Found this - Bill of Rights thingy

[hobbesy]

The Bill of Rights of 1689, which is still in force as statute law and remains our central constitutional document,[4] guarantees only two rights of the individual, and one of these - the ultimate surety, according to Blackstone, of the subject's other liberties - is the right to arms. It was not arms for target shooting that the Bill of Rights guaranteed, but arms for the citizen's personal defence.

http://dvc.org.uk/dunblane/munday.html

[meles meles]

Can 'they' just over-ride that ?

[Sim G]

No. See the other thread....

What I find surprising is the amount of people who do not have a clue that we have a bill of rights as well as traditions and customs that have shaped a third of the world. The generation today are probably convinced that the debacle of the Human Rights Act was the first ever such thing....

[dave_303]

You say Bill of Rights and everyone assumes the USA, I mentioned this in a Uni debate in which I took part. Parliament cannot override these statutes, they can only override what they made.

[Chuck]

That's all very well, but who will stop them because they sure as hell are doing a fine job of it: Try Quoting the Bill Of Rights for your Glock 17 PDW and see if you get one..

Politicians don't give a rats about your "rights", shooting as a sport is a minority - and we are about the only minority - apart from those with mental health issues that get screwed every time. if shooting was as bad as footie has been it would have been finished long ago.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/artic ... ctics.aspx

[quote]The use by police of government records of lawful gun ownership to increase scrutiny, force, or aggression effectively punishes the exercise of a constitutional right, creates suspicion between gun owners and law enforcement officers, and can potentially lead to explosive and tragic consequences. Moreover, it ignores the facts that gun ownership is common in the United States and those who obtain or carry firearms for criminal purposes rarely do so through ordinary legal channels.

The United States Supreme Court, in the 1994 case of Staples v. United States, rejected the premise that those who possess firearms should expect to be treated like criminals. The government had argued in the case that all firearms are tantamount to narcotics and hand grenades and that anybody who possessed one therefore did so at his or her legal peril, whether or not the person had any knowledge he or she was doing anything wrong. The Court flatly disagreed:

Here, the Government essentially suggests that we should [apply] the … assumption that "one would hardly be surprised to learn that owning a gun is not an innocent act." That proposition is simply not supported by common experience. Guns in general are not "deleterious devices or products or obnoxious waste materials," … that put their owners on notice that they stand "in responsible relation to a public danger." …

… "[T]hat an item is "dangerous," in some general sense, does not necessarily suggest, as the Government seems to assume, that it is not also entirely innocent. Even dangerous items can, in some cases, be so commonplace and generally available that we would not consider them to alert individuals to the likelihood of strict regulation. As suggested above, despite their potential for harm, guns generally can be owned in perfect innocence.

The Court also states that "common experience" establishes "that owning a gun is usually licit and blameless conduct."

[/quote

[Graham M]

Our MPs use the BOR all the time to prevent them being sued for any slanderous things they say whilst in the house.

The freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.

Anyone can be slandered by an MP whilst they are making a speech as long as it is in the HoC, and any attempt to sue is countered by producing this clause from the English Bill of Rights. Which means that you or I could be called a paedophile by any MP whilst they are in the house, and although they may be called to apologise, they certainly wouldn't be open to prosecution for slander because the BOR would protect them.

So it would appear that MPs can cherry-pick which parts of the BOR that suits them. :roll:

G.M.

[kennyc]

No. See the other thread....

What I find surprising is the amount of people who do not have a clue that we have a bill of rights as well as traditions and customs that have shaped a third of the world. The generation today are probably convinced that the debacle of the Human Rights Act was the first ever such thing....

I'm sure someone will correct me, however I seem to remember dimly, a statement by a contributer to a TV or radio discussion saying that the Bill of Rights was the empowering legislation for the Police to carry arms, this was so long ago that I think they were refering to Truncheons!

[hobbesy]

Our MPs use the BOR all the time to prevent them being sued for any slanderous things they say whilst in the house.

The freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.

So it would appear that MPs can cherry-pick which parts of the BOR that suits them. :roll:

G.M.

And this surprises you, why?

[Gaz]

Our MPs use the BOR all the time to prevent them being sued for any slanderous things they say whilst in the house.

The freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.

So it would appear that MPs can cherry-pick which parts of the BOR that suits them. :roll:

G.M.

And this surprises you, why?

Actually it's Schedule 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 (readable here) which protects MPs from being sued nowadays. Not sure what their defence was before that was enacted.

[Chuck]

So it would appear that MPs can cherry-pick which parts of the BOR that suits them.

More of a FACT than an "appearance" one would think.