The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

There were only Catholics and Prodestants back then and the Catholics hadn't been disarmed by James II, so this document is redressing that.

Read what Blackstuff wrote above. RKBA is a common law right. Protestants were being disarmed by Catholic officials, wrongly. The highlighting of Protestants was not to put them above anyone else, but yo declare them equal to everyone else, under Common Law...

So if I become a Protestant....

Blackstuff wrote:And the nay-sayers conveniently forget to read the full document which first lists the 'crimes' the Catholic king commited against the Prodestants first, which gives clear context that "... suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law"" refers to the person, not the arms.

'Crime' listed;
By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.

Redress;
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law

When the 'crime' was redressed why would the subject of the document suddenly change from being the person (Prodestant), to the arms??
The Law being refered to is Common Law NOT Parliamentary law and is an affirmation of the natural right that a person has to defend themself with arms. People look at this out of context and from a modern gun control mindset that focuses on the gun, not the person and incorrectly read it as 'the guns which are allowed by law at the time'. A concept which at the time of writing was as utterly ridiculous as it should be now, but unfortunately is not the case.

Alright, you lead an armed wander down the local high street and I'll follow you.*

*at a distance possibly measured in miles

So what we've learned is that there is no British RKBA and it was abolished in 1953 by Parliament. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Gaz wrote: So what we've learned is that there is no British RKBA and it was abolished in 1953 by Parliament. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

There in lies the rub.... There is a legal argument that the Prevention of Crime Act was enacted illegally as it directly contradicts the BoR!

Apparently we've made lots of laws that are illegal based on previous documents like the BoR. Sadly who'd there to enforce the old laws? The lawmakers?
By all accounts almost every US government since the US constitution was written have breached it's laws and should have been punished for treason. We're probably in the same boat.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth

Hopefully this link may be of interest?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 95ap25.htm

Happened to stumble upon it only last weekend.

Gaz wrote:

Blackstuff wrote:And the nay-sayers conveniently forget to read the full document which first lists the 'crimes' the Catholic king commited against the Prodestants first, which gives clear context that "... suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law"" refers to the person, not the arms.

'Crime' listed;
By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.

Redress;
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law

When the 'crime' was redressed why would the subject of the document suddenly change from being the person (Prodestant), to the arms??
The Law being refered to is Common Law NOT Parliamentary law and is an affirmation of the natural right that a person has to defend themself with arms. People look at this out of context and from a modern gun control mindset that focuses on the gun, not the person and incorrectly read it as 'the guns which are allowed by law at the time'. A concept which at the time of writing was as utterly ridiculous as it should be now, but unfortunately is not the case.

Alright, you lead an armed wander down the local high street and I'll follow you.*

*at a distance possibly measured in miles

So what we've learned is that there is no British RKBA and it was abolished in 1953 by Parliament. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I don't think you would need to go that far, simply apply for a firearm certificate through the normal procedure but give your only 'good reason' as self-defence. You could then get the case to court through the appeal procedure without the theatrics or participation in ARU target practice You would of course then need the deep pockets as mentioned by Sim G. Could be tempted if i won the lottery but i'd want my new shack at a non-extradition country in place first

Thanks to all for the comments, it would seem everyone has a different take including lawyers on the bbr, my original point was that very few people who post have any idea that this exists let alone what rights we had, as for discussion after Dunblane even this was done as a political reaction (panic), the police commander was quoted as being against a knee jerk reaction against the hand gun, ban, the conservative government at the time announced during their party conference that they would not be banning handguns, this quickly changed when the labour party introduced a speaker from snowdrop during their party conference, so upshot was conservatives banned handguns except .22 calibre, the labour party as a vote winner (which worked) promised to ban all handguns includimg .22 if they won power, of course the rest is history, since 2010 the Scottish police have been making moves on banning black powder pistols, it just seems if we don't stand together we fall together, thank you all for the comments again, i have a lot of further reading on this subject.
Mike

Blackstuff wrote: I don't think you would need to go that far, simply apply for a firearm certificate through the normal procedure but give your only 'good reason' as self-defence. You could then get the case to court through the appeal procedure without the theatrics or participation in ARU target practice You would of course then need the deep pockets as mentioned by Sim G. Could be tempted if i won the lottery but i'd want my new shack at a non-extradition country in place first

No, I don't think that would be good enough in order to test the defence. The White paper before the 1968 Act removed self defence as good reason for an FAC. That said, in certain circumstances, firearms and shotguns have been used for defence previously and been judged as lawful.

In order to test the defence, you're going to have to have been arrested and put before a court. The weapon would actually be immaterial. A sword, an axe, a billy club, as long as at the very on set, the defence offered is that their is a common law right to keep and bear arms as enshrined in the BoR.

I did say deep pockets, but I also said someone who is very brave, because the court would lock you up and you'd have to mount the appeal against conviction from behind the prison wall...