Countryside Alliance comment on report

[Blackstuff]

Qualified right, if you meet the conditions, fit person, good reason and security commensurate with the risk then it cannot be denied.

/\/\/\/\ This

[snayperskaya]

I do agree with Hunter to be fair.The fact someone can be refused an FAC for valid reasons means, in law, it is not a right......or is that wrong?.

Privilege- noun, a permission granted by law or other rules.

That definition would mean there was literally no such thing as gun rights in any country that isn't governed by a religious (rather than legislative) goverment, including the USA.

I was just putting it out there, on reflection Dromia' post makes sense

[joe]

Qualified right, if you meet the conditions, fit person, good reason and security commensurate with the risk then it cannot be denied.

/\/\/\/\ This

well said it a qualified right end of ! (as stated in the bill of rights which hasnt been re-pelled )
this another problem that the shooting organsations refuse to acknowledge / compromise with the government, they should be stating to the report and government that is NOT a privilage but a right (qualified) to own a firearm in this country, despite the homeoffice / government brainwashing to the contrary!

ps. how many people in this country acutally know that we still have a bill of rights ! not alot! people dont know their rights but that a different issue

[dave_303]

ps. how many people in this country acutally know that we still have a bill of rights ! not alot! people dont know their rights but that a different issue

Actually had a heated exchange of words on this matter with a Labour MP and a Green Party candidate. Talking point was does the UK need a BoR, Labour MP said that it does, in the form of the Human Rights Act, but though it would be good if our rights were codified in a style similar to the US constitution minus RKBA.

I told her this was crap, we had a BoR, she should known better as it gave her the right to speech in parliament and ours was the basis to the US constitution inc. the 2nd Amendment. Needless to say this went down like a lead balloon, the point was dodged by all parties who just tried to move on.

[Christel]

ps. how many people in this country acutally know that we still have a bill of rights ! not alot! people dont know their rights but that a different issue

Actually had a heated exchange of words on this matter with a Labour MP and a Green Party candidate. Talking point was does the UK need a BoR, Labour MP said that it does, in the form of the Human Rights Act, but though it would be good if our rights were codified in a style similar to the US constitution minus RKBA.

I told her this was crap, we had a BoR, she should known better as it gave her the right to speech in parliament and ours was the basis to the US constitution inc. the 2nd Amendment. Needless to say this went down like a lead balloon, the point was dodged by all parties who just tried to move on.

I do wonder if politicians are trained to avoid the Bill of Rights? Because the UK/EU have the HRA.

The Government is discussing changing the HRA to a modern day BoR. I doubt it will happen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32896923

[Chuck]

RIGHTS< we should demnad them more often.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015092 ... dentiality

[Racalman]

Here you go, from the parliamentary publications web site. It's on the subject of parking fines but the third paragraph down confirms the legal status of the BoR:

LEGITIMACY OF DPE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689

For the avoidance of any doubt in the following matter it is very useful that the Houses of Parliament Transport Committee Press Notice (04/2005-06, 9 August 2005) refers to "parking fines". There can be no argument. If the Committee, the public, the Bulk Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and the legislators consider parking penalty charges as fines then the attempted justifications put forward by local authorities that it is not a fine but an "excess charge" or other play on words, it is clear to all that what we are dealing with here is a fine.

Therefore, I wish for the Committee to now consider and address the legality of DPE itself in light of the following.

As no doubt members will be aware, on 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: "There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights . . . the House is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts."

There is a provision in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 which states:

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void."

This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statue" and may not be repealed impliedly. This was stated in the case Thoburn v City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (18 February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections 62 and 63).

62. "We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional statutes." The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the . . . Bill of Rights 1689 . . ."

63. "Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not . . ."

This was upheld by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in an appeal which went to the House of Lords on Monday 15 July 2002.

I am not aware that the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes express reference to repealing the Bill of Rights Act 1689 therefore there can be no fine except for one that is imposed by a court.

It is therefore important that the Transport Committee considers the implications of any attempt to override the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the constitutional considerations of doing so. It will then be necessary to understand the constitutional considerations of ignoring the Declaration of Rights.

[IainWR]

Here you go, from the parliamentary publications web site. It's on the subject of parking fines but the third paragraph down confirms the legal status of the BoR:

LEGITIMACY OF DPE/BILL OF RIGHTS 1689

For the avoidance of any doubt in the following matter it is very useful that the Houses of Parliament Transport Committee Press Notice (04/2005-06, 9 August 2005) refers to "parking fines". There can be no argument. If the Committee, the public, the Bulk Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and the legislators consider parking penalty charges as fines then the attempted justifications put forward by local authorities that it is not a fine but an "excess charge" or other play on words, it is clear to all that what we are dealing with here is a fine.

Therefore, I wish for the Committee to now consider and address the legality of DPE itself in light of the following.

As no doubt members will be aware, on 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: "There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights . . . the House is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts."

There is a provision in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 which states:

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void."

This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statue" and may not be repealed impliedly. This was stated in the case Thoburn v City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (18 February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections 62 and 63).

62. "We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional statutes." The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the . . . Bill of Rights 1689 . . ."

63. "Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not . . ."

This was upheld by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in an appeal which went to the House of Lords on Monday 15 July 2002.

I am not aware that the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes express reference to repealing the Bill of Rights Act 1689 therefore there can be no fine except for one that is imposed by a court.

It is therefore important that the Transport Committee considers the implications of any attempt to override the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the constitutional considerations of doing so. It will then be necessary to understand the constitutional considerations of ignoring the Declaration of Rights.

Wow. Can you provide a link?

[Racalman]

Wow. Can you provide a link?

Of course:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 48we10.htm