New right to attack burglars.

[dromia]

If this law was enacted would it constitute "reason to possess" a firearm?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... glars.html

[tackb]

behave ! you know thats just silly!

[Primer]

Bit early for a drink Adam ? :cheers:

I'm sure that would come into the "grossly disproportionate" part of the law that is mentioned and would suggest you may not have the intention of having the firearm and ammo stored safely and seperately, I'm not saying anymore as got flamed by a few last time on my thoughts re the burglars that got shot recently but I'm all for it.

[Burner]

It is a start.
Lets hope it goes through.
Once you get the right to defend yourself, common sense prevails that a firearm need not be hidden away.
After all a bullet wound is much easier to treat then a skull bashed and shattered with a bat or pipe.

Under Michigan's Castle law, I have the right to use whatever means I feel are needed to remove, or stop, the threat.
It then becomes the duty of the court to prove that I did not feel threatened.
I can not be sued by the baddies friend or family for defending myself, or any other person that may have come to harm.
I can do this anyplace I can legally be.

[Christel]

Burner,

:goodjob: :goodjob:

[Sim G]

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)

[techguy]

Will be interesting to see how this pans out..

[AHPP]

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).

[Chuck]

Once you get the right to defend yourself, common sense prevails that a firearm need not be hidden away.

Sadly burner, common sense does not prevail; in the UK any longer.....lawyers and the PC t@ts have seen to that.

As for the new "law" it will not happen because we haven't the gnads for it and it is just another tory attention geting but meaningless statement. The law system is set up to favour criminals and crime, there is not a chance this will ever make statute.

As long as they try to include crud like "proportionate" and "reasonable" it will fall apart. Maybe "only to be expected" should be used. It should matter whether the victim uses a feather or a flamethrower, they should NOT be accountable. Let the villain explain WHY he/she chose to gamble with their life - if they survive!

As for locking away...that rule will never change so get practising speed releases on the old cabinet chaps.

[M99]

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