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

US needs no constitution now that King Obama is around (well so he thinks anyway). He reckons his Executive Orders take the place of democracy and debate.

Unfortunately Parliament has responded to certain newspaper editors desire to create stories. Though the balance between the rights of the householder and an intruder were against the householder the changes have moved the balance too far the other way.

Put bluntly if an intruder knows that it is very likely that the householder is going to attack he will come prepared (armed). He will have the advantage given that he will be pumped up with adrenalin since his reactions will be quicker and also he is ready.

My concern is for those elderly folk who are likely to face an armed intruder with all the consequences that implies. Currently we see pictures of OAP's with badly bruised faces etc. I fear that there will be more murders as a result if "Open day" is declared on intruders.

Always learning wrote:Unfortunately Parliament has responded to certain newspaper editors desire to create stories. Though the balance between the rights of the householder and an intruder were against the householder the changes have moved the balance too far the other way.

Really? I don't recall the law being changed to say "if they're on your property, go nuts with that blowtorch and nail em up by the heel when you get bored".

Always learning wrote:My concern is for those elderly folk who are likely to face an armed intruder with all the consequences that implies. Currently we see pictures of OAP's with badly bruised faces etc. I fear that there will be more murders as a result if "Open day" is declared on intruders.

Or fewer intruders, whether by choice ("hmm maybe electronic fraud is better than risking a gizzard full of buckshot") or by natural selection.

I fear that there will be more murders as a result if "Open day" is declared on intruders.

Hmmm don't know how it work over there but since "Open day" was declared on intruders through the Castle Doctrine over here, well lets just say it makes the b'stards think twice, especially when Granny might be packing a 38Special in her purse or next to the armchair or bed. There's been a fair few scumbags found out the hard way and incidentally, since the Castle Doctrine became law, we've seen a massive drop in home invasions.

I guess scumbags prefer their victims unarmed and on an unlevel playing field.

Blu

Put bluntly if an intruder knows that it is very likely that the householder is going to attack he will come prepared (armed). He will have the advantage given that he will be pumped up with adrenalin since his reactions will be quicker and also he is ready.

My concern is for those elderly folk who are likely to face an armed intruder with all the consequences that implies. Currently we see pictures of OAP's with badly bruised faces etc. I fear that there will be more murders as a result if "Open day" is declared on intruders.

That's an argument the antis use time and again and an excuse for doing nothing about it, and it is flawed. These people are cowards but not so daft as to either (A) Want to get badly hurt or (B) done for murder. The element of chance is the deterrent.

Anyway, as postulated before: if we were allowed to kill home invaders / thieves in our homes legally and with no comebacks, what's the problem? If a thief got killed whose fault would it be - it would just be natural selection. Those that come armed will always do so, those who are unarmed may well think twice about the risks. Was going to say we will not know till we try but Blu has answered that one admirably.

FencepostError wrote:There's a lengthy discussion thread here:

http://www.britishblades.com/forums/sho ... ixed-blade

I'm not offering any personal opinion on the law/legal arguments, just relaying what I've seen elsewhere. But in a sense I don't think it really matters: if someone did establish a general legal right to be armed, there would be new legislation to put a stop to it in about five minutes flat (and I'm not aware of anything that prevents parliament from making such legislation a la the US Constitution which requires a higher standard than a simple majority vote).

Firstly, Burke was seeking a judicial review and all the government did was waste his time till he ran out of steam and money...

As for "I'm not aware of anything that prevents parliament from making such legislation a la the US Constitution which requires a higher standard than a simple majority vote" that is in fact the problem in a sentence, general ignorance.

The 1689 Declaration and Bill of Rights is exactly that. It is constitutional law. The relevance of it has been reaffirmed very recently in several cases and instances. The Bill also provides that any law made contrary to the Bill of Rights is illegal!

The judiciary and legislators have been able to cherry pick and ride rough shod over our rights, as established in in our constitution, because of the apathy and ignorance of people today.

The judiciary and legislators have been able to cherry pick and ride rough shod over our rights, as established in in our constitution, because of the apathy and ignorance of people today

clapclap clapclap clapclap clapclap

That's what happens when people continue to ignore their own responsibilities and want the government to "do something" at every turn and mollycoddle them all through their lives.

Aromatic Stalinism.....

Sim G wrote:As for "I'm not aware of anything that prevents parliament from making such legislation a la the US Constitution which requires a higher standard than a simple majority vote" that is in fact the problem in a sentence, general ignorance.

The 1689 Declaration and Bill of Rights is exactly that. It is constitutional law. The relevance of it has been reaffirmed very recently in several cases and instances. The Bill also provides that any law made contrary to the Bill of Rights is illegal!

That's interesting. I can find indications that a constitutional statute is not subject to implied repeal (for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoburn_v_ ... ty_Council ) but not that parliament cannot expressly repeal them. Other discussion seems to consider that the British legal system does not have any entrenched rights. Do you have a (more recent than the C17) source that parliament cannot repeal the BOR?

(What really matters, of course, is the interpretation of those with the power to jail people and confiscate property, whatever others might consider to be the correct reading, as per Harris and Deegan re S139 and "folding pocket knives".)

Who ever considers that the British legal system does not have any entrenched rights is basically someone who has no understanding at all of the British legal system! Everything about the system is dependant on those entrenched rights spanning almost 1000 years!

As for a source that says Parliament cannot repeal the BoR, regardless of when it was written, but the Act itself! It's still there in the list of UK Primary Legislation in force! There is elsewhere here on this forum I've listed attempts at firearms legislation that have failed to be passed in the House because of the BoR as noted in Hansard. Likewise, there is reams of the stuff relating to other aspects of law and legislation where the BoR has been cited. The Rt Hon Betty Boothroyd, when Speaker of the House made reference to the BoR regularly as the cornerstone of British Parliamentary democracy.

As for DPP v Harris, DPP v Fehmi, it was not the carrying that was brought into question, but what they were carrying which gave rise to their convictions. It was the definition of a folding knife that was decided, not that a knife in public was lawful or not. In fact Harris was originally charged with an offence under S1 Crime Prevention Act 1953, (Offensive Weapon), where the Crown offered no evidence, but pursued a charge under 139 CJA Act 1988 (Bladed Article). Neither Harris or Fehmi offered a defence of BoR.

Deegan on the other hand offered a defence citing Pepper and Hart, basically the admissibility of ministerial statement when it comes to unclear intentions of the legislation. Hansard shows only too well what the intention was as stated by Chris Patten of BBC governor and Hong Kong fame, however, his appeal did not demonstrate properly and the conditions of Pepper v Hart had not been fulfilled, hence it was not legitimate for the court to take the ministerial statements into account. Again Deegan did not offer a defence of the BoR.