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

Interesting, thanks for posting.

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 !

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"?

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)

As a Protestant I have no issue with the original wording.

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.