UK CONSTITUTION !!!!

[Chuck]

Hopefully this link may be of interest?

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

Happened to stumble upon it only last weekend.

Shows that shooters have been consistently shafted by two faced lying vote hungry politcians and that when guns were plentiful and available for self defence crimes were lower . Criminals may see "doing time" as an occupational hazard but the thought of being shot is different. A no brainer really I suppose .

[joe]

sovereignty of parliament, which states not law, act or anything binds the government hence the bill of rights is just an act and in the case of the right of firearms was removed (impliedly) by vitue of the fireams act 1920

the bill of rights was pretty much copied by the americans ! (the cruel and usaul punishment ban is also in our bill of rights )
in case of Heller vs Washington (2008) us supreme court re: washington DC handgun ban, heller said that the handgun ban infragned his right to self defence as allowed by 2nd amendment and bill of rights! the state argued that the right was a collective not an indivdual right. The law justices stated in was an individual right, quoting the UK bill of rights and common law stating that the 2nd amedment was based on uk right to arms as stated in their bill of rights and was clearly an individual right

[Blackstuff]

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.

A white paper is just an indication of a future policy, which in this case, has never materilised into any legislation that specifically denies the use of firearms for self-defence, because they f-ing well know that the right is there and they don't dare to open the can of worms!!

[Daniel11]

sovereignty of parliament, which states not law, act or anything binds the government hence the bill of rights is just an act and in the case of the right of firearms was removed (impliedly) by vitue of the fireams act 1920

the bill of rights was pretty much copied by the americans ! (the cruel and usaul punishment ban is also in our bill of rights )
in case of Heller vs Washington (2008) us supreme court re: washington DC handgun ban, heller said that the handgun ban infragned his right to self defence as allowed by 2nd amendment and bill of rights! the state argued that the right was a collective not an indivdual right. The law justices stated in was an individual right, quoting the UK bill of rights and common law stating that the 2nd amedment was based on uk right to arms as stated in their bill of rights and was clearly an individual right

I hate to disagree but there was a piece of case law in the early 2000s which defined 'constitutional statutes' , such as the BoR, and said that they were not subject to implied repeal. (i.e parliament could revoke them, but had to specifically pass a 'BoR removal act' rather than doing it in an implied manner). Furthermore, although It is widely accepted nowadays, the doctrine of 'Parliamentary Sovereignty' was only really conjured up in the last 60 years or so: before then, near enough everyone accepted that there were some things beyond parliaments power.

[Sim G]

A white paper is just an indication of a future policy, which in this case, has never materilised into any legislation that specifically denies the use of firearms for self-defence, because they f-ing well know that the right is there and they don't dare to open the can of worms!!

This is exactly why it was dropped from the debate, as far as I can tell, concerning the 1968 Act. Instead, it resulted in a Home Office Instruction, whereby Chief Officers of Police were not to grant FACs on the "good reason" of defence. Keeping RKBA out of the subsequent debate prevented MPs from citing the BoR and potentially scuppering the passing of the Bill, which almost happened with the Crime a Prevention Act 1953....

[Sim G]

I hate to disagree but there was a piece of case law in the early 2000s which defined 'constitutional statutes' , such as the BoR, and said that they were not subject to implied repeal. (i.e parliament could revoke them, but had to specifically pass a 'BoR removal act' rather than doing it in an implied manner). Furthermore, although It is widely accepted nowadays, the doctrine of 'Parliamentary Sovereignty' was only really conjured up in the last 60 years or so: before then, near enough everyone accepted that there were some things beyond parliaments power.

^ This

[Racalman]

Would it not be possible for a wealthy shooter to call for a judicial review of the government's decision to ignore the RKBA?

Judicial review is the procedure by which you can seek to challenge the decision, action or failure to act of a public body such as a government department or a local authority or other body exercising a public law function.

[Daniel11]

Would it not be possible for a wealthy shooter to call for a judicial review of the government's decision to ignore the RKBA?

Judicial review is the procedure by which you can seek to challenge the decision, action or failure to act of a public body such as a government department or a local authority or other body exercising a public law function.

As far as I know, Unlike in America, courts have no power (or at least the establishment consider them to have no power) to overturn Statute. Thus at best a successful judicial review would be advising the government to change it's mind, which it wouldn't.
We must be wary of the fact that many political parties promise to create a 'British Bill of Rights', implying they do not even know of or recognize the original BoR. I suspect that in such a Bill of Rights, 'The Right to Keep and Bear Arms' would lose out to 'The Right to Excessive Social Security' or 'The Right to be ruled by an Unelected European Executive'.

The best possible outcome of such a Judicial review would be to bring to issue into the public Eye, and hopefully prompt parties already pro-Constitution and pro-Liberty to adapt their policy accordingly.

[Racalman]

We must be wary of the fact that many political parties promise to create a 'British Bill of Rights', implying they do not even know of or recognize the original BoR. I suspect that in such a Bill of Rights, 'The Right to Keep and Bear Arms' would lose out to 'The Right to Excessive Social Security' or 'The Right to be ruled by an Unelected European Executive'.

Sad, but very probably true the way this country and the rest of Europe are going.

[Sim G]

As far as I know, Unlike in America, courts have no power (or at least the establishment consider them to have no power) to overturn Statute. Thus at best a successful judicial review would be advising the government to change it's mind, which it wouldn't.

You couldn't be more wrong. The most powerful "law makers" in this country is the courts. Our law has three strands to the decision making process regarding it. Common Law, Statute and Case Law. Our laws are forever being asserted and Are evolving long after Royal Assent.

Again, that is why I say that for a RKBA argument before a court, must be whilst a person is imprisoned. Criminal case law is very, very powerful. In all the research that I've done, not once in a case has the BoR been cited as defence to a charge of an offensive weapon in a public place. Loads of other stuff about what constitutes a weapon, what is possession, what is a public place. But nothing, where someone from interview to appeal has shouted, "This is my defensive weapon as guaranteed me, through Common Law and the Bill of Rights".

Show me the man brave enough, with pockets deep enough...