" Have a read of the volumes of stuff available...
The concept of a British subject and his arms is enshrined in Common Law firstly. There are statutes and customary law that required not only a Subject to keep arms, but to drill and practice with to maintain an efficiency as Britain did not have a standing army till James II raised one illegally in 1685. Prior to this, the militia ensured the security of and the protection and projection of interests outside of our shores. A subject and his arms was not an issue. That was until the Catholic king, James II, decided to disarm members of the Protestant faith in order to put this new upstart religion in it's place.
Come the Glorious Revolution and the deposing of James II and the attempt to put right everything that James had messed with. Not only put it right, but to bring forward Law that would prevent atrocities of the likes committed by James II, from ever happening again. James' crimes were listed at the beginning of the 1689 Declaration and Bill of Rights.
One of these crimes was to "By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law" That is to say that some Protestants were disarmed by armed Catholics who were doing so against Common Law. Where Gaz has said above that only Protestants may be armed is wrong. The Right ensured reads; "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law" That does not allow just Protestants to be armed, it "raises" Protestants to the same status as "others". "Suitable to their conditions" means their arms which are according to their class and skills, "and as allowed by law" is exactly that, this which complies with Common Law.
Now the Bill of Rights also contained a number of other guarantees that are still heeded today. Free elections, no forfeiture before conviction, no cruel and unusual punishment, restriction of the power of the Crown and parliamentary privilege, amongst others. The Bill of Rights also stated that these rights will remain in force forever and any law brought contrary to these Rights is illegal!! And as an aside, as recent as 1996, during a rather heated debate in the House of Commons, the then Speaker, the Rt Hon Betty Boothroyd MP stated that the Bill of Rights was a living and breathing piece of Constitutional Law that was as relevant today as it was the day it was drafted....!!!
So we could say, that is where our Right to Arms was first legislated for in order to bolster and enshrine this Common Law into our Constitution.
The we have the attempts at restriction of this particular Right. And believe you, me, it's farther back than you think. And on top of that, the main instigators for restrictions on personal arms have been the police. The first real Act was the Seizure of Arms Act 1820, which followed the Seditious Meetings Act 1819 which were designed to stop revolution by returning soldiers who faced unemployment. Both Acts repealed as contrary to the Bill of Rights.
The Irish Registration Act 1843 tried to monitor the arms in possession of the people due to rumblings of revolution. It was enacted but lapsed after a couple of years due to cost and the Bill of Rights. hen there was the Town Police Clauses Act and the Cemetery Clauses Act 1847 which meant you couldn't discharge a firearm to the annoyance of passers by. And then we have the Gun Licenses Act 1870. This and it's Amendments of 1876, 1877, 1879 and 1880 were all a revenue gathering exercise that by the time of their repeal by the enactment of the 1968 Act, very little had been netted and it had cost more money to administer than it collected.
Then we have attempts with the Regulation of Carrying Arms Bill 1881, Firearms Bill 1883, Pistol Bill 1893, Pistol Bill 1894, Pistol Bill 1895, Pistol Bill 1896. Just about all of these Bills contained proposals for the restriction of all types of arms, but the main objective was to restrict the practice of concealed carried pistols and revolvers. All of these Bills failed due to them being contrary to the Bill of Rights.
1903 saw the passing of the pistols act. This required people to produce a licence in order to carry in public or proof, letter from Inspector or above, that the pistol being purchased was for use within the home or abroad. It also required dealers to keep records for the first time, but not private sales. It also raised the age to 18 in order to acquire a pistol. The police went to great lengths to get their way with this one. But, the Bill of Rights kept a lid on them to a certain degree.
The Pistols Bill of 1911 failed due to the BoR and an Amendment in 1912 to the Pistols Act 1903 came into being after a 17 year old accidently shot and killed two children with a long barrelled pistol at over 140 yards. And the Firearms Act 1920 was a direct result of a government in fear of Bolshevism....
This Act was railroaded through parliament. Even so, the intrinsic right to bear arms remained. There were restrictions on age and certification etc. It's somewhat ironic that an awful lot of the restrictions imposed by the 1920 Act, affected arms that the government had given to the people on a couple of years before hand at the end of the Great War, in appreciation of their efforts!!
War again kept firearms out of legislation except machine guns in 1936 becoming prohibited, but, the first piece of legislation that curtailed the carrying of arms in public, was the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. This made it an offence to have an offensive weapon in public without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. And for the first time, " the proof whereof shall lie on him". You have to prove you had that, not the prosecution proving you didn't!
Hansards show that MP after MP stood in the house and claimed this was an affront to the Bill of Rights. The public, the tabloids and the police pushed for this. This was the response to gangs of youths carving each other up. Not for the first time, or for the last, "Think of the children".... There were even MP's who were so concerned that the Bill so flouted the BoR and the basic premise of innocent till proven otherwise, that they tried to have the Bill time bound. Moves failed and it became law. A traditional right, was being supressed. The Act which supressed this right is due to it's very nature, illegal.
The 1968 Act and subsequent Acts and Amendments have further restricted, but, "advice" and "guidance" states that defence is not good reason for the granting of a certificate, it has yet to be legislated.
Where Gaz is right is that the judiciary and the politicians have done is continue to ignore our Constitution when it suits. We should not have allowed them to cherry pick at will. Again, Gaz is right when he says you'll need a big bank balance to change it. I'd say cajones of steel as well! I can find case law on possession, a public place, a lethal barrelled weapon, a component part, a moderator, ammunition and just about anything else connected with firearms law. What I can' find is case law where, the whole concept of Common Law and the Constitution have been tested in regards to personal arms.
In order for this to come about, someone, with, as said, huge steel balls, takes whatever arm, be that sword, gun, lance or rocket, into a public place. Get himself arrested and use the BoR and common law as his defence for doing so. Then from his prison cell, spend a shed load of money contesting and appealing his conviction and sentence. I think it's highly unlikely that such a person exists...
So, as I said. Armed defence, in the circumstances is not necessarily illegal and the laws curtailing certain practices are in themselves illegal from one arguments point of view. I have no more to offer really than more of the above, nor do I deem myself an expert. I'll argue the point, but, I'll not sacrifice myself at this juncture to prove my argument. This is purely for the fun of it...
I'm tired and just a tad tipsy.... I'm off to bed.
In 1978 I was told by my grand dad that the secret to rifle accuracy is, a quality bullet, fired down a quality barrel..... How has that changed?
Guns dont kill people. Dads with pretty Daughters do...!
Ah, I actually missed out something quite important when it comes to Commons debate on Firearms Acts and the Bill of Rights. During the debate of the 13th of May 1968 it was state clearly and by a number of MP's that the propsed Act was unconstitutional. In clear language it was said that successive governments had "got away" with Firearms Acts for 47 years! That debate was a month or so before I was born and comfortably within the life span of an awful lot of shooters. So really, not that long ago...
The 1987 and 1996 "debates" didn't even touch on the concept of the BoR or inalienable rights. There were even two prominent politicians, Seb Coe and Charles Kennedy who both owned and shot pistols. In fact Coe had just been appointed President of the National Pistol Association just prior to the Dunblane massacre. Did they stand and are they recorded in Hansards as defending Arms of the subjects? N|ot a chance! Both surrendered their FAC's and jumped on the bandwagon of vilifying gun owners on the whole and pistol shooters in particular.
That was when, led by the media, that the BoR could be cherry picked by a politician...
In 1978 I was told by my grand dad that the secret to rifle accuracy is, a quality bullet, fired down a quality barrel..... How has that changed?
Guns dont kill people. Dads with pretty Daughters do...!
dave_303 wrote:If this is the case Sim, is there not grounds to push for a High court case? ie. in the style that has been made for Euthanasia for so many years now.
I know it would cost a lot of money, but if it is possible, I'm sure BASC, NRA et al. would find many willing to donate to a court case.
No I don't think so. A Judical Review of legislation would mean telling a panel of some very senior judges that they and those pf their profession have been enforcing illegal laws for some 100 years on the basis of a 300 year old law.....! How well would that go down!
As for the associations funding the exercise, I can see non of them being in favour of the action, never mind paying for it. The associations are so far removed from this subject, ie personal arms, they might as well be on a different planet. That is not to deride these associations for their stance, as it's very different for them. Likewise, see the opposition just on this thread against pistols for shooting targets, never mind for shooting people!
As an aside though, it was mentioned during the debates on the 1968 Act, where were and what was the position of the NRA....
But like I said, they and the others serve a different purpose now. Not that they wouldn't enjoy the fruits of success just look at Florida as an example of "net benefit". In 1994, Florida, a right wing, pro gun state had a population of some 13 million. They were suffereing a crime wave. Tourists were being caught up in it and the people had had enough. Even though they had the 2nd Amendment to their Constitution, a watering down over the years had meant that carry arms in public was illegal, except for a priviledged few. Florida enacted a "Shall Issue" concealed carry law. All of a sudden, criminal were being shot whilst plying their trade. Florida saw huge drops in crime, particularly crimes against the person and everyone felt safer. How many had licenses to carry in public? Les than one and a half million. But the other 11.5 million shared that benefit..
Anyway, I digress. In order for an attempt to change this position, case law from a criminal trial is probably the better option. Firstly, there is a real person at the centre and not just an ideal. This person in the dock can then lay everything out in front of 12 other people just like him, ordinary. In the highly unlikely event he walks, job done. However, I'd see the full appeal process being brought into action. But all through that, there is a person at the centre.... There is even the possibility should money run out, of legal aid. Because lets face it, stuff like this is expensive. The ex-pistol shooters case before the European Court of Human Rights showed this. They spent thousands of pounds of donated money in bringing the action. Eventually it got to court. There case was strong, but the UK government pulled out a point of law in reagrds to earlier proceedings qand it all came crashing down! There was then no more money to even begin a fight. It was killed dead in the water..
But and this is the crux, I'm banging on about this ancient right and that ancient right, but where is that person, of previous good character, who is prepared to spend two years (maximum sentence for conviction of an offence on indictment, under S1(b) Prevention of Crime Act 1953) in prison?
In 1978 I was told by my grand dad that the secret to rifle accuracy is, a quality bullet, fired down a quality barrel..... How has that changed?
Guns dont kill people. Dads with pretty Daughters do...!
