New right to attack burglars.

[shugie]

Firstly, people need to realise that the concept of an "Englishman's home is his castle" is not new. Likewise, the concept of being armed for your defence is not an American idea. And finally, it was only in 1953 that self defence was decreed not to be "good reason" for the issue of an FAC on the British mainland......

(NI does have a number of FAC's issued by PSNI for defensive firearms)

Sim,

Can you refresh what/when in 53 changed? - I was under the impression it changed in 1946 when the then Home sec' made a statement in the commons? -

In Colin Greenwoods book, he points out that the House of commons has no power to change common law and the powers under the act from 1920 are actually still applicable today (book written in 1972)

Mike

I don't think he's right on that, there is a theory that no Parliament may bind a successor, and various Parliaments have changed Common Law by the passing of statutes. Only those aspects of Common Law not affected by statute can be said to remain in force. If there is a later Act on the same subject, it can override the provisions of the earlier one and the judiciary will support that.

[Sim G]

Mike,

Yep, it was the Prevention of Crime Act which prohibited the carry of offensive weapons in a public place. FACs were then no longer issued for defensive (offensive) weapons. Likewise, conditions of an FAC dropped defense with the 68 FA Act, so prepared use at home was also effectively outlawed.

However, I believe SGC's have no such limitations legislated with regards to "home use", but modern day forces are extremely unlikely to issued an SGC for the purposes of such........ Yet!

[Sim G]

I don't think he's right on that, there is a theory that no Parliament may bind a successor, and various Parliaments have changed Common Law by the passing of statutes. Only those aspects of Common Law not affected by statute can be said to remain in force. If there is a later Act on the same subject, it can override the provisions of the earlier one and the judiciary will support that.

Within the ethos of common law and "binding documents" such as the Bill of Rights, which re-enforce the concept, legislation passed which is contrary to common law, is unlawful....

The main problem in regards to this is the post modern thinking that we are so much more sophisticated that those that went before us, hence, laws, traditions and customs can be chaged to suit a political or fashionable whim. The inter war years was the start of the great dismantling of the "British Constitution"......

B'stards!!!!!!

[shugie]

I don't think he's right on that, there is a theory that no Parliament may bind a successor, and various Parliaments have changed Common Law by the passing of statutes. Only those aspects of Common Law not affected by statute can be said to remain in force. If there is a later Act on the same subject, it can override the provisions of the earlier one and the judiciary will support that.

Within the ethos of common law and "binding documents" such as the Bill of Rights, which re-enforce the concept, legislation passed which is contrary to common law, is unlawful....

The main problem in regards to this is the post modern thinking that we are so much more sophisticated that those that went before us, hence, laws, traditions and customs can be chaged to suit a political or fashionable whim. The inter war years was the start of the great dismantling of the "British Constitution"......

B'stards!!!!!!

It also reflects the changes in society, with a move from the state as benevolent overseer to nanny. Some people, it seems, can not trusted with more than a basic set of rights lest they be foolish with them. In a democracy (and I'd not actually want to argue that what we have is a true democracy) the will of the people can, and does, change over time, and law changes to reflect this. Common law is not evolving, with little if any new Common law since the 17th C. and changes in the law are now brought about by Act of Parliament.

The British Constitution is a unique thing, it continues to evolve and change to meet, sometimes rather creakily, the needs of the time. It might be advantageous to codify it, but I'm not sure that the political will to do so exists in any of the main stream parties.

We are more sophisticated, in some ways, than those who lived in the time when judges made up the Common law as they went along. We have much higher levels of literacy, and way too many lawyers. Change is not necessarily good, but lack of change can be at least as bad, I've never really had much time for the reactionary view that some time in history was so much better than today. Although I will exempt our membership of the EU from that.

Sorry - this is now firmly in Grumpy Old Men territory.

[Chuck]

In a democracy (and I'd not actually want to argue that what we have is a true democracy) the will of the people can, and does, change over time, and law changes to reflect this.

We have a Parliamentary democracy..we elect them to shaft us for our own good. We do NOT have a true democracy as we are neve rconsulted..when they want your opinion they will give it to you.

Common Law was never "made up by judges as they went along". Common Law was based on habit and repute and custom of the times.....Judgements made were then used as case law where appropriate..

[ukrifleman]

I firmly believe that citing `self defence` as an excuse for owning a firearm in the UK, will always be a cast iron guarantee that you will never be issued a permit to own one.
ukrifleman.

[Chuck]

CORRECT.

[EagerNoSkill]

heading is wrong!!! at so many levels!

FIRSTLY : You have ALWAYS had the right to defend yourself - stupid officialdom not withstanding - with any means at your disposal
SECONDLY : Read below

1st : the burglar is committing an unlawful attack and intrusion
2nd : the homeowner is exercising the lawful irrevocable human right to self and family defence
3rd : the burglar has had all the time to plan, plot, prepare and engage at per his / her timing
4th : the homeowner has to to respond and make a life and death decision in a micro second
5th : the scum of the earth - i.e. politicians will utilise the "servants aka CPS / certain police types" to make examples so as to cower the moderate mass that individual thought and action will be punished by the establishment
* irony - same politicans are protected better than their citizens - they have armed gaurds - if it is safe enough for us not to have means of defence then they shouldn't either
6th : the pimps of power - i.e. the press will castigate, distort, lie and destroy the citizens life and protest the rights of the criminal!
7th : Judges and lawyers will spend years analysing and deciding what you should have done or not - when you had 1 or 2 seconds to react to an attack whilst you relaxed or slept in you own home

Really clever us - the people"! We let lying devious tyrants and delusional leftist fools rule us! So when do the moderate mass get off its arses and elect true representatives!

[Dougan]

The reporting I've heard has been fairly inconsistent. What I gather is that the lawyers will now be arguing about the word, "proportionate," as opposed to arguing about the word, "reasonable."
I think the new wording is more dangerous than the old. Where defending yourself with something you had to hand used to be reasonable (you already had it with you) it is now not proportional to the much less armed invader (even if it is reasonable because you already had it with you).

Yes it's still very ambiguous - It'd be nice to have some clear guidance with examples of circumstances...

Can someone clear something up please...Is it lawful to have some kind of defensive weapon in your home (bat, club etc.), on the assumption that it wouldn't be used if not necessary?

[shugie]

The reporting I've heard has been fairly inconsistent. What I gather is that the lawyers will now be arguing about the word, "proportionate," as opposed to arguing about the word, "reasonable."
I think the new wording is more dangerous than the old. Where defending yourself with something you had to hand used to be reasonable (you already had it with you) it is now not proportional to the much less armed invader (even if it is reasonable because you already had it with you).

Yes it's still very ambiguous - It'd be nice to have some clear guidance with examples of circumstances...

Can someone clear something up please...Is it lawful to have some kind of defensive weapon in your home (bat, club etc.), on the assumption that it wouldn't be used if not necessary?

The problem seems to be that having a weapon close to hand and ready for use shows some pre-meditated intent to use it. A smart barrister would possibly use this to show you were a psychotic maniac and hence attempt to weaken any claim you may be making to have acted solely in self-defence. Burglars may steal your stuff, but barristers will cheerfully steal your honour, which is why so many politicians used to be barristers, it's an excellent school in which to learn economical use of the truth and manipulation of facts, especially the inconvenient ones.