US NRA talks about the UK Bill of Rights
Moderator: dromia
Forum rules
Should your post be in Grumpy Old Men? This area is for general shooting related posts only please.
Should your post be in Grumpy Old Men? This area is for general shooting related posts only please.
- bnz41
- Site Supporter Since 2016
- Posts: 1990
- Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:20 pm
- Home club or Range: NRA Bisley
- Location: Essex
- Contact:
Re: US NRA talks about the UK Bill of Rights
Interesting, thanks for posting.
Re: US NRA talks about the UK Bill of Rights
bnz41 wrote:Interesting, thanks for posting.
I don't understand why any of the 1988 or 1997 acts were challenged in the courts ?
I would imagine the lawyers that work on behalf of the NRA and BSAC would know about the bill of rights etc
However the right to arms is only for defence not target shooting, so even if the somehow the law was sucessfuly challenged, it Would never be brought back as Before ! .."suitable for their conditon....." would be used to refuse any applications for a pistol under the bill of rights !
Re: US NRA talks about the UK Bill of Rights
joe wrote: I don't understand why any of the 1988 or 1997 acts were challenged in the courts ?
The Amendment Acts weren't challenged in line with the BoR because those acts had nothing to do with the "rights of armed defence". The legislation for challenge is the Prevention of Crime Act 1953.
joe wrote: .."suitable for their conditon....." would be used to refuse any applications for a pistol under the bill of rights !
Why would it be? What do you think "suitable for their condition means"?
In 1978 I was told by my grand dad that the secret to rifle accuracy is, a quality bullet, fired down a quality barrel..... How has that changed?
Guns dont kill people. Dads with pretty Daughters do...!
Guns dont kill people. Dads with pretty Daughters do...!
Re: US NRA talks about the UK Bill of Rights
Sim G wrote:joe wrote: I don't understand why any of the 1988 or 1997 acts were challenged in the courts ?
The Amendment Acts weren't challenged in line with the BoR because those acts had nothing to do with the "rights of armed defence". The legislation for challenge is the Prevention of Crime Act 1953.
joe wrote: .."suitable for their conditon....." would be used to refuse any applications for a pistol under the bill of rights !
Why would it be? What do you think "suitable for their condition means"?
spot on as usual i never thought of that ! (the 1988 and 97 acts were nothing to do with armed self defence only banned for sporting purposes)
Re: US NRA talks about the UK Bill of Rights
As a Protestant I have no issue with the original wording.
-
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:21 am
- Home club or Range: LPSC and NRA
- Location: Berkshire
Re: US NRA talks about the UK Bill of Rights
Parliament is well aware of the status of the BoR, but they don't like it because they think they are supreme.
Some years ago the Speaker Betty Boothroyd had to remind them that it was still in force (this wasn't related to firearms though).
EDIT: Found it ...
"As no doubt members will be aware, on 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: "There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights . . . the House is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts."
I think this is why the definition of who can possess firearms for self defence has been delegated to the Home secretary and not defined in statute law.
Some years ago the Speaker Betty Boothroyd had to remind them that it was still in force (this wasn't related to firearms though).
EDIT: Found it ...
"As no doubt members will be aware, on 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: "There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights . . . the House is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts."
I think this is why the definition of who can possess firearms for self defence has been delegated to the Home secretary and not defined in statute law.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests