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

Halodin - you will want to think about this then:

http://i.imgur.com/KxCu758.gif

Fester wrote:The English Bill of Rights 1689 states "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence"

I think it also says something along the lines of "as allowed by law", and I believe that argument has been tried, unsuccessfully, in the Court of Appeal (Michael James Burke).

I'm lead to believe that armed self defence is enshrined by the European Human Rights Commission.
UK Govt chooses to 'exempt' us...

Can't we as individuals exercise our right to exempt ourselves from the exemption ?

*Sends for a legal weasel *

SevenSixTwo wrote:I'm lead to believe that armed self defence is enshrined by the European Human Rights Commission.
UK Govt chooses to 'exempt' us...

I assume you're referring to Article 2 - The Right to Life?

If you are then, it is incorporated into the Human Rights Act of 1998.

Article 2 states:
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided for by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

However, the wording of the ECHR implies that all rights (Articles) are based on the abuse of power by the state, not by an individual i.e. criminal activity.

According to Hilary (what does it matter) Clinton, only a Government has a right to self defence!

Spout laws all you want, the UK government picks and chooses what ones to obey, a bit like a certain US president. The chance to sort this is long gone - we believed the lies at best, didn't care at worst - that it was all "for our own good" and stood silently by while we lost what people fought and died for.

I like that idea, but I was thinking something more along these lines.

Chuck wrote:Halodin - you will want to think about this then:

http://i.imgur.com/KxCu758.gif

Aye that would do too.....don't forget the hard hat And goggles for effin safety reasons

FencepostError wrote:

Fester wrote:The English Bill of Rights 1689 states "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence"

I think it also says something along the lines of "as allowed by law", and I believe that argument has been tried, unsuccessfully, in the Court of Appeal (Michael James Burke).

I can find absolutely no case law what so ever in relation to the BoR being used as a defence to be armed. I can't find anything related to the name quoted either. Can you give a reference or link? Such case law against an intergral facet of the Constitution would be far reaching.

Incidentally, "As allowed by law" is not a mechanism to determine that future legislation decides on how a right, ( in this case arms) may be exercised, but unequivocally declares that arming oneself exists and had done previously to the drafting of the BoR, the "law" refers to Common Law. That specific right in the BoR reaffirms, does not grant.

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).