UK CONSTITUTION !!!!

[mrg4ull]

Hi everyone
I've been on a number of sites worldwide recently and an assumption by british shooters are we don't have a constitution and 2nd amendment to protect our rights like Americans, well the british constitution is called "the bill of rights 1689" under this bill british subjects have the right to keep and bear arms for self defence, it makes for a long and enlightening read, the american constitution with it's 2nd was copied from ours at independence, successive conservative and labour governments have broken the law and overidden our common law rights under this bill without consulting with the people, parliament had no power to change it in full or part without consent, so when the americans are outraged by the thought of a gun ban, contrary to the 2nd amendment I think back, why did we lay down and roll over to a government we had every right to oppose, sorry for the soapbox but always the brit answer (no constitution) = no rights, WRONG on both counts, lets stick together before we lose what we have.

Mike

[Les]

I think the law over here still requires somebody to walk in front of an automobile with a red flag, but that one gets ignored too.

Welcome to FBUK, by the way.

[Blackstuff]

Its a part of Common Law that is convienently forgotten about by those who want the monopoly on violence, who just happen to be the people in charge of the country

[mag41uk]

This was discussed at length after Dunblane.

[Demonic69]

It only covers protestants too :-(

[zanes]

Is this one of those freeman of the land type things that people roll out to try and avoid speeding prosecutions?

[Gaz]

Is this one of those freeman of the land type things that people roll out to try and avoid speeding prosecutions?

Yup. "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms blah blah as suitable for their condition and as prescribed by law".

Oddly enough the excitable loons read the first part of that Bill of Rights quotation, conveniently forget very few people are practising Protestants nowadays and totally skip over the "prescribed by law" part.

I'm doing this from memory so the precise wording might be different, but that's certainly the gist.

[Sim G]

"Protestants" we're specifically mentioned due to the rising number of incidents so the time where Catholic gentry, bailiffs and sheriffs were disarming Protestant folk. This was seen as an extension and continuation of the subversion by the Vatican in an attempt to regain control of the English throne via religion. The Bill does not stipulate that only Protestants may be armed.

This is confirmed with the phrase "as allowed by law". This does not refer to legislation, but to Common Law. That is the ancient law of the country, founded on societal customs and reaffirmed and enforced by the judicial system, to the degree where it stands regardless of legislation. For want of a better phrase, because that law is just right.

Bearing arms in English Common law shares its affirmation with such offences as murder, kidnap or false imprisonment. It is that important.

The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 is the piece of legislation that trounces all over the common law right to bear arms. It was this piece of legislation that outlawed the carrying of arms, in public, for defence. Hansards shows there was a lively debate over this with the BoR being cited a number of times.

Since then, there have been cases where people have been charged and subsequently convicted under this legislation. Because there are defences to the offence, case law, as I've discovered so far, attempts to mount a defence on specifics. As of yet, I have not found a defence or judgement where the BoR has been cited.

To reaffirm the RKBA as written in the BoR, it's going to take a brave and rich person. This person will have to arm themselves, then walk around in public, with the sole purpose of being arrested and charged. The defence should then rely completely on the BoR. Without this, the BoR remains nothing more than a historical document in regards to arms, even though it is cited regularly in relation to others. Ironically enough, some MPs cited the BoR recently during their trials and investigations for expenses fraud and a parliamentaries privilege or the religion on the throne....

So at the minute you can quote it all you like. As noted above, you'll be regarded as a loon until the judiciary, media and the public recognise the importance of the whole document and not just cherry pick. But as noted, the over whelming vast majority ipf the country don't even know the BoR exists. Nor, do I think they care.....

[Blackstuff]

Too slow - what he said!

Is this one of those freeman of the land type things that people roll out to try and avoid speeding prosecutions?

Yup. "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms blah blah as suitable for their condition and as prescribed by law".

Oddly enough the excitable loons read the first part of that Bill of Rights quotation, conveniently forget very few people are practising Protestants nowadays and totally skip over the "prescribed by law" part.

I'm doing this from memory so the precise wording might be different, but that's certainly the gist.

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.

[Demonic69]

Sim, is it not written as "Protestant subjects may have arms for their defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law"
Seems pretty exclusive to me :(