Interesting article on RKBA

Anything shooting related including law and procedure questions.

Moderator: dromia

Forum rules
Should your post be in Grumpy Old Men? This area is for general shooting related posts only please.
Message
Author
Racalman
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:21 am
Home club or Range: LPSC and NRA
Location: Berkshire

Interesting article on RKBA

#1 Post by Racalman »

https://misesuk.org/2014/12/22/the-brit ... r-defence/

Yes I know it's a few years old but I've only just seen it and found it an interesting read.
User avatar
breacher
Posts: 3475
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:32 pm
Home club or Range: EBSC
Location: Cambridgeshire

Re: Interesting article on RKBA

#2 Post by breacher »

Cops because they have always carried firearms under the common law, exercising their (and your) right to be capable of defending themselves; and bad guys because, the anecdotal evidence is, when they claim that a firearm in their possession is for their own defence, they are not charged.

Erm......... no !!!
http://www.phoenixtactical.co.uk

RFD 2043 Cambridgeshire
Racalman
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:21 am
Home club or Range: LPSC and NRA
Location: Berkshire

Re: Interesting article on RKBA

#3 Post by Racalman »

I didn't say I believed his conclusions, but it's an interesting essay.
Racalman
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:21 am
Home club or Range: LPSC and NRA
Location: Berkshire

Re: Interesting article on RKBA

#4 Post by Racalman »

If you gave up before reaching the end, the author adds this in the Comments section:

A propos dope peddlers (& others who may need to be armed in order to conduct an illegal trade in relative safety) not being prosecuted when found to be armed: we did say the evidence is anecdotal, the anecdotes in question coming from retired police officers. It would be nice to have some harder evidence than this. One’s guess would be that any such defensive weaponry would be confiscated on arrest, but no prosecution brought lest a knowledgeable counsel raise the question of the constitutional right in court—a cat that Government & Messrs Plod most certainly don’t want to see leap yowling out of their bag.

The common-law right to bear arms for defence of life, liberty, property & chastity is of course recognized tacitly by Government, as witness the arming of policemen (for they have no other authority), and it was Richard Law’s and my contention in Does the Trigger Pull the Finger? that some upright civil servant recognized this in drafting the 1920 Act, in calling firearm registration documents certificates. They couldn’t be called “licences” because that would imply a permission, and under the BoR 1689 that was already recognized as unnecessary. (The phrase “as allowed by law” in the BoR refers to the common law; it doesn’t mean “as allowed by the Firearms Acts that some paranoid clown will dream up in a few centuries’ time”.) Hence our further contention that only sporting arms require registration/certification. Of course that’s a trifle too logical for the more costive among our law makers and enforcers.
User avatar
breacher
Posts: 3475
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:32 pm
Home club or Range: EBSC
Location: Cambridgeshire

Re: Interesting article on RKBA

#5 Post by breacher »

The Police ( and military ) dont have the "right" to bear arms under common law !
http://www.phoenixtactical.co.uk

RFD 2043 Cambridgeshire
Racalman
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:21 am
Home club or Range: LPSC and NRA
Location: Berkshire

Re: Interesting article on RKBA

#6 Post by Racalman »

breacher wrote:The Police ( and military ) dont have the "right" to bear arms under common law !
Out of curiosity, what form does an armed police officer's authorisation to possess a firearm for self defence take? Is it an FAC, permit, letter from the CC?
User avatar
breacher
Posts: 3475
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:32 pm
Home club or Range: EBSC
Location: Cambridgeshire

Re: Interesting article on RKBA

#7 Post by breacher »

Racalman wrote:
breacher wrote:The Police ( and military ) dont have the "right" to bear arms under common law !
Out of curiosity, what form does an armed police officer's authorisation to possess a firearm for self defence take? Is it an FAC, permit, letter from the CC?
Agents of the crown.
http://www.phoenixtactical.co.uk

RFD 2043 Cambridgeshire
Racalman
Posts: 709
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:21 am
Home club or Range: LPSC and NRA
Location: Berkshire

Re: Interesting article on RKBA

#8 Post by Racalman »

breacher wrote:
Racalman wrote:
breacher wrote:The Police ( and military ) dont have the "right" to bear arms under common law !
Out of curiosity, what form does an armed police officer's authorisation to possess a firearm for self defence take? Is it an FAC, permit, letter from the CC?
Agents of the crown.
Not sure what that means but playing devil's advocate, the ACPO manual on the police use of firearms has this to say:

THE LAW RELATING TO THE USE OF FORCE
3.1 The issuing of a firearm to a police officer does not, of itself, constitute a use of force. It is only when a police officer makes use of a firearm (for example by pointing
or by firing) that the considerations contained in this chapter become relevant.

The law is contained within ...

Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 and Section 3 Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967
3.2 ‘A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in the effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected
offenders or of persons unlawfully at large’

Section 117 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and Article 88 Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989
3.3 ‘Where any provision of this Act or Order
(a) confers any power on a constable; and
(b) does not provide that the power may only be exercised with the consent of some other person other than a police officer, the officer may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power.’

Common Law
3.4 The Common Law has always recognised the right of self-defence.


Oh look here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
User avatar
breacher
Posts: 3475
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:32 pm
Home club or Range: EBSC
Location: Cambridgeshire

Re: Interesting article on RKBA

#9 Post by 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.
http://www.phoenixtactical.co.uk

RFD 2043 Cambridgeshire
User avatar
Dark Skies
Posts: 2824
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:02 am
Home club or Range: NRA
Contact:

Re: Interesting article on RKBA

#10 Post by Dark Skies »

breacher wrote: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.
"I don't like my job and I don't think I'm gonna go anymore."
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 14 guests