I don’t recall ever having reproduced an article in full on this blog and, only on the rare occasion, will I publish a letter in full. This is one such occasion and the quality of the letter merits it:
Modern changes ignore old gun laws
“Sir – Alan Judd is hesitant to advocate a “firearms free-for-all” (Comment, Dec 2), but one might recall that, before the First World War, when almost any British citizen could possess and carry any gun without a licence (and frequently did so, for there was a massive domestic firearms industry), armed crime in London ran at only two per cent of what it is today.
In 1946, the year the Home Office first moved against the licensing of pistols for self-defence, there were only 25 armed robberies in London: today, we have more than that every fortnight.
Confusion over our right to self-defence has not arisen because, as Mr Judd at one point suggests, we have “renounced” that capability. It is a right enshrined in our central constitutional document, the Bill of Rights of 1689, which is still in force as statute law. The right to possess arms for self-defence was one of only two rights of the individual guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and was indeed the ultimate surety of the subject’s other liberties.
While it had been the Restoration disarmament of Protestants that provoked the arms provision of the Bill of Rights, the equal right of Catholics to self-defence was guaranteed in the same year, and case law upheld the right to bear arms for self-defence through to the 20th century.
When the first Firearms Act was introduced in 1920, it was recognised that the normal justification for owning a revolver was self-defence; it was only in 1946 that the Labour Home Secretary indicated that this would no longer necessarily be accepted as a good reason.
When the Home Office advised Lord Cullen, in the prelude to the pistol ban of 1997, that “as a matter of policy” British law did not permit the citizen any weapons for self-defence, it was therefore asserting a new policy without legal foundation that simply chose to ignore the Bill of Rights.
It is the text of a letter written to the Daily Telegraph by a gentleman called Richard Munday whom I know not but admire much, not just because he is correct, but also because he has not forgotten his heritage.
Unlike our political rulers and most of fellow citizens who have shed their birthright like dead skin in the headlong rush to serfdom. But despite having been so outrageously and cynically trampled underfoot the 1689 Bill of Rights is still the law of the land and it does, indeed, bestow on every citizen the right and ability to defend their life, liberty and property.
However, the Bill of Rights is an Act of Parliament and, since no parliament can bind its successors, it could easily be repealed by another Act of Parliament. The fact that it has not yet been so repealed is doubtless due to the Old Bill being more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
So dragging the glorious old Bill of Rights from its musty chest and waving it in the face of the policeman who will come to arrest you for exercising your rights is all very back-stiffening in theory and may earn your day in Court to shout your case. But, in practice, the merest hint of any such happening would spur HMG into passing a repealing Act which would sail smartly through the House of Glove Puppets with nary a whisper of dissent nor a turn of a single hair.
And that would be that. Back to square one.
Still, the publication of Mr.Munday’s most righteous missive brings a twitch to my jowels. It proves that some people have not buckled to the maladies of crass hysteria and infantile paranoia. Some people remember what freedom really means and more and more of them are prepared to shout it from the rooftops.
The BIG question then becomes how to reinstitute this whole concept back into practice in the UK, doesn’t it! One can only hope that more and more of this is brought forward and practiced.
Whether or not the bill or rights is an act of parliament is actually a matter of dispute. The issue has been fought to the House of Lords and the Law Lords avoided it by a technicallity ( if I recall correctly ).
I believe that while the Bill of Rights is an Act, the Declaration of Rights (which says the same things) is not, and is more akin to Magna Carta as a contract between the monarch and the people.
The trouble is, of course, that the purpose of the Decalaration/Bill of Rights was to legitimize the making of law as a checked and balanced procedure. So “as allowed by law” appears everywhere, including in the RKBA passages. That loophole has been a disaster.
Politicians are adept at exploiting technicalities in the law to get what they want. Here in the US, they have found ways around the US Second Amendment, using the “well-regulated” phrase to outlaw weapons based on their appearance, and other such nonsense.
As to how the British can reclaim their RKBA, I think getting rid of the Labour majority would be a good first step. Unfortunately, the Tories are no better on the issue.
Ultimately, it’s a question of votes. In America, there are 80 million gun owners; in Britain, about 300,000. I hate to sound pessimistic, but there just aren’t enough pro-gun votes in Britain to force a change. Restoring your RKBA depends on changing the minds of the anti-gun majority.
Good luck.
Kevin
Kevin,
I wholeheartedly agree with you, sir.
The real problem here isn’t loopholes in the law or even the politicians. The real problem is the deeply ingrained anti-self-defence culture of the British people most of whom would fall into a faint if they even saw a gun.
The government (be it Labour or Tory) can quite rightly argue that it is simply responding to the public will. The decision to completely outlaw all handguns (following the Dunblane massacre) was overwhelmingly popular.
What might shake things up is a legal challenge to the government by way of the 1998 Human Rights Act, which in Art. 5 informs us that we have “right to…security of person.” If this so, and a person is beaten up, they can sue the government for failing to discharge their (alleged) responsibility to provide for that person’s (and every other person’s) security. This might at least wring from the government the admission that they are simply unable to provide the security they say they are responsible for, which would be a start. After all if “security of person” is a right, and the Govt claims responsibility for said security, and fail in the task…
Steve,
That’s quite a cunning plan actually
‘That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;’
I actually find this a bit wishy-washy but hell, am I not a protestant – I protest enough.
Full text of English Bill of Rights
‘That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;’
I actually find this a bit wishy-washy but hell, am I not a protestant – I protest enough.
Full text of English Bill of Rights
‘That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;’
I actually find this a bit wishy-washy but hell, am I not a protestant – I protest enough.
Full text of English Bill of Rights
To really understand what’s going on in the United States, Britain, Canada, and Australia today with regard to civilian weapons ownership and self defence, we need to see it from the globalist perspective.
Under the fast-approaching, liberty-shattering ‘New World Order’ so beloved by Tony Blair, both of the Bushes, and the US and UK political elite, there will be NO personal weapons of any kind permitted, nor any ‘culture of violence’ [i.e. no potential future resistance].
For a good introduction to the elite’s ultimate goals in this, from a U.S. perspective, see “GUN CONTROL AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER’ at http://www.survivalistskills.com/nwa.htm as well as ‘OPERATION GARDEN PLOT’ at http://www.survivalistskills.com/GDNPLOT.HTM and ‘THE PLANNED US AND CANADIAN CONCENTRATION CAMP AND DETENTION CENTRE PROGRAM’ at http://www.survivalistskills.com/camps.htm.
The rational and normal mind recoils from the idea that a nation’s leaders might be at perpetual war with their own people in pursuit of some higher, global goal. But read “The U.S. Public Warms To The Idea Of Civilian Concentration Camps” at http://www.survivalistskills.com/CONCAMP.HTM [This is a long page, slow to load, but well worth it. Be sure to see the quotes and astonishing photographs at the end of the article!], and reflect on how consistently this occurs, and how easily the general public are pursuaded to applaud and agree with their own loss of rights.
[for a similar perspective on the same process at work in Canada and the UK, see “How Canada Lost Its Liberties And Freedoms – And Few Cared!” at http://www.survivalistskills.com/CANLIB.HTM and “How Britain Legislated Away 2,000 Years Of Rights And Freedoms” at http://www.survivalistskills.com/UKLIB.HTM]
Still unpersuaded? “TRAGEDY AND HOPE”, by Professor Carroll Quigley, is a virtual ‘blueprint’ of the political elite’s game-plan for accomplishing their ‘New World Order’ by guile – and by force, where need be. Read the huge array of quotations from political and other leaders on that page, and ask yourself whether they have not already accomplished much of what they need to achieve in order to turn the world into a giant ‘global plantation’, where they are the unresisted masters.
There’s a substantial archive of other fascinating and invaluable ‘New World Order Intelligence Update’ articles on the New World Order at http://www.survivalistskills.com/sect22.htm and archived also at http://www.rarehistorybooks.com/NWOLINKS.HTM. The ‘NWOIU’ site itself is currently down for substantial re-construction, but these archived articles are well worth reading.
All of us will ultimately be the victims of this global drive to eliminate the means – and even the very thought – of self defence.