CS: Misc-instant incapacitation
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why do my chickens thrash about when I have severed the spine? They thrash their wings for up to a minute, with considerable force, despite the complete severance of the spine. Steve, Good point. Looking about it from the head end, there is a story from the French Revolution where a prominent scientist who had been condemned to death on the guillotine decided to make the most of it in the interests of science. He arranged for his assistant to count the number of time he could blink his eyes when the deed was done. It was 16 IIRC. Regards, John Hurst. -- But I dare say he couldn't pull the trigger on a pistol. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Misc-The Story of The Passenger Pigeon
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hunters put the screws to a bird called the Passenger Pigeon. It went extinct about 1900. I remember reading about it as a youth in disbelief. I thought surely it couldn't have been hunters it must have been habitat loss. Being a hunter I have always felt apologetic for that loss, but only recently while watching a documentary did the size of the genocide hit me. The commentator claimed 13 billion birds were extinguished from the earth. I couldn't believe it. I must have mis-heard him. No army could pull the triggers that many times. It was impossible. Hunters were re-deemed. It must have been some other force that committed that evil. I decided to do some research to discover the truth about the Passenger Pigeon genocide. The following facts are list relevant and, in my opinion, about as interesting as anything gets, but I'll understand if you yawn and hit the delete key, however, you won't learn about "stool pigeons" or the original "trap shooting" or ... Its highly condensed knowledge, I assure you. Their name was derived from the French word meaning pigeons of passage. And pass they did indeed, in staggering numbers sometimes reaching 2 BILLION BIRDS IN A SINGLE FLOCK (beak to tail in a single line that 2 billion birds would have stretched around the world 23 times). That single flock closed over the sky horizon to horizon like "a giant eyelid" eclipsing the light and all the while flying in near perfect unison at 60 mph. Despite their speed they took three days to pass a given point. A virtual poop sleet storm traced their movements over the ground. Close your eyes and imagine the sheer majesty of that sight and sound. God, I wish I could have seen and heard that, I surely do. They were MORE NUMEROUS THAN ALL THE OTHER NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS COMBINED, an estimated FIVE BILLION birds right here in the good old USA, not Africa, not India or China but right here in our own back yards. The MOST ABUNDANT LAND BIRD ON THE PLANET. Let that number sink in a minute. In contrast, there are only about 100 million ducks in the USA right now. There were fifty times that number of pigeons. I am not sure where the 13 billion figure came from. I believe it to be some kind of total figure of birds over a number of years, but I have no data to back that theory up as yet. The 5 billion seems to be the correct value for total peak population. Loss of habitat or natural disasters played only a minor part in their demise. By far the greatest cause of their extinction was slaughter from hunting and netting. EUROPEAN SETTLERS TOOK ONLY ABOUT 50 YEARS TO WIPE OUT THE MOST NUMEROUS SPECIES ON EARTH AND HUNTING PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE. As the species neared extinction the zeal to kill increased (do we have a list psychiatrist to explain that phenomena?); i.e., the last remaining flock of 250,000 birds was killed by shooting in (guess how many days.. ) ONE SINGLE DAY, yes one single day brought them to the brink (only 5,000 survived that day) thanks to the inventions of the telegraph and the railroad. The story of the Passenger Pigeon is the story of THE BIGGEST WILD LAND ANIMAL SLAUGHTER IN HISTORY. Most of the slaughter was from "market hunters", a distinctly different breed than sport hunters. They would stop at nothing to make their meager profits. They would do things like SEW THE EYELIDS SHUT ON THE LIVE DECOY PIGEONS CALLED "STOOL PIGEONS" which were perched on little stools as decoys. The stools were pulled out from under them at the proper moment so they would flutter and attract the wild flock to the nets and to their subsequent deaths. They employed thousands to cut down and burn down a whole forest to force the squabs out of the nests. They would destroy whole nesting sites. The market was glutted with a tremendous quantity of birds from the "market hunters" and subsequent wastes of this exquisite species for pitifully small profits was nothing short of monumental. People reported walking through large wherehouses filled with rotting birds 3 to 4 feet deep. No thought was ever given to conservation by these "market hunters", it was waste to the very end. Although the market hunters were far more damaging to the species, many sport hunters often shot and wasted tremendous numbers of birds for nothing more than fun or bragging rights. These birds were, in fact, the pigeons that made "trap" shooting wildly popular. They, of course, were the targets that were released from the "traps". They were often mutilated first to provide a more "spritely" target. Mechanical "cats" or "agitators" were meant to scare the pigeons to fly. From 1825 to 1880 up to 30 million wild pigeons were netted for contest use. One of the best trap shooters was Captain Adam Bogardus who dispatched 500 pigeons in 528 minutes while reloading his own gun. A s
CS: Legal-Section 5(1)(b)
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now you see _this_ is what Section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968 was intended for. ;) Steve, I take your rhetorical point but the debates on the Firearms Act of 1920 which the '68 Act amends refereed to "deathless gas" being used for robberies. My understanding is that strictly speaking the Act only applies to barrelled weapons discharging toxins. Apparently a Jif lemon container full of ammonia solution was not covered by Section 5. Come to think of it, is CS in an aerosol spray covered? Regards, John Hurst. -- I haven't got my copy of the 68 Act in front of me but I think in Section 57 it defines a firearm as "any lethal barrelled weapon" _or_ any prohibited weapon. Stun guns are banned under Section 5(1)(b) because it says "designed to expel a noxious substance... or any other thing". Electricity apparently being "any other thing". For some reason people are always saying to me: "Oh, I'll just fill a water pistol with ammonia." When the subject of self-defence comes up. If you do that you have "designed or adapted" your water pistol into a "weapon designed to expel a noxious substance" and you have violated Section 5(1)(b). It doesn't have to have a barrel or any characteristics of a firearm to be banned under 5(1)(b), it must merely be designed or adapted to be a weapon designed to expel a noxious substance or any other thing. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Misc-instant incapacitation
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] As we all know, the body does the last thing the brain told it to do e.g. the decapitated Chicken that runs away headless - the last command the body received. Nah, the chicken thrashes because his CNS has been severed, its a reflex action. If you destroy the brain - or the spine - there won't be even a twitch. Neck-shot deer, or cattle hit with a captive bolt killer, go down like a sack of spuds. Jonathan, I think that post mortem muscle spasms do happen. On one occasion I saw a person with a broken neck following an RTA twitch several times despite obvious deformity and lack of a discernible pulse to a passing nurse or myself. The passenger, who was wearing a seat belt and only slightly injured, was convinced that his mate was still alive. A PM confirmed that the spinal cord had been severed. I also recall accounts of judicial hanging using the drop method which described how the corpse twitches. Then there is the "Tyburn Jig", but that is not the same. Regards, John Hurst. -- Here is an excerpt of a an interview with Carlos Hathcock that I found on the web: "Somewhat less well-known is the part Hathcock played in the training of police counter-snipers after his retirement from the service. As I broached this topic, he was careful to draw a distinction between the military and police sniper: "The military sniper is an area shooter - that's what I was. There's 36" between a man's chin and his belt buckle, and a hit anywhere in there will work. However, a police counter-sniper is a precision, surgical shooter. There's just one spot he's got to hit, to neutralize the bad guy right then. Say a bad guy has got a cocked pistol to a hostage's head. The police sniper has to hit the bad guy so exactly that he doesn't shoot, he doesn't fall sideways or backwards, he just falls straight down. That's a good shot, and I have had a few policemen who have made good shots after they left this school." Carlos scrupulously avoided describing his police counter-sniper training in detail, lest he compromise techniques which might be of benefit to criminals, As he said, "I really idolize those guys - the police snipers - and that's why I spent so much time working with policemen." In sharp contrast to military sniping, in which shots ranging out to 800 yards or more may be taken, Hathcock noted that the average police sniping incident occurs at only 83 yards as per recent FBI statistics. Instant incapacitation of dangerous offenders is THE rationale behind the employment of police snipers. As such, his training has focused on shooting at 25, 50, 75 and 100 yards. Hathcock, himself, is no longer is no longer physically able to train students, but he takes pride that several police marksman whom he personally trained teach at the police sniping at school Virginia Beach." If Carlos Hathcock says it can be done, then it can be done! Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Misc-European army and political union were planned by Nazis
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] The London Telegraph European army and political union were planned by Nazis By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000111676745840rtmo=weQ50Mebatmo=9 999 pg=/et/01/2/15/nkew15.html THE idea of a pan-European economic and political union with its own defence force was conceived by SS officers according to documents released today to the Public Record Office in Kew. Maj Gen Ellersiek and Brig Mueller, Hitler's chief of staff during the Battle of the Bulge, came up with the idea as a means of keeping Nazism alive following the expected Allied victory in the Second World War. By March 1946, Ellersiek was in charge of an underground political party called Organisation Suddeutschland. It believed in the establishment of a fully-armed United Europe, Ellersiek told a British intelligence official masquerading as a Foreign Office representative. "What was important was that Britain should realise that if Europe was to survive, we should all think 'as Europeans'," the ex-SS man was quoted as saying. The party's manifesto called for "a pan-Europe as a balance between Russia and the USA". Although the European nations would remain "independent", finance and defence matters would be decided centrally. "The good which was in Nazism still lives in the German heart," Ellersiek said. His party offered "a new revolution for Germany which will set the pattern for Europe". This revolution is to be the work of the new elite, the German prototype of the future rulers of Europe . . . which has emerged purified from Nazism and the trials of war." The British official noted that German generals seemed likely to be in charge. "Germany must lead this New Europe with the cooperation of Britain," he quoted Ellersiek as saying, adding his own view that: "So little else of Britain is mentioned that it is evident she is to be the junior partner." The proposed European force has echoes of the current attempts to form European Rapid Reaction Force, controlled by Gen Rainer Schuwirth of Germany. Gen Sir Charles Guthrie, Britain's Chief of the Defence Staff, has implicitly criticised the Germans for not backing their promised contributions with cash, leaving much of the manpower and equipment to be provided by the UK. -- Er, excuse me, but wasn't this the same paper that reported last year that the EU was in fact an operation of the OSS, to prevent further European conflicts or something like that? It appears the EU was the idea of everyone except the people who actually formed it! Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Misc-Useful Quote
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Saxon is not like the Norman. His manners are not so polite. But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right. When he stands like an ox in the furrow with his sullen set eyes on your own, And grumbles, "This isn't fair dealing", My son, leave the Saxon alone. R. Kipling Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Misc-Useful Quote
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Security is mostly a superstition. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." - Helen Keller Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Misc-Lady Soldiers
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CS: Pol-March 18th 2001 - Mark That Day
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] (a usually reliable source) March 18th 2001 - Mark That Day So are you going on the Countryside March on March 18th? Are you quite certain you are? One of the 150,000 already registered, perhaps? Well it must be all right then. But wait! Not everyone wants the match to go ahead, dear me no. For one thing, those opposed to hunting certainly do not want it to do so. They are losing the argument, you see. Lots of chaps who would be seen dead putting on the pink have realise that you need a better reason to criminalise anything up to three quarters of a million people, including the Prince of Wales, just because you don't like what you wrongly perceive to be the cut glass crystal tones of those attending. The last thing people like that want is an orderly demonstration of decent men and women claiming no other privilege than the right to continue to maintain their lives and traditions in a peaceable way. And there is one particular person who does want the march to go ahead either and that is the Prime Minister. On the evening of the last march, there was a touching scene in a video conference room deep in the heart of Westminster where the Prime Minister ands his then inseparable chum 'Mandy' Mandelson looked at the security videos together. "He can't possibly vote Tory," shouts our Leader, "He's got a ferret in that Barbour." This then for our leader was the horrible moment of truth. Many of those on the March did indeed not vote Tory last time, but they will next. What is worse, the very last thing our hero needs as May 3rd approaches is anything up to 1,000,000 people parading through London and, as it were, into every drawing room in the land, proclaiming by their presence that the Prime Minister is not so much a 'pretty regular guy,' but really rather a scrub. What is to be done? Ah! what indeed and that is why a certain froideur has crept into relations between the PM and Jack Straw this past week. It is being reliably reported, as they say, that the PM has been asking the Home Secretary 'whether the letter has arrived.' "What letter?" says our Jack. "The one from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner asking you to withdraw permission for the march because of the high level of violence and intimidation that the marchers offer, " replies Tony. "But there hasn't been any such letter," says Jack. "Then ask for it, and quickly." retorts the PM. That at least in broad line is what is afoot and even by the standards of this Prime Minister it is a pretty shabby business. There is of course no threat of violence from the March as both the previous rally and march show. Indeed the only threat of violence is of an altogether more domestic sort if Blair does not 'persuade' the Police to advise the government etc. Now how might that be? Well consider. IFAW and PAL bankrolled the Labour Party in opposition for 1.1 million. That was how the pledge to legislate against hunting was extracted from the government. And is there anyone in PAL who might have the ear of Tony? Well what about Cherie Blair's sister who works as a senior executive for PAL. Yes, I think that should do nicely. Yes - Mr. Blairs sister in law ! So there you have it and does it not almost make you weep? Here we have a government, which sells party policy for 1,000,000 to Bernie Ecclestone. We have a former Northern Ireland Secretary who bases his defence on the proposition that suborning a junior minister to procure a passport is an event of so little consequence that he simply cannot remember whether on this occasion he did. We have the Minister for Europe who believes that public office should be milked for private profit like a stall in a souk. And floating on this pool of slurry we have a Prime Minister who believes that only the techniques of dispersal separate the principles governing the removal of protesters from Tianamin Square and Trafalgar Square. I think I'll go back to the pigs. And why not? After all, if the polls are right the country's going back to the dogs. Tomas Tompion Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Pol-Fears over moves to extend powers of military police
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fears over moves to extend powers of military police Special report: policing crime Martin Bright, home affairs correspondent Sunday February 4, 2001 The Observer The Ministry of Defence police force is to be transformed into a rapid response squad ready to intervene in strikes and protests across the country under the new Armed Forces Bill. The sweeping powers of arrest and investigation contained in the Bill have raised concerns about the creation of a national force of paramilitary riot police. The move comes after MoD police were forced to refuse Home Office requests for help during last year's fuel protests. The Chief Constable of the force told Ministers that his officers could not be used to aid fuel convoys or pickets at oil refineries under existing legislation. Defence Minister John Spellar has informed senior MoD police officers that he supports moves to give them similar powers to other police officers. But campaigners are worried that police officers working for the military are not subject to the same controls as local forces. The MoD police force is the tenth largest in the country with 3,700 officers. They are not soldiers, but are employed by the MoD rather than the Home Office and answerable to a special MoD committee rather than the local police authority. The legislation will also extend MoD police powers to allow them to investigate crimes that take place away from the perimeters of military installations. At present police working at military bases are not allowed to intervene in the wider community. The new powers would allow the force to be used as back-up in large demonstrations or protests. They would also be able to intervene on their own initiative to save life or injury. MoD police spokesman Mervyn Dadd said the public should welcome the new powers. He said: 'No one could complain about the intervention at the extremes of an emergency in a life-threatening situation. Surely that can only be of benefit to the community.' Senior officers in the MoD have argued that constraints allowing MoD police to operate only 'in the vicinity' of military bases puts officers travelling between bases in police vehicles in an impossible situation if they are flagged down by the public or witness a serious crime. Former Lieutenant-Colonel Nigel Wylde, who was arrested two years ago by the MoD police on official secrets charges, said he was 'horrified' that their powers were being extended. 'This is a national police force controlled by the MoD that reports to a police committee staffed by employees of the MoD. There is no independent control of this force,' he said. Wylde, who is leading the campaign against the new Bill, was acquitted last November and is now taking the MoD police to the Police Complaints Authority. Members of the House of Commons defence committee have also voiced concerns about the new powers. Conservative MP Robert Key told The Observer : 'There are clear civil liberties issues involved in extending the jurisdiction of the MoD police.' " -- They're also routinely armed with pistols, something this article doesn't mention. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Crime-Yard summit as gun gang crime reaches peak in London.
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Evening Standard London 31/1/01 Yard summit as gun gang crime reaches peak in London new by JUSTIN DAVENPORT THE SCALE of gun violence between feuding black drug gangs in London has reached crisis levels with one shooting reported every other day. Scotland Yard is now calling a summit of community leaders across London in an effort to combat gun crime. This month alone, there have been at least 13 attempted murders and two killings between rival groups and individuals. In one 12-hour period earlier this week, there were five shootings, including one death. Commander Mike Fuller, head of Operation Trident, the specialist squad set up to combat black gun crime, said: "There is no obvious reason for this increase. "The sheer scale has shocked us. I think there would be uproar if the number of shootings that take place in black areas were to occur in certain other parts of London." He said he had called a crisis meeting of all prominent black community leaders in London to discuss possible new ways of tackling the problem. "We are getting a lot of community support and a lot of information but we are looking for any constructive new ideas that we may have missed," he said. In recent weeks officers from his 160-strong squad have seized three sub-machine guns and eight hand-guns in London, compared with four sub-machine guns in the whole of last year. Police are increasingly called to reports of shootings only to find bullet holes in cars or houses, spent cartridges and sometimes even blood. The increase in shooting comes as Brent council launched a poster campaign featuring a young black man shot through the face with a handgun by his side. The pesters, which read "Young, gifted and dead" will appear in north London in an attempt to shock communities into action. The Home Office-funded campaign is In stark contrast to the more "softly softly" Trident police approach to win respect in the black community. Mr Fuller said: "We believe in raising awareness and encouraging young people to pass on information but there are risks in using shock tactics. "We discussed using tactics like this at our lay advisory group but we didn't go for it; The Met are keen not to heighten the fear of crime." Brent was chosen because it has more shootings than any other area of London. A Brent council spokesman said the poster was chosen by focus groups. He said: "Yes, it is horrible for children to see this but it ids a lot more horrible that they could walk out of school and see this for real." Mr Fuller said police 'were particularly concerned at the rise in the' number of "assassination style" weapons in London. "However, London is not flooded with guns. You can't just hire one on any street corner. In fact, it sometimes takes a couple of days, even if you know the right person to approach." Supt Stuart Low of Brent Police said: "The poster is very graphic and it is a source of concern to us. We do not want to create alarm but the sad reality is that this sort of violence has been with us for some while. Our biggest problem is trying to unlock community intelligence. We have to find new ways of getting the community on board." Keith Johnson, whose brother Richard Parkinson was shot dead while working as a security guard at a black music venue in April 1999, said: "The poster is worth a try. It might get the message across but whether it will get the information across is another matter." Two black men have died in shootings so far this year. Carlton Speid, 67, was found with gunshot wounds in a house fire in Brixton earlier this month. A man has been charged with his murder. Andrew Williams, 30, of Clapham, was shot outside Chicago's nightclub in Peckham at the weekend. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Crime-More stupidity in England
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] What utter cobblers. My wife, a school teacher, comes home most nights to recount this sort of "I know what I can get away with, and what you've got to do" behaviour by pre-teenage urchins who deserve nothing more than a clip round the ear by their parents from time to time. Enough. Is it any wonder we're no longer a world power? Pete, I am afraid that I have little sympathy for the leaders of teachers Unions who have agitated for corporal punishment to be abolished and now complain that they can no longer control their charges. The National Curriculum has not helped either. The right to use force to discipline children is part of the common law. So is the traditional clip round the ear by a PC. It was regarded as a means of case disposal for minor matters which were not suitable to take to Court. This was confirmed in the Metropolitan Police Guide (Manual) for 1939 and as far as I can make out has not been infringed. Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Legal-hunting ban
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telegrpah ISSUE 2063Wednesday 17 January 2001 Hunting Bill 'risks constitutional clash' By Charles Clover, Environment Editor THE Government's attempt to push the Hunting Bill into law using the Parliament Act could lead to a confrontation between Parliament and the courts, says a former Master of the Rolls. Lord Donaldson of Lymington said yesterday that he and other senior legal experts believe that supporters of hunting would have grounds to fight the Government in the courts if it tried to use the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 to force a Bill into law against the will of the House of Lords. The Commons will vote today on the Bill in which MPs are expected overwhelmingly to back an option banning the sport, a decision expected to be reversed in the Lords. If the Government invoked the Parliament Acts, Lord Donaldson believes the decision would be open to challenge because legal authorities agree that the 1949 Act was never properly enacted, being only passed by the House of Commons. "I and my judicial colleagues have avoided this sort of situation for years. I don't want a collision between the courts and Parliament on this. But it is absolutely certain if the Hunting Bill went through on this principle (through use of the Parliament Act) that someone would object and go to the courts to challenge it." The 1949 Act was flawed as were all Acts forced into law because of it in recent years. He said: "This includes the War Crimes Act, the European Elections Act, the Sexual Offences Amendment Act and if the Government tries it, in due course the Hunting Bill." The Government most recently used the Parliament Act to lower the gay age of consent to 16, despite tough opposition from the Lords, led by the Conservative, Baroness Young. On Friday, Lord Donaldson will ask peers to back a Private Member's Bill, regularising the Parliament Acts in constitutional law, but curbing the power of the Commons to unilaterally alter the constitution and powers of the Lords. Professor Graham Zellick, vice chancellor of London university, a constitutional expert cited by Lord Donaldson in the notes to his Bill, agreed yesterday that there was a point of constitutional law to be cleared up on the powers of the Commons to override the Lords, arising from the 1949 Act. But he cast doubt on whether judges would opt to adhere to this point of law in practice, thus creating havoc for the Acts which had been passed using the Parliament Act since 1991 and causing a constitutional crisis. He said: "I think there are strong academic arguments for questioning the validity of the 1949 Act and therefore of legislation passed under it; arguments that would be thought cogent to a constitutional lawyer. But I do not think that those arguments are likely to be accepted in practice by the English courts. "It brings into question a number of Acts of Parliament. It would create havoc in the case in which it is challenged and it depends on nice constitutional theories which English judges on the whole don't care for." Lord Donaldson believes he might have considerable support for his Bill, but said that his attempts to discover the Government's view had failed. Lord Strathclyde, the Conservative leader in the Lords, said: "I shall be speaking on Friday and broadly supporting what Lord Donaldson is saying about making sure the Parliament Acts can't be used to bulldoze Bills through without proper debate." Lord Donaldson's Bill has little chance of becoming law. The Countryside Alliance said that a ban on hunting would be likely to lead to extra costs for the police to carry out surveillance of rural counties. The Association of Chief Police Officers said: "There are problems associated with whichever option is followed, should it become law. We will have to discuss with ministers and local authorities ways of making it work." Anti-hunting campaigners have sent MPs a letter from film, music, fashion and television celebrities including Chrissie Hynde, Ken Loach, Alexei Sayle, Jenny Seagrove and Gaby Roslin. 1 December 2000: Gay age of consent dropped to 16 after two-year battle 20 November 1998: What happens when the Lords and the Commons disagree Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Pol-Who do you think you are kidding, Little Hitler?
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Sun TUESDAY, 23 JANUARY, 2001 Who do you think you are kidding, Little Hitler? Get a life ... hunt protesters should mind their own business THERE'S a brilliant wartime propaganda film called Went The Day Well, based on a Graham Greene short story, which turns up on television about once a year. Channel 4 trotted it out again last week. It is set in an English village playing host to a British army platoon. Gradually the villagers notice that the troops are not all they seem. They look British, they sound British but something isn't quite right about them. Eventually the soldiers are revealed to be German infiltrators, aided and abetted by a local fifth columnist. The movie was designed to encourage vigilance on the home front. At the time it was considered shocking, especially the idea that any British citizen would collaborate with a hostile foreign power. For years, we British have reflected on what happened in mainland Europe during World War Two and consoled ourselves that It Could Never Happen Here. Don't you believe it. Increasingly, I have begun to feel like one of the villagers in Went The Day Well. All around there are people who look like us and sound like us. But the more you think about them they're not like us at all. There's everyday Britain, in which most of us are quite happy to rub along, pay the mortgage, raise a family, go to the pub, get on with the neighbours and generally mind our own business. And then there's official Britain, populated by politicians and prodnoses. They worship rules, regulations, control and prohibition. Exercising their authority is an end in itself. They love nothing more than creating new crimes and dishing out exciting punishments. They behave like an army of occupation. They live to make other people's lives miserable and they have turned our traditional concept of freedom, truth and justice upside down. They are humourless, self-important and utterly convinced of their own righteousness. Their idea of freedom is what they are prepared to tolerate. For centuries, country folk have been hunting foxes with dogs. It is not something which impinges on the way of life of the vast majority of people. It is not necessary for us to approve or disapprove. It is none of our damn business. There are plenty of things which people would find cruel and distasteful if they bothered to give them a moment's thought. For instance, many would consider the ritual slaughter of halal meat to be barbaric. But no one is suggesting that it should be banned. It is the mark of a civilised society that we tolerate minority pursuits which don't interfere with anyone else. Yet outlawing foxhunting has been elevated to the pinnacle of the political agenda. The Government intends to make criminals of hundreds of thousands of decent, taxpaying, law-abiding people in order to appease a bunch of sentimental, metropolitan lunatics who will never come across a foxhunt in their sad, empty lives. Every day we read of petty prosecutions of drivers for eating biscuits or leaving the engine running while they kiss their wives goodbye. The coppers responsible look like normal policemen, sound like normal policemen but are quite clearly from another planet. No doubt the Sunderland council officials who thought it would be a good idea to drag a greengrocer before a court for having the temerity to ignore an instruction to stop selling his bananas in pounds and ounces are also superficially human. But they are not like us. [] Fruitcakes' victim ... grocer Steve Thoburn's plight is typical The idea of an undercover sting operation in a greengrocer's is beyond parody. As far as most of us are concerned, this man can sell his fruit and veg in fahrenheit, if that's what he and his customers prefer. Why turn him into a martyr? This prosecution is not about weights and measures any more than nicking a driver for eating a Kit-Kat is about road safety. This is all about power and control, reminding us who's in charge, keeping the plebs in their place. In isolation, you may think none of this really matters. But there's a broader picture here. For me, it is summed up by a character in my friend Mitchell Symons' splendid first novel, All In, about an inveterate gambler. One of the characters in the book has a pathological hatred of speed cameras, which I share. It's not so much the cameras themselves but the way in which they're painted grey and hidden behind bushes and walls. The character remarks that it's all so "un-British". And that's exactly how I feel about the anti-hunt fanatics, the officious traffic cops, the spiteful jobsworths pursuing a petty prosecution against a harmless shopkeeper. They're all so un-British. Which is why I think we can still learn from Went The Day Well. Who says it could never happen here? There are thousands of potential quislings and w
CS: Misc-Useful Quote
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] This quote is from the 1953 presentation to George C. Marshall and includes this Marshall quote by a member of the Committee, "'There has long been an effort to outlaw war for exactly the same reason that man has outlawed murder. But the law prohibiting murder does not of itself prevent murder. It must be enforced. The enforcing power, however, must be maintained on a strictly democratic basis. There must not be a large standing army subject to the behest of a group of schemers. The citizen-soldier is the guarantee against such a misuse of power.'" http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1953/press.html Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Pol-Finally, A registration scheme that makes sense
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Finally, A registration scheme that makes sense SENSIBLE GUN REGISTRATION VERMONT Source: America 1st Freedom magazine Published: Jan 2001 Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well as Vermont's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere. Maslack recently proposed a bill to register non-gunowners and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermont's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise". Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says. Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state - it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less. Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose. http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
CS: Pol-No 10 rebukes Hoey in gun row
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] No 10 rebukes Hoey in gun row The Guardian. Sarah Hall political correspondent Thursday January 4, 2001 Downing Street last night slapped down the outspoken sports minister Kate Hoey after she attacked the ban on handguns introduced after the Dunblane massacre. A spokeswoman stressed Ms Hoey's views, which drew immediate condemnation from anti-gun campaigners, were not shared by the prime minister and were a clear breach of laws banning all handguns introduced in 1997. The careful distancing from the junior minister's views came after the maverick MP for Vauxhall told a shooting magazine fellow Labour MPs had taken a "very unfair attitude" towards legitimate shooting. She claimed the ban had done nothing to prevent criminals getting their hands on weapons and suggested young children should be encouraged to learn shooting. The minister appeared particularly provocative since her comments came barely a week after she contradicted the government line by calling for a return to terracing at Premiership football grounds, which have been all-seater since the Taylor Report into the Hillsborough tragedy. Ms Hoey, an Arsenal fan who learned to shoot as a farmer's daughter in County Antrim, has been no stranger to controversy. She has consistently defended foxhunting, winning plaudits from the Countryside Alliance. -- We all know how keen Tony Blair is to be seen to be "popular" - get those nominations for Kate Hoey in! Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Useful Quote
From: "John Hurst.", [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Hey, I realise it is all semantics, but I can make a pretty good argument that all rights, especially human rights, ARE _property_ rights. My rights start with the absolute and unequivocal ownership of my own body. I am my own property, I belong to no one but myself. You have no right to my property (me) without my explicit consent and participation. What kind of right does that not cover? Self defence is protection of my property (me). Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness all have to do with someone else _not_ controlling my property (me) but ME controlling same. This philosophy, Propertarianism, is closely related to Libertarianism". Carl H. Stone. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Misleading Police Federation Website.
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] For the Police Federation to now claim that they were the first to demand the banning of handguns is a gross falsehood. Perhaps the police officers on our list would like to contact the Federation and ask why it is reduced to telling lies ? Stuart, It is not easy for serving officers to make complaints and make them stick. In fact there is no facility for them to do so. All they can do is raise the matter with senior officers. This was confirmed in the case of the woman Inspector who was persecuted by her Chief Constable a few years ago. After pressure from outside that force there was a Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary investigation, IIRC, which vindicated her grievances and recommended that some procedure be instigated to allow junior officers to raise complaints. But it has not been implemented to my knowledge. This is the legacy of the Police Act 1919 and contrary to natural justice. There is an "anti- bullying policy" in the Met. And there is one like it in Feltham Young Offenders Institution on a big sign just inside the entrance. And look at what goes on in Feltham, allegedly. Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Police Federation
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've always thought this poll is completely meaningless because it is a poll of a sample of all police officers. If they did a poll purely of patrol officers who patrol high-crime urban areas I suspect the results would be very different. Steve, The poll was suspect as you say because apparently many voting papers were not delivered on time. They were the papers destined for high crime areas surprisingly enough. BTW the reason why British police are not routinely armed is because of the Bill of Rights prohibition on standing armies in peacetime. Parliament in 1829, when the first Metropolitan Police Act was debated, were quite clear on that. The current Federation hierarchy conveniently forget that and fail to acknowlege that police are citizens with no special priveliges relating to defensive weaponry. According to Superintedent Waldrons "Londons Armed Police" there were occasions in the early years where constables were disciplined for exercising their RKBA with firearms. Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Useful Quote
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CS: Legal-Mercy for boy who cut bullies
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes but as you say the statute law has been differently interpreted in recent years. With reference cases by way of 'stated cases' taking preference over the Bill of Rights, etc. Unless there can be a well documented case where it is demonstrated that the right to carry 'arms' is only modified by the Prevention of Crime Act and not removed by it then what we have is as the Prevention of Crime Act states it - lawful authority or legal excuse. Jerry, As far as Mike Burke and I have bee able to determine, the Bill of Rights has not been raised by a person charged with an offence under the "Prevention of Crimes" Act. A point of law which has not been argued is not decided and the presumption should be in favour of the liberty of the subject to carry on doing something which he has always done before. Note that reasonable restrictions on the exercise of common law rights are allowed, as Blackstone acknowledged; "And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints - restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear upon further enquiry, that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened". We don't want IG putting up a straw man argument do we. In any case statute law is superior to case law and it's interpretation is the issue here. And this is were an error has been made. The proof of this is the following extract from Hansard. Lord Soulton quoting from Lord Halsbury's Laws of England on a private person's common law power of arrest said; "I have always held that the preservation of the Queen's peace was the duty of everyone of her subjects, and the police were only citizens with special responsibilities"... "In fact, the idea that a person could not defend himself was, in Lord Halsbury's time, unthinkable. This was not the first time that it had been sought to make the police into a privileged class, but the attempt had always been rejected, and I hope that it will be rejected again"... "If the citizen was not allowed to defend himself, the Government would have to accept responsibility for his defence, at least in public places." "The Government will have the sole responsibility. Are they prepared to accept a benefit from their failure to discharge the duty they have undertaken? If no-one is allowed to carry any sort of weapon to defend himself or herself against the strong and armed, and defence becomes a peculiar function of the policeman, will the relatives of the killed or injured have a right to compensation if the Government fail in the discharging of the duty they are undertaking? If I am wrong, then it must be that the theory is that the Government are the shepherds of Her Majesty's subjects, with the right to shear, kill or let die as best please themselves." The Lord Chancellor said "this was not a Bill tipped against the poor person. It was designed to protect all people alike and it would give a wrong balance to suggest that it favoured one section of the community". Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Mercy for boy who cut bullies
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Allow me this: My perception from the past discussions is that IG understands that the current law is indeed in violation of the top law, but because he has sworn an oath to uphold 'the' law, that he is not at liberty to either ignore or condemn 'the' law. E.J. I take your point in general but I disagree in this specific case for the following reasons. The Constables Oath of Office includes " I will to the best of my skill and knowledge prevent all offences against the persons and property of Her Majesties subjects...". This is based on the Magna Carta requirement for "true men who know the law and mean to keep it" and acknowledges that policemen are civilians. Soldiers can be ordered to do things which result in their death but police are like boy scouts, they only do their best. The second principle a good reason not to rely exclusively on the police to protect you and the first requires individual Policemen to take steps to ascertain what the law is. In relation to British firearms legislation, none that I am aware of infringes the common law RBA. There is a Home Office "policy" which does but policy is not law. If IG is still with us and has any concerns about this please let us know. Until recently I was unsure about these things myself, but not now. And I have a duty to put him right g. The power of the Internet is that forums such as this are "expert systems" which pool knowledge and allow it to be shared. Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-the judicial branch
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] It really is most difficult to see any connection between this type of argument and the real world. Are you really saying that the will of the people today cannot overturn an agreement made three hundred years ago by two groups of aritocrats who were by no means representitive on any form of democracy in the way we now understand it? Keith, The following article on Judicial activism my be prophetic for the UK. Regards, John Hurst. === Getting Inside the Cult. by Ryan McMaken It finally seems that the American judicial system may have finally gotten too smart for its own good. Prior to the November ruling by the Florida Supreme Court, some legal experts were predicting that the Florida high court would be unwilling to overturn the Secretary of State's certification of the Bush win. Presumably, they argued, the Florida Supreme court would be unwilling to sacrifice its prestige by engaging in such a blatantly partisan action. The predictions were wrong, and the Florida Supremes did their best to hand Gore the election. When the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme court, there were again predictions that the U.S. Supremes would not want to jump into the fray of the partisan fight. Well, the justices couldn't help themselves and they too jumped into the business. After the U.S. Supremes reversed the Florida decision, the Florida high court made another attempt to hand Gore the election, and the U.S. Supreme court slapped them down again. In both of the latter two decisions, both the U.S. Supreme court and the Florida Supreme Court have given split decisions, and the U.S. justices have even taken to publicly criticizing each other before a decision on the case is even made. All the judicial mythology of unanimity and political independence of the courts is beginning to look pretty foolish. Ever since the ink was barely dry on the Constitution, the American courts have been trying to establish and solidify their independence while attempting to convince all that they are a breed apart from ordinary people who let themselves be swayed by vulgar politics. Evidently, they have been pretty successful at their task. The vast majority of Americans hold the judicial system in high esteem while elected legislative bodies are held to be some of the most untrustworthy groups in America. Few dare criticize the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Supreme Court decisions are often invoked as the final word on various political matters. This is due largely to Chief Justice John Marshall's assertion in 1803 that the Supreme Court has the right of judicial review in federal law. No such thing was written into the Constitution, but Marshall managed to turn it into a massive power grab for the judicial system. Marshall wanted to turn the court into a body of sages aloof from common politics. Detached from local interests and party matters, the judiciary was supposed to act in the best interest of preserving the law and the Constitution. Free from the influence of politics, the court would be able to hand down decisions based strictly on the merits and the intent of the law. Or so they claim. Although it has been able to promote its own power fairly well, the Supreme Court has not always been successful in enforcing its fiats. When Marshall declared that President Andrew Jackson's Indian policy was unconstitutional, Jackson ignored the decision and said, "Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." When Chief Justice Roger Taney criticized Lincoln's habit of suspending habeas corpus, Lincoln just ignored him. The courts know that their power rests exclusively on their prestige. They do not represent local or state interests and they do not command any troops or any army of bureaucrats. They are powerless in executing any of their laws. To counter this, they work very hard on puffing up their reputations as unanimous, impartial, and independent bastions as the rule of law in the hope that someone will actually listen to them. As a result, a cult of judicial supremacy has grown up within the legal profession. The judges and lawyers within the cult do their best to always make each other look good and to generally avoid controversy. They have odd habits like no other branch of government. They wear strange puffy black robes, and everyone has to stand up every time they enter the room. No one feels the need to stand up when the congressman from California's 27th district enters the room, yet when Podunk County judge Joe Schmoe enters the courtroom, everyone's suddenly on their feet. Unlike elected politicians who openly criticize each other and engage in open debate, the modern Supreme Court and the state equivalents are huddled in a back room poring over some legal texts trying to figure out how they can best subvert the law without losing any of their precious prestige and
CS: Pol-Gun Rights: Power to the People
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sierratimes.com/dantre.htm Gun Rights: Power to the People by Jeff Dantre' Posted 11.30.00 Why don't the politicians want us to own weapons? What are the politicians afraid of? That we're all going to kill each other? I don't think so. The politicians are afraid of an armed populace. And they're supposed to be. The tension created by an armed populace is a method of keeping the politicians honest. Some people theorize that in an age of nuclear weapons and technological warfare, an armed citizenry poses no threat to the force of the military. This is an erroneous conclusion. The purpose of any military takeover would be to takeover what makes America America. The infrastructure and at least some of the people must survive. And the military, with as much high tech weaponry as it has, could not win a street fight with millions of armed Americans. That's pretty powerful stuff. The sick proponents of gun control want each of us to turn our lives over to an all-knowing government that will protect us and provide for all of our needs. But what is the cost of relinquishing the control of our lives over to that government. We have to bow to its demands. We have to allow whatever demoralizing and social mandates it offers. We will have succumbed to that disgusting intellectual elite that wants to rule us all. These are the people of the world that know what's best for us. These are the Feinsteins, the Clintons, the Boxers and the Kofi Annans. These are the Rockefellers and the Ted Turners. These are the smug professors at the elite schools. These are the feminists, the technologists and the sociologists. Each of these groups thinks they know more about what we want in life that we do ourselves. THEY know what's best for. Are we really sheep? If you are a woman or a minority I find it impossible to fathom how you could be for gun control. The only thing that equalizes a fight between a man and a woman is a firearm. You can learn all of the defensive techniques you want but if an assailant has their own gun, you lose. Even if the assailant does not have a gun, most women can't successfully fight a 200-pound man in reasonably good shape. You put your life in the hands of chance, the chance that someone will hear you screaming (if you can) or that a police officer just happens to be passing by. Face the facts: Police cannot protect everyone. If they could arrive at the scene of each crime in 30 seconds, maybe they could. And courts have determined many times that police are not liable in cases where they have unable to provide protection to citizens. Suppose you are an older black woman or black man living in a bad part of town. How can you protect yourself against an attack? The only (somewhat) sure way is to brandish a gun. Otherwise, you're at the mercy of a sick person that has no mercy. The thought that you, the minority or the woman, would give up your right to protect yourself is one of the most disconcerting things I have ever conceived. Recently I was reporting on a story in a particularly bad part of town. Many of you have probably seen places like this, at least on TV- burned out cars, closed stores, trash everywhere, and bars on the windows. A woman had been strangled in her apartment. I arrived on a sunny day with police cars and the media everywhere to be seen. I watched the residents of the federal project watching the police. Many stood near their doors with their kids. I thought to myself - what if you could arm these people, at least the law abiding ones? What would happen the next time someone is attacked and a whole community responds brandishing guns? Would the hoods and thugs look for a "safer" place to hit? That is power! This country was founded on violence. I would never wish the conflict of any of our wars on this country but it is important that each and every law-abiding citizen owns a weapon and is trained in its use. It is important that each of you teach your children a rudimentary knowledge of firearms. For those of you who don't own weapons, ask a gun owning friend to teach you. Give yourself a chance to get used to the idea of a firearm. Like anything empowering in our lives, the power of a weapon and the responsibility of owning one are something to get used to. But a gun is something to be respected but not something to be afraid of (unless you're on the wrong side of one). Lets remember that most of our forefathers owned guns, many for hunting. Guns were a part of most rural families. I remember going to my grandmother's house for Thanksgiving each years. My uncle had a case of guns in the den area where we all congregated. The case was never locked. But believe me, I would never have touched it and none of us youngins ever did. The closest many Americans have come to a firearm is on a passing police officer. For most people, guns are only a part of the violence they see on television each day. If
CS: Misc-Subject: How to make black powder
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: How to make black powder This is for historical purposes only. I am NOT advising you to manufacture black powder nor do I take any responsibility for any damage that might occur to you, others, various property, sheep, goats, federal buildings, etc... if you should undertake the ill advised attempt to make some.
CS: Misc-Useful Quote for Police Officers and Other Civilians
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CS: Pol-The European Police Force - A New Threat To Britons
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] The European Police Force - A New Threat To Britons Lindsay Jenkins A few years ago the idea of an EU police force would have been laughable. And even more laughable would have been the suggestion that the British police would take their orders from Brussels. So here is a salutary tale of how pressure is slowly and remorselessly building for an EU police force which would mean the end of the British police forces, as we know them and of many of our freedoms. Next year - 2000 - all the EU governments will meet for another intergovernmental conference in preparation for the next EU treaty. The issues, which will dominate the headlines throughout the year, will be 'police and judicial control' - that is everything which in the UK comes under the aegis of the Home Office. The creation of one criminal and civil code, one judiciary, and one immigration system will take a big step forward. The proposed European constitution includes 'The Union (EU) shall.endeavour to protect citizens against all forms of crime...' and for that it needs a police force. These extremely radical - and many would say terrifying - proposals are being introduced in stages. Jean Monnet, the so-called father of the EU, used to say 'take the line of least resistance - that will ultimately win the day'. So stage one is co-operation and then the moves begin for more and more centralisation, always going for that line of least resistance. It all began in 1984 at the Fontainebleu Summit. While Mrs Thatcher was fighting 'for our money back' other Member States were planning to end border controls as 'a pathfinder to an EU-wide frontier free zone' or in common parlance one country. Because the UK refused to get rid of its frontier controls Germany, France, and Benelux signed the Schengen Treaty - Schengen is a village in Luxembourg. An EU without the old national borders has led inexorably to demands for one 'judicial space' and a 'European area of justice': that includes one police force. As Jurgen Storbeck, the German head of Europol, recently explained to the British Police Foundation, organised crime crossing the old national borders is having a field day. After much negotiation, and the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, the European Drugs Unit started work in 1994 'to support member States .in the fight against drugs and associated money laundering', a purely co-operative venture. The Drugs Agency turned into Europol on 1st October 1998. Europol now has a legal framework and under the Europol Convention which came into force on 1st July 1999 Europol will shortly be able to deal with other forms of serious crime. Then came the Amsterdam treaty and the project took a great leap forward. Title VI says: the member states are to 'develop common action...in the fields of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters and by preventing racism and xenophobia. What does this mean? We do not know. Under Amsterdam new areas have been added: illegal immigration, trafficking in human beings; child pornography; stolen vehicles; terrorism, and counterfeiting currency. Co-operation is no longer good enough - the treaty says 'closer co-operation'. The British police and Customs and Excise have been enthusiastic users of Europol, which they view as a form of Interpol. Indeed the countries, which make most use of it, are the UK and Germany. There are 142,000 police officers in this country and probably no more than half a dozen have any idea of the threat from Europol. At Europol's HQ in The Hague, which in the Second World War was the Nazi headquarters, there are 130 staff and 45 liaison officers (3 British) and by 2003 there will be over 350 staff. Europol already has its worrying side. No Europol officer can be prosecuted or in the words of the 1997 British Statutory Instrument: 'shall enjoy immunity from suit and legal process in respect of acts done by them in the exercise of their official functions'. Today that is of little concern - Europol does not have executive powers - but what of tomorrow? Europol has already edged beyond the co-operation stage, or the Interpol look alike which has fooled the British police so far. Europol's state of the artanalysis system is only accessible to Europol analysts. Within the next two years Europol will set up a database of 'criminal activity' which will include ethnic origins, sexuality, and political and religious views. Europol can assist in training police officers from member states, advise on their organisation, equipment and methods including technical and forensic. The first step was the European Police College at Leusden in the Netherlands funded by the EU and now four years old - purely co-operative of course. Within three years the next EU treaty plus changes by the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, may mean that Europol will be under the control of an EU Commissioner; a European Public Prosecutor may supervise all Europol inve
CS: Legal-Bill of Rights
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Page 75 quotes the case of Bowles v. Bank of England confirms that the Bill of Rights remains an operative statute BTW. Page 10 contains the following passage; ... cannot the 1920's set of restraints be challenged as well on the grounds that the inferred threat is no longer present? It seems to me that if the purpose of the 20's enactment's were valid for that period, and since that threat is no longer valid... ET, The sinister fact about the current political and legal regime in the UK is that the law does not apply to them. That is because the legal establishment is appointed by the political establishment. The separation of powers has broken down. This is not new, it seems to be an inherent tendency of establishments that morality comes to mean the protection of that establishment. A speech in the mid 1700's by Lord Chatam criticising breaches of the Bill of Rights by purported Crown prerogative to suspend the law could have been written today, and the remedy, I would argue, is the same; "...This also I will be bold to say from the history of England, that our liberties owe most to great noblemen who were not lawyers. Sure I am, lawyers have often appeared amongst us, to be the worst guardians of the constitution, and too frequently the wickedest enemies to, and most treacherous betrayers of the liberties of their country. Of this truth, the preamble of the Bill of Rights, which the learned lord. has himself appealed to in the debate, as his chief; though I think, much mistaken and much misrepresented authority, will be a perpetual monument, in these words: 'Whereas king James 2, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges, and ministers, employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom.' Certain it is, that no arbitrary prince, when meditating the subversion of the constitution, ever was at a loss for lawyers and judges to second his de signs in spite of their learning, and in spite of the religion of the Oaths to support and maintain the constitution. And so ship money and the dispensing power have, in former times, had the vile countenance, and, if it could be so called, the authority of the bench, and of the sages of the fathers of the law (as Charles 1 named his ship-money judges) while a Hampden, and such like patriots, who were the greatest honour, and the greatest blessing of England in their day, stood forth the saviours of their country, by resisting the Usurpation's of the crown, supported by the perfidy of corrupt judges". The Internet means we are all potential Hampdens now. Regarding the quote from the Research paper above, following the Dunblane incident petitions based on the Bill of Rights circulated via the Internet by concerned shooters were sent to as many MPs as possible. The intention was to register their concern about possible infringement of the Bill of Rights and to warn them that they could be held to account through the Courts for their actions if they did not comply with the law. It is believed that this correspondence is the reason why the library of the House of Commons felt obliged to issue the following document titled "Gun Control and the Bill of Rights" for the information of members, and the final chapter of the Research Paper; "The library has received a large number of enquiries, which appear to be the result of campaigns among shooters opposing the new provisions on firearms control. Because of the initial influx of such enquiries, I prepared a section on the alleged constitutional implications of the then Bill as part of our research paper which we published for its second reading debate. There are a numbers of variants of the message sent to members which contain a reference to the Members oath of allegiance. I assume that the argument put forward by shooters is along the following lines; (1) The Bill of Rights 1689 requires all officers and ministers to serve the Monarch according to its provisions. (2) The Bill of Rights 1689 protects citizen's rights to bear arms and not to have their property confiscated. (3) Therefore Members who support this sessions legislation may be in breach of their oath of allegiance. The 1997 Act does not appear to refer at all to the 1689 Statute, and any claims that the earlier statute has been impliedly amended or, indeed, that Parliament has no power to make such amendments, would have to be matters for the Courts if put before them. It is perhaps of interest that, notwithstanding the apparently widespread lobbying on Bill of Rights grounds, virtually no mention of this argument was made during the Bill's passage through Parliament" (Document Ref. 4321 97/3/14HA BKW/aor. 4th March 1997) Note the last paragraph. The Bill of Rights was not mentioned. I would argue that this was because they were afraid to reveal to the g
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Doesnt alter my own opinion that there are some people who should not be allowed near to any form of weapon, even though they have not been convicted of any offence. IG, Quite so. The Firearms Act of 1920 and subsequent amending legislation have this in mind. Criminals, "weak minded" persons and juveniles are excluded from lawful certification. Going back further, Article 7 of the Bill of Rights acknowledges these restrictions also. That leaves the majority who are entitled to possess arms for their defence, and for sporting purposes. During the passage of the Firearms (Ammendment) Act in 1997 the House of Commons Library produced a briefing document, Research Paper 96/102 dated 8th November 1996 Page 75 quotes the case of Bowles v. Bank of England confirms that the Bill of Rights remains an operative statute BTW. Page 10 contains the following passage; "The underlying purpose of firearms legislation in the UK is to control the supply and possession of all rifles, guns and pistols which could be used for criminal or subversive purposes while recognising that individuals may own and use firearms for legitimate purposes...". It is a good read, would you like a copy. Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-pre-1920
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think it is erroneous to argue that no controls existed prior to 1920, because people ignore the Defence of the Realm regulations in force during the Great War. The prospect of those controls being lifted is what led to the Firearms Act 1920. Steve, It could be argued that the Firearms Act 1920 was merely an ammendment to the Unlawfull Drilling Act 1819. The principle effect of the 1920 Act was to transfer responsibility for the authorisation of "training and drilling" with arms to a Secretary of State instead of local justices. The subjects right to arms and the provisions of the Bill of Rights were raised in the debates in Parliament in 1819 and were accepted by the sponsors of that Bill. They therefore continue in force. That is why members of rifle clubs continue to exercise their RKBA to the present day. IIRC Home Office club approval certificates confirm this. Has anyone got one to hand? Re DORA, the judgement in the case of Chester v. Bateson in 1920 showed that provisions of the 1915 Act which contravened the Bill of Rights were invalid. This case concered the requisitioning of a house for defence industry workers but the principle is confirmed and is still quoted in the textbooks (with other examples). And Commander Kendricks shrewd questioning of the Home Secretary in the debates in 1920 confirm that the 1920 Act recognised the RKBA too. Regards, John Hurst. -- Cmdr Kenworthy, no relation! One other thing I think is worth pointing out is that back in the days when we had a gun trade the Proof Acts were enforced with much more gusto than they are today, one of the Guardians of the Birmingham Proof House related to me various antique court cases where people were really hammered for violating the proving requirements. One thing they used to use it for was to stop transhipments of arms through the UK. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-secure storage
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It should be noted a person who remains on his own property may with impunity go around positively festooned with weapons. If he has a firearm he would need the appropriate certificate. His house may be a veritable arsenal. He will be committing no offence under this Bill". Hansard, 14 April 1953. The security conditions on FAC's also take this into account. Do they? Steve, The secure storage conditions are relaxed when a weapon is in use for "a neccessesary purpose"...The word "neccesity" is an alternative form for "duress". And duress, as Blackstones confirms, is the justification for the use of force in self defence. In other words a certificated weapon can be removed from secure storage and used for self defence, as IG has pointed out. This is Blackstones definition of "duress"; " But the life and limbs of a man are of such high value, in the estimation of the law of England, that it pardons even homicide if committed se defendo, or in order to preserve them. For whatever is done by a man, to save either life or a member, is looked upon as done upon the highest necessity and compulsion. Therefore if a man through fear of death or mayhem (injury) is prevailed upon to execute a deed, or do any other legal act: these, though accompanied with all the other requisite solemnities, may be afterwards avoided, if forced upon him by a well-grounded apprehension of loosing his life, or even his limbs, in case of his non-compliance. And the same is also a sufficient excuse for the commission of many misdemeanours. The constraint a man is under in these circumstances is called in law duress. A fear of battery, or being beaten, though never so well grounded, is no duress: neither is the fear of having ones house burned, or ones goods taken away and destroyed: because these cases, should the threat be performed, a man may have satisfaction by recovering sufficient damages; but no suitable atonement can be made for loss of life, or limb...". A Metropolitan Police "General order" of 1977, ( available from the House of Commons library, not the current one which is apparently confidential), recognises the concept of duress and confirms that the police have no special privileges in respect of the use of firearms; " Every police officer to whom a weapon is issued must be strictly warned that it to be used only in cases of absolute necessity, e.g. If he, or the person he is protecting, is attacked by a person with a firearm or other deadly weapon and he cannot otherwise reasonably protect himself or give protection, when he (as well as a private person) may resort to a firearm as a means of defence". Police licensing departments should acknowledge the subjects common law right to claim the benefit of duress or necessity and not revoke certificates arbitrarily when weapons have been used for self defence. In the case of Section 1 weapons held for "target practice" the only FAC condition which would be broken is the one about "use on authorised ranges only" after all. Policemen who do not acknowledge this right will soon find themselves in difficulties when they have to use force themselves, or exceed the speed limit like the Home Secretaries driver g. PS. I met a retired policeman the other day who told me what his instructions were if confronted by an armed criminal. They were to call at nearby houses to find a gun to borrow. The current regime in ACPO would not approve I'm sure. Regards, John Hurst. -- Well the McKay report made it perfectly clear Section 1 firearms could be used for self-defence if that is what it said on the FAC. I just think the whole concept of it is ridiculous, given that we have to keep them locked up and the ammo seperately. Even then, most homes have fairly small rooms, I couldn't see myself poking around with a four foot long shotgun! I think I'll stick with my bayonet. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you lawfully hold a firearm for, say, shooting deer, there is absolutely nothing wrong in using it for self defence in the home PROVIDED that: It is the minimum force required in the circumstances. It is proportional to the perception of the threat at the time. The full circumstances are such that it is reasonable. IG, I agree with you except for "minimum force" and the concept of "reasonable in the full circumstances". Necessary force can be used in self defence and in home invasion scenarios. As you know doubt know Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 goes like this; (1) "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large" . (2) Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of the common law on the question when force used for a purpose mentioned in the subsection is justified by that purpose." Stones Justices Manual. Note that Section 3 (2) confirms that this Act only supersedes the common law rules in relation to the prevention of crime and the arrest of offenders and not self defence. This was acknowledged in the House of Lords debate when Viscount Colville, IIRC, raised it in debate and proposed an amendment which became Section 3 (2). He did this because other Sections of that Act which replaced rules of the common law did so explicitly. The common law rules on self defence therefore remain. What those rules are and what the term " is reasonable in the circumstances" means were covered in the debates on the Criminal Law Act 1967. On 1st November 1966 Lord Brentford pointed out in debate; "The Common Law permits the use of reasonable force where necessary" and asked why the word "necessary" had been omitted in the Bill because " it is the tradition of this country that a person may use force only if and when force is necessary"..."adding the word "necessary" will be beneficial for constables and others in that if they are limited to reasonable force they may have very great difficulty in arresting a criminal who is seeking to get away and who himself uses force. Under the wording of the clause as it is drawn they are entitled only to use reasonable force. Now what is reasonable force? Obviously, reasonable force can only be force of a moderate character. But, in the circumstances that I have described, it may be necessary, in order to effect an arrest, for the constable to use force of a major character, or to use the maximum degree of force. In the circumstances, that force would be "such force as is reasonably necessary". Lord Stonham, a sponsor of the Bill, replied explaining that the Government preferred the Bill as drafted without the word "necessary" because; "If we accepted Lord Brentford's amendment then a person who used even reasonable and justifiable force would not be excused unless he could prove that the force was reasonably necessary. There are two things, reasonable and necessary. In the view of my department, that would place too heavy a burden on a person who acted in a way reasonable in the circumstances at the time. It is important to bear in mind the kind of case in which clause 3 would be operating. There is a shout of "stop thief". You look up and see three men run from a bank and jump into a car and you pick up some heavy object and throw it at the windscreen. Or a man discovers a burglar in his house and tackles him by any means that occur to him. In neither case does he know of the existence of this particular provision, nor could he stop to think what his legal rights were. The important thing is that, in our view, the provision as we have it fulfils what is essential that it should protect anyone who, on the spur of the moment, behaves in a common sense and public spirited way. In our view it would not be right for the provision to give rise to nice, exact questions, argued with hindsight, after the event, in the sedate atmosphere of the law courts, as to whether the action taken was strictly necessary, or as to what alternatives there may have been... we use only one conception, reasonableness." This confirms that the subject is entitled to use as much force as is necessary to prevent himself getting hurt when he perceives that he is seriously threatened. It also confirms Blackstones definition of "duress" or "necessity" in my previous posting and shows that the subject is not expected to be held to the standard of "The full circumstances are such that it is reasonable". An authority for these interpretations is the Met Police "Officer Safety Manual" BTW, which also confirms that there is nothing in common or statute law which limits a defender to "mi
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can have any weapon you like in your own home for self-defence (except a firearm), even switchblades and martial arts weapons as they are only prohibited in public. Steve, Firearms for self defence in the home are lawful as the following extract from the debates on the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 confirms. The Bill only applied to the carriage of weapons in public places. Lord Lloyd (a sponsor of the Bill) reminded the House of Lords that; "It should be noted a person who remains on his own property may with impunity go around positively festooned with weapons. If he has a firearm he would need the appropriate certificate. His house may be a veritable arsenal. He will be committing no offence under this Bill". Hansard, 14 April 1953. The security conditions on FAC's also take this into account. Regards, John Hurst. -- Do they? Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] The law does not restrict self defence as being a "good reason", Home Office Guidance does. Home Office Guidance even points out that the police _should_ not issue certificates for that purpose, it does not say they can't. A small but important point. OK, I will wear that one. IG, That is not good enough. Your Oath of Alleigance requires that you accept the law as it is, specificaly the common law confirmed by the Bill of Rights and the entrenching clause; Article 7 " That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law...". "...Now in pursuance of the Premisses the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parlyament assembled for the ratifying confirming and establishing the said Declaration and the Articles Clauses Matters and things therein contained by the Force of a Law made in due Forme by Authority of Parlyament doe pray that it may be declared and enacted That all and singular the Rights and Liberties asserted and claimed in the said Declaration are the true auntient and indubitable Rights and Liberties of the People of this Kingdome and soe shall be esteemed allowed adjudged deemed and taken to be and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said Declaration And all Officers and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majestyes and their Successors according to the same in all times to come...". Your previous posting was; It just so happens that firearms are not available for self defence. If a firearm had been used in this case, then, provided it was legally held for say, clay shooting, then no jury in a million years would convict someone using it. Don't delude yourself. The law only restricts self defence as being a good reason for possession... This is incorrect for those reasons. Claiming otherwise through innorance is no excuse either because it breaches the common law requirement for Crown servants to know the law; 'We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.' Regards, john Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-law-abiding?
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] What constitutes law abiding? Someone never convicted or someone never caught? "E.J. Totty" Your comment above, IG, either demonstrates your mind set, or the manner in which UK cops think of their fellow citizens. In my book, if you ain't under arrest, or being pursued, they you is as legal as legal can be. And no man has any authority to cast doubt upon you without reason. IG, Quite so, the presumption of innocence is the fundamental common law right; "The right which every man has to his character, the value of that character to himself and his family, and the evil consequences that would result to society if charges of guilt were lightly entertained, or readily established in Courts of justice:- these are the real considerations which have led to the adoption of the rule that all imputations of crime must be strictly proved." "Taylor Upon Evidence". "Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt...No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained." Stones Justice's Manual. Preface to 1990 Edition. You do know that don't you? Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Useful Quote
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] "All persons in whose possession any firearms may hereafter be found, will be deemed enemies to his majesty's government." --Gen. Gage For the list, would you mind giving the attribute to that quote, and perhaps a researchable reference? ET, It was on the 2nd Ammendment Police Department list without a reference unfortuately. Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Useful Quote
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] The real cause of the American Revolution: "All persons in whose possession any firearms may hereafter be found, will be deemed enemies to his majesty's government." --Gen. Gage Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-statutory right of entry
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] The police do not have a right of entry, they have to have a warrant (except under some very limited circumstances). Steve, I like the following quote about this; "I now deal with a species of law known as the common law. Common law is law that comes from the common people, vers, legislation, which, comes from the "experts." It took a long time to learn the true nature and office of governments; to discover and secure the principles commonly indicated by such terms as 'Magna Carta,' the 'Bill of Rights,' 'Habeas Corpus,' and the 'Right of trial by jury;' to found the family home, with its laws of social order, regulating the rights and duties of each member of it, so that the music at the domestic hearth might flow on without discord; the household gods so securely planted that 'Though the wind and the rain might enter, the king could not'. It took a long time to learn that war was a foolish and cruel method of settling international differences as compared with arbitration; to learn that piracy was less profitable than a liberal commerce; that unpaid labour was not as good as well-requited toil; that a splenetic old woman, falling into trances and shrieking prophecies, was a fit subject for the asylum rather than to be burned as a witch. It took a long, long time after the art of printing had been perfected before we learned the priceless value, the sovereign dignity and usefulness of a free press. But these lessons have been taught and learned; taught for the most part by the prophets of our race, men living in advance of their age, and understood only by the succeeding generations. But you have the inheritance".
CS: Misc-Washington Hunting Laws
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Washington Hunting Laws" 1. Any person with a valid Washington State hunting license may harvest attorneys. 2. Taking of attorneys with traps or deadfalls is permitted. The use of currency as bait is prohibited. 3. Killing of attorneys with a vehicle is prohibited. If accidentally struck, remove dead attorney to roadside and proceed to nearest car wash. 4. It is unlawful to chase, herd, or harvest attorneys from a snow machine, helicopter, or aircraft. 5. It shall be unlawful to shout "whiplash," "ambulance," or "free Perrier" for the purpose of trapping attorneys. 6. It shall be unlawful to hunt attorneys within 100 yards of BMW dealerships. 7. It shall be unlawful to use cocaine, young boys, $100 bills, prostitutes, or vehicle accidents to attract attorneys. 8. It shall be unlawful to hunt attorneys within 200 yards of courtrooms, law libraries, whorehouses, health spas, gay bars, ambulances, or hospitals. 9. If an attorney is elected to government office, it shall be a felony to hunt, trap, or possess it. 10. Stuffed or mounted attorneys must have a state health department inspection for AIDS, rabies, and vermin. 11. It shall be illegal for a hunter to disguise himself as a reporter, drug dealer, pimp, female legal clerk, sheep, accident victim, book Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-An ATF raid in Arizona
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] ATF RIPS OFF ANOTHER ARIZONA GUN DEALER! * Confiscates 274 guns and 3,000 Form 4473's * No official arrest, no charges filed by Angel Shamaya Director, KeepAndBearArms.com November 1, 2000 http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=viewarticlei d=834 "They were throwing vintage collector's items in mint condition through the air and into a trashcan 10 feet away," said Jerry Michel, licensed gun dealer, after being assaulted and pillaged by the ATF. "I felt like I was going to throw up." And so might you before you're done reading this report. On October 25, 2000, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms sent approximately 30 federal and local agents in stormtrooper attire to confiscate firearms from a dealer who, according to what they told him, "did not have his papers in order." Jerry's Guns Ammo d.b.a. Specialty Firearms of Mesa, Arizona was the latest in a long list of gun dealers who've been paid a visit by people who, when rightly told, "You're not supposed to do that" respond by saying things like: "We're the ATF. We can do whatever we want." According to Jerry Michel, that's what they said to him when he confronted them as they threw a 1960's Winchester Model 94 Antique into a trashcan that already contained a few dozen of his guns. Though the classic, mint condition gun was still in its original box, they removed it from the box and tossed it into the growing pile of firearms ranging in value from a few hundred to several thousand dollars -- metal slamming against metal, metal gouging wood, etc. -- like one might toss so much kindling onto a campfire. These government operatives also confiscated guns Jerry held on consignment for several customers, and they also took his personally-owned firearms along with guns he'd been storing for an ailing friend. When I called ATF today to find out if it is standard operating procedure to wantonly damage collector's items when they are stealing them, Larry X said, "They didn't do that. They don't do things like that." "Were you there, Larry?" "No, I wasn't." "Then how do you know they didn't do that, Larry?" His response made me laugh: "Who am I speaking with again?" You should be able to see the above actions on color video. Jerry installed video surveillance equipment at Specialty Firearms some time ago and uses it consistently during hours of operation, too. He'd only been open for three minutes when he was lured out the front door under false pretenses and surrounded by heavily armed and body-armored gun confiscators, so there was a new tape in the player and the tape was rolling. But ATF confiscated the tape that shows them unnecessarily and irreparably damaging Jerry's property -- and broke his VCR in the process. I am sitting here reading -- for the third time -- the search warrant, given to me by Jerry himself, and I can't seem to locate the words "video tape" anywhere on the warrant. The video tape will be subpoenaed to prove damages, we pray, in a class action lawsuit against ATF. Will it mysteriously disappear? (Was ATF afraid to let people see what abusive and disrespectful people they are? Why else would they cover their tracks like common hoodlums? Maybe Special Agent in Charge and Group Supervisor Marvin G. Richardson or Assistant SAIC, Joe M. Gordon - overseers in this outrageous act of violence - can answer those questions. Or perhaps Robert C. Gantt, the agent who secured the search warrant from U.S. Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson -- the judge who presided over Bob Stewart's preposterous hearings -- can help shed some light on how a tape can be stolen when it's not on the search warrant.) The Mesa police assisted in this raid, as well, earning themselves a demotion in the eyes of every gun owner in Arizona. Congratulations, officers. You helped assault a Good Guy and alienated a whole segment of the society you are supposed to protect and serve. Nice goin'. Jerry's crime? Apparently, in Mesa, the city has an ordinance requiring gun dealers to have a "pawn permit" if they sell used firearms -- or so he was told while a team of armed and consistently disrespectful "men" busied themselves stealing 274 guns with an estimated value of approximately $300,000. "How much is the pawn permit," you ask? $100. Jerry Michel's Federal Firearms License (FFL) is current by way of a 6 month extension, so he is in fact a legal gun dealer. In fact, he's had his FFL since 1986, continuously. He does business with approximately 285 other gun dealers around the nation, and his reputation is one of integrity and lawfulness. No arrests or prior convictions, at all. Not even a speeding ticket to his name. Jerry is a "by the book" kinda guy. Except for that little permit said to be required in Mesa. And tha
CS: Pol-From Martin Essenberg
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Jackboot Johnny is the Australian gun banning Prime Minister- John Howard) MARTIN ESSENBERG Lot 7 Runnymede Estate Rd Nanango, 4615 (07) 41-632-423 (ah) e-mail- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gun web-site- http://www.geocities.com/marsiegen/index.html COULD ANY PRO-GUN PERSON RECEIVING THIS EMAIL PASS IT ON COULD YOU ALSO MAKE YOUR VIEWS ABOUT ASIO BEING USED AGAINST LEGITIMATE DISSENT KNOWN TO THE POLITICIANS WHOSE ADDRESSES ARE IN THE "To" AND "Cc" BOXES ASIO is the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation. Its a mini version of the CIA. Last Wednesday I was contacted about an interview with ASIO. They were interested in me because I am a pro-gun activist. On Friday Felicity Carbury and Luke Di Porto from ASIO stopped by the office of Dorothy Pratt MLA (my member of Parliament) where I had arranged to meet them. They provided no proof opf their identity. Dorothy had offered me one of her staff as a witness and had supplied me with a small tape recorder. I declared to the ASIO people that as a matter of protecting myself that I would be taping the interview. They refused to allow this. Their perception of confidentiality is that I must do whatever they say and allow myself to be set up. After 10 minutes of disagreement I insisted that I be allowed to tape the conversation. If I had been in a Police station this would be done by the Police as a matter of course. They refused and left. On Dorothy's return we discussed the issue and we agreed that I offer a compromise. I would do without the tape if Dorothy Pratt MLA was the witness. I phoned ASIO (07 38315980) Friday afternoon and made them this offer. On Monday I phoned them again and renewed the offer. They refused. It seems that in the brief argument with me on Friday they had learned all they needed to know about "extremist elements" (their words). I was the one to be interviewed but they refused both a Taperecorder and a member of Parliament to be present. What had ASIO got to hide? Why should ASIO be involved in political dissent? Why should I allow ASIO to set me up without my being allowed precautions? I object to the use of ASIO against gun owners. Of all dissident groups in the community Gun owners have been the least extreme. There has been some peaceful protests and some court action but largely we have used political action to fight the gun laws. The mad and the bad (criminals) misuse guns but I am unaware of any pro gun Australian who has used force to oppose the illegal actions of the Government. I see no reason why ASIO is being sent after imaginary terrorists. Terrorism is just being used as an excuse to justify surveilance of gun owners. Only a few years ago Gun use was a skill valued by the Government and society. Now we are legislated against by Government and slandered by the media. The law has become so extreme that I now face court for the unlicenced possession of a stock of a rifle. Now the Government that brought in the gun laws feels it has so alienated gun owners that it now needs to act as though we are all potential terrorists. This is paranoia. The only "extremist elements" are the members of the Government who through a series of stupid and illegal laws seek to control gun owners. Make your views known on ASIO surveilance. EMAIL THE POLITICIANS WITH YOUR VIEWS. Thanks Martin Essenberg -- I find this interesting because the CIA is not allowed to operate on US soil, and MI6 is not allowed to conduct operations in the UK either. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-British Naval Gunnery.
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] By David Davis. The raid on Spain by the British navy in 1587 was, specifically, to burn, ruin, trash and or otherwise destroy all barrels and barrel-staves that could be found in the territories of Spain, which would be used for the purposes of Armada Stores. You may not know, but it those days, everything that went to Sea was stored in barrels. Not just water and wine, but even bread and meat and grain and gunpowder and anything you cared to name. Flour was in canvas sacks, but that was no good and was only meant to last about a week or so (Rats and mice.) The rest of the flour was in barrels (tons.) The tactical objective of Drake's raid was to burn or otherwise destroy all tactical-seagoing-storage facilities for the Armada. His ships and crews landed in several places, all got out safely too, and they burned/trashed by weapons the equivalent of all the oak-barrel-stave- production of the entirety of the Spanish Empire for two years (about 7 million staves. There were indeed some huge warehouse fires accordingly. this was a "Spetznaz raid" of the highest order.) The result was that nearly all supplies for the Armada, when it finally embarked, later than planned, were in NEW BARRELS. This meant that everything WENT OFF, especially the water (which was rendered undrinkable) and the meat (which was rendered inedible.) At least 45 ships thus foundered in Scotland and Ireland, with the loss of most or all hands, which would otherwise have been able to sail home, on existing supplies (which they thus did not have.) This turned a slight military defeat (we only sank 8 ships directly) into a massive Imperial Spanish Humiliation. We must also not forget the effect of the English Long Bronze Culverins (9-lb and 18-lb shot-weight.) Although we fired a "terrible weight of great shot without seeming result", all up the English Channel, we did indeed do mortal damage to the Spanish ships and especially at the Battle of Gravelines where we closed in to 25-30 yards at all times, after the "fireships" incident, without knowing it at the time. The English Balls were fired at such high velocity and with such accuracy that no visible damage could be discerned by us on the Armada's ships. There were no telescopes or binoculars or range-finders. In fact, the balls were passing right thorugh the Spanish ships, upending guns and men and stores on the way, wounding and killing and maiming and bloodying, and often right on the waterline, which was not inly much worse for them but invisible to us. The shot-holes, being only 4 inches wide, were not visible from the English ships. Sometimes they went right through the other side and BELOW the waterline, having been fired on the downroll (our downroll!), as has been found on wrecks excavated since. Spanish ship's-Carpenters, in the seas of the North of Scotland, later, without sound food or drinkable water or enough living and un-sick men to help, and in Gale-force winds, were unable to plug the holes sufficiently well in the gales of September in the Atlantic and the Irish Seas. Thus, for want merely of adequate sail-handling facilities (because the men had either been killed by shot or had died of hunger) most of the Armada grounded, leaking and foundering, on the shores of Western Ireland, and were cut up by the Irish, who asked the English for permission so to act, and it was granted. Less than half of the Armada's ships got home. Less than a third of their men got home. One ship rammed the dockyard at full-ahead and was sunk with all survivng hands, there not being anybody well enough to handle sail and wheel. This is nothing for us to be proud of; it was a terrible tragedy for Spain, a great and noble but ultimately un-libertarian Empire, which then died slowly, giving us in the end, Gibraltar. So we could save them from Hitler and, later, Franco, the next time. Out of evil comes good, always. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Blair seeks national police force.
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: The important part of the article below is " Home Office officials believe that the "new agenda for reform" will include plans for a national police force". A national detective group and national intelligence unit have been set up in recent years. Now Blair wants to move to a national police force which will either supersede entirely the local forces or be placed above them. One of the bulwarks against a police state is the placing of policing outside central government control. Robert Henderson Sunday Telegraph London 22/210/2000 Leaked memo exposes secret Number 10 plan for police DAVID CRACKNELL and DAVID BAMBER TONY Blair is planning's reform of the police so comprehensive that it is being kept secret From officers until after the election, according to a leaked Down-ins Street memorandum. The Prime Minister and Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, recognise that their plans are so inflammatory they risk "alienating the police at a crucial time". The document, disclosed to The Sunday Telegraph, reveals that Mr Blair and Mr Straw derided to keep their reforms under wraps al a Downing Street meeting in June. They fear that a battle with the police over cost-cutting measures could damage their re-election chances . Home Office officials believe that the "new agenda for reform" will include plans for a national police force, raising the retirement age and scrapping overtime pay. The memo, written on No 10 notepaper, records discussions on June 26 between Mr Blair, Mr Straw, Charles Clarke, the police minister, Sir David Omand , the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, and David Millband, the head of the Downing Street Policy Unit. It reads: "The Prime Minister said it was important to make progress on the agenda we have already out. But he agreed with the Home Secretary that the time was not right to set a new agenda for reform. It risked alienating the police at a crucial time." Ann Widdecombe, the shadow home secretary, said last night. "This smacks of deceit. If there are to be major reforms, there is both a police and public interest in knowing about it. The Government should come clean and tell us what the proposals are -- not hope to sneak them through." The leaked document also reveals tensions over policy between Mr Straw and Mr Blair, who told the meeting he wanted more "explicit anti-crime measures such as extra prison places and the recruitment of more magistrates. It shows that Mr Straw disagreed: "The Home Secretary said we would be vulnerable to the criticism that CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] resources had been cut in real terms over the past five years, and that the Service therefore lacked the capacity to bring some cases to court. "Nor should we signal that we were appointing more magistrates. The problem in many cases was not the number [of them], but a tendency to provide bail too easily." This is the first recorded acknowledgement of a crisis in the CPS, which was underfunded at its launch and has struggled to provide lawyers. Senior police representatives and ministers took part in a seminar on reform last month, and last night an aide to the Home Secretary insisted that there were no secret plans on the subject, "Any changes will involve full consultation with senior officers and representatives of the rank and file," he said. "Our reform agenda is well set out and has been widely welcomed by officers." -- Well, it'll be tough for the police to argue against a national licensing system for firearms with this knocking around! Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-totalitarianism
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] BLAIR AS HITLER - Watch the UK die along with democracy. http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/99/02/09/x- Copyright 1998 Times Newspapers Ltd Tuesday February 9 1999 Third Way, or Reich? THE advent of new Labour has produced a steady stream of books explaining its victory in terms of the personalities involved and the stratagems they employed. Since they are unlikely to contain much that is new they make boring reading. Even less useful are the efforts of Downing Street's tame sociologists to give some meaning to the empty concept of the "Third Way". One does better reading books that add to one's general understanding of politics. High on the list should be the first volume of Professor Ian Kershaw's magisterial biography: Hitler. The tale he has to tell is chilling - the violence involved in Hitler's march to power was the prelude to the much greater violence which will feature in the second volume. Yet if one excludes the political violence and racism of Nazism, which one must, there are still telling parallels between then and now. The similarities between Adolf Hitler and Tony Blair's path to power are hard to dismiss. Ian Kershaw explains how Hitler rose to power, and then having achieved office, led the Nazi Party to complete domination in every aspect of German life. It is that second aspect of the story which is particularly helpful in explaining the unfolding agenda of new Labour. While most of the dictators whose careers have disfigured this century achieved power through military force, Hitler achieved it through elections in a system of universal suffrage. Because the Nazis, unlike new Labour, never obtained an overall majority before they were in power they needed allies to take office. They pioneered the co-option of dupes to push through the constitutional changes which then entrenched their own dominance. Labour constantly invokes its own claim to a popular mandate for its own assault on our country's historic constitution. But the party has followed the Fuerhrer in using dispensable allies to lend its project an extra legitimacy. The Nazis realised that the process of seeking total and permanent authority required them to find within the existing system collaborators who thought that their own interests would be advanced if the party could be inducted into office under their aegis. Hitler's gift as a tactician was to see how far he could push his demands at each stage without alarming his dupes, and at what point he could safely get rid of the encumbrances which his temporary allies represented. The use of political figures from other parties to camouflage new Labour's purposes is directly reminiscent of Hitler's tactics. Chris Patten has been taken on to help to emasculate the Royal Ulster Constabulary, while Lord Wakeham must give respectability to the destruction of the Lords. Mr Blair has clearly learnt from history. These gentlemen have not. Neither, I fear, has business. One of the prime necessities for a party seeking power is money. Hitler could hardly hope that the subscriptions of the rank and file would suffice. So money was sought from business. Much tact was required - a political party, even one making much of its hostility to "Bolshevism", which had "socialist" and "workers" in its title, did not obviously commend itself to industrialists and bankers - but enough businessmen were won over to pay for Hitler's non-stop campaigning. In return, the donors were assured that economic policy would not be radical and that the power of the trade unions would be curtailed. The Blairite offensive in the City of London had the same general objective and was along the same lines. But in this case personal cards were also played. Once Labour was in government, peerages and even ministerial office were bestowed on some big subscribers. For some multinationals the promise of a more Europhile policy was no doubt an incentive. Money alone would not put Hitler into office. He also needed to win over some of the political, military, and even cultural, elites. Again radicalism had to be put into the background and the "vons" co- opted. In the end he had to exact from Hindenburg the Chancellorship nomination and the necessary powers to make it effective. The "Austrian corporal" had to receive the field marshal's blessing. Once the Government and the Reichstag were controlled by the Nazis, such allies were needed only to assuage foreign fears while rearmament began. It was therefore in the Diplomatic Service that the old elite retained their usefulness. Even when Hitler needed the key post of the London Embassy for a member of the Nazi gang, Ribbentrop had to be married to a fortune and allowed to add a "von" to his name before the appointment could be made.This Government's handling of Whitehall displays every bit as much finesse in stroking the mandarin
CS: Misc-Useful Quote
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Forty-two years ago, in 1958, a collection of essays by a Brit, Aldous Huxley, was published under the name 'Brave New World Revisited'. A short, verbatim excerpt consisting of 6 sentences from his concluding chapter is below: "We may expect to see in the democratic countries a reversal of the process which transformed England into a democracy, while retaining all of the outward forms of a monarchy. Under the relentless thrust of accelerating over-population and increasing over-organization, and by means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms--elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly what they were in the good old days. Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial--but democracy and freedom in a strictly Pickwickian sense. Meanwhile, the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite of soldiers, policemen, thought manufacturers and mind manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit." Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Devon
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CS: Pol-Israeli Riot Control.
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perhaps more interesting is that exactly such a scenario was detailed in the writings of Jeff Cooper in his book "To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth." It's in a chapter called "The Rimfire in Riot Control". Read it, and then read the account given here on the Israeli deployment. This is not a matter of similarity. The Israeli report is a textbook application of Cooper's technique, which he proposed on the theoretical level. Dale -- I think it's more likely to be a low velocity .223. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Useful quote
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Those who tremble at the idea of personal weapons -- 'hoplophobes' is the diagnostic term -- are fond of saying that guns are made for only one purpose. Well, gun control serves only one purpose, too -- the incapacitation and extermination of whole peoples." --L. Neil Smith Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Certificate renewals
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] That said, allow me the thought that any cop -- regardless of the nation which s/he happens to be serving in -- should always be of the mind that s/he is a target of opportunity E.J. Too blooming right. There are only two threat levels, high and unknown. And it is prudent to deal with both of them with the same degree of care. Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Land Warrior
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Land Warrior gives platoon big advantage in field test By Matthew Cox FORT POLK, La. - Land Warrior has passed its first major field test, officials say, proving the complex computer system can give infantrymen the home-field advantage even on an unfamiliar battlefield. Armed with the latest version of the Army's Land Warrior, a platoon of soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division parachuted into Fort Polk on Sept. 8 to assess its performance when matched against a highly trained opposing force at the Joint Readiness Training Center. The exercise was part of the Joint Contingency Force Advanced Warfighting Experiment designed to evaluate how a number of new technologies might affect the way forces fight in the future. The experiment, scheduled to run through Sept. 21, involves more than 4,000 soldiers from the 82nd, 10th Mountain and 4th Infantry (Mechanized) divisions as well as a company of Marines. Keeping in touch Despite heavy rains and high humidity, Land Warrior's microprocessor and built-in global positioning satellite system enabled every soldier in 2nd Platoon, C Company, 3rd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment to acquire targets, navigate with precision over foreign terrain and remain in constant contact with leaders during the intensive week of force-on-force and live-fire operations. "It's an enormous achievement," said program director Col. Bruce Jette. "So far, the system has met and demonstrated all that we expected it to." Jette had reason to be upbeat. The successful test comes just two years after costly system failures forced a complete program overhaul. Land Warrior's newest prototypes were delivered June 5 to Fort Bragg, N.C. Since then, the platoon of paratroopers has been working closely with engineers to become proficient with the system while identifying areas that need improvement. They learned how to access maps and graphics, locate each other and communicate using voice and instant messaging features. While often frustrating, the tedious training appeared to pay off quickly after the Land Warrior platoon hit the drop zone as part of 3rd Battalion's seizure of the airfield. Locating the assembly area at night often is a time-consuming task for paratroopers, who must first determine their location by using a map and terrain association. But for soldiers armed with Land Warrior, the task proved surprisingly simple. Once the system was unpacked and booted up, each soldier used the heads-up display in the eyepiece to access a pre-loaded map of the area. On it, each soldier's location was marked, so they could all walk directly to the assembly point. "Approximately 45 minutes after time on target, we had 85 percent accountability," said Sgt. 1st Class Rodney Stephens, adding normal assemblies can take more than twice that long. One squad was delayed after coming into contact with a sniper from the 1st Battalion (Airborne), 509th Infantry Regiment, JRTC's opposing-force unit, soon after landing. "He fired about five shots and three went down," recalled Spc. Anthony Romeo. "He was a good shot." The exercise participants used laser integrated rifles and systems to simulate actual live fire. Romeo said he was able to use Land Warrior to locate his squad leader's position on the drop zone and call for help. "I was able to talk to my squad leader and bring him into my position," he said. "When he did come over the hill, I knew it was him and not the enemy." Killing sniper at 300 meters But before help could arrive, Sgt. Chad Leasure took advantage of the thermal weapons sight mounted on his M-4 carbine to clearly ferret out the sniper. He then "killed" the sniper at a distance of 300 meters - a feat he said would have been impossible against a well-concealed sniper without Land Warrior. "There is no way I would have been able to engage him at that distance," Leasure said. "We had six guys with us. I think we would have all died if we had tried to take out a sniper at that distance across an open field." Leasure then continued his suppressive fire, until Romeo and a fellow soldier overtook the sniper's spotter. Throughout the exercise, the battalion commander said he was impressed at how the Land Warrior system took the guesswork out of land navigation. That meant the platoon could cover more ground faster than they normally would. "It is a revolutionary change," said Lt. Col. Michael Garrett. "Now you have an infantryman who not only knows where he is at all times, but he also knows where his buddies are to the left and right." Despite all the rave reviews, soldiers also are quick to point out that the system is far from perfect. One of the main shortcomings in the $135 million program is the radio system - unreliable at distances beyond 200 meters depending on the terrain. "You wo
CS: Pol-Anne Pearston
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes many laws are bans. But there is an important distinction to be made, between the banning of objects and the banning of actions. IMO the banning of actions (e.g. murder, theft, fraud) is most morally sound. The banning of objects is less so and, more importantly, largely ineffective. Julian, The creation of new crimes, statutory "absolute" offences, is arguably unknown to our constitution. . "Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt...No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained." Stones Justice's Manual. Preface to 1990 Edition. The authoritative "Taylor Upon Evidence" has this to say about burden of proof; "The right which every man has to his character, the value of that character to himself and his family, and the evil consequences that would result to society if charges of guilt were lightly entertained, or readily established in Courts of justice:- these are the real considerations which have led to the adoption of the rule that all imputations of crime must be strictly proved." The Firearms Act 1920 and the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 are based on the principle that Parliament can create new offences, that everyone is guilty from the date of their adoption, and then allow exceptions at the discretion of the police. They have shifted the burden of proof onto the defence, which is something that never happened before. This purported power of Parliament was objected to strongly by many MPs in the debates on the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. They generated about 90 pages of debate in Hansard on a Bill that was little more than one page long. Several MPs were only prepared to accept the Bill as a short-term emergency measure to be reviewed after five years. The Government claimed that the measure was necessary to deal with an outbreak of violent crime. James Carmichael (MP for Glasgow, Bridgeton), pointed out that Scottish crime figures had actually dropped significantly in the preceding years and the Bill was an over-reaction to misleading press reports (Hansard, 26 March 1953). Several references were made to the fact that at that time the assurances given by Ministers that the police would act responsibly and with restraint was worthless because what had been said in Parliament could not be referred to in the Courts. The Bill was passed, and soon the presumption of innocence was set aside in other legislation without a murmur. ( But Pepper v. Hart came to the rescue). This has resulted in the proliferation of Statutory absolute offences. In the common law guilt could only be inferred from a persons actions and evidence of his mental intent at that time. Thus stealing is the taking of property belonging to another with evidence of an intention to permanently deprive the owner of it. The Statutory offence of simple possession of an unlicensed "prohibited weapon" is purported to be a crime regardless of the circumstances as are selling apples by the pound or beef on the bone. Statutory "crimes" are whatever the legislature decides. A victim or intent is not required. We seem to have come to a point where the ancient rightness of the common law has been set aside. The Courts have given up legislative supremacy to Parliament. And they have been allowed to do this because no one has gone before a Court and claimed his common law rights. Those rights of the subject are written, but have been hidden and forgotten. And here lies the danger to us all. The only power that Government has is to manufacture criminals. If Government believes that it can do as it wishes without the restraint of a Constitution which is enforceable through the Courts then no one and nothing is safe from the whims and prejudices of the legislators. John Locke, the philosopher, was a major influence in the education of the generation that debated what became the English Bill of Rights in 1688. We can have an insight into the mischief that the representatives of the people sought to avoid with the passing of the Statue which "Declares the Rights and Liberties of the subject...in all time to come". "Man is a maker of things, and a property owning animal... From the right to self-defence and protection of property comes the right to the rule of law, and a multitude of like rights, such as the right to privacy expressed as 'An Englishman's home is his castle'. A ruler is legitimate only in so far as he upholds the law. A ruler that violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed; his commands are mere force and coercion. R
CS: Misc-Useful Quote
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The lawgiver, of all beings, most owes the law allegiance. He of all men should behave as though the law compelled him. But it is the universal weakness of mankind that what we are given to administer, we presently imagine we own." H. G. Wells Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Thoughts on the Million Mom March Convention
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CS: Legal-miniature rifle ranges
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wonder if anyone could help me on this subject. We wish to set up a mini rifle range at our home office approved club in order to host a few more shoots for non FAC holders. David, The NSRA were most helpful when one of my clubs decided to claim their right to the Section 11 exemption. The NSRA are able to provide a form which confirms the bona fides of an affiliated club which wishes to operate under the exemption. Note that all that the statute requires is "A person conducting or carrying on a miniature rifle range...may etc.". This is analogous to the fact that a FAC is merely a document which confirms that its holder is a "fit person". To quote Pepper v. Hart (again), Lord Oliver of Aylmerton observed that "A Statute is, after all, the formal and complete intimation to the citizen of a particular rule of law which he is enjoined, sometimes under penalty, to obey and by which he is both expected and entitled to regulate his conduct". A certain police inspector in a firearms licensing unit was not so helpful. When the club secretary courteously informed him about it he denied all knowledge of Section 11. Later, after consulting force solicitors, he stated that he found the clubs actions "sinister" because they enabled it to "evade police surveillance". I understand the conversation was recorded. I think that the Firearms Advisory Committee have looked at the gallery exemption and decided that it is not a problem. Can anyone confirm that. Regards, John Hurst. -- All the FCC have said is that the police have expressed concerns to them, there doesn't appear to be any huge problems at present but they haven't had time to look into it yet. The NSRA only sell manually-operated .22 rimfire rifles to miniature rifle ranges, in 1920 when the exemption was originally drafted .22 centrefires and .22 self-loaders were pretty rare so I think it is fair to say that the NSRA is simply following tradition and the exemption was probably drafted without thinking about .22 centrefires at least. The problem for shooters here is two-pronged, because if licensing for airguns becomes a reality then the use of them at miniature rifle ranges would be the only option - but if they're licensed too most of the pub and school ranges would probably close down. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Letter in The Guernsey Press
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CS: Misc-Useful Quote
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] (From 'Monty Python') "We would like to apologize for the way in which politicians are represented in this presentation. It was never our intention to imply that politicians are weak-kneed political time servers who are concerned more with their personal vendettas and private power struggles than the problems of government. Nor to suggest at any point that they sacrifice their credibility by denying free debate on vital matters in the mistaken impression that party unity comes before the well-being of the people they supposedly represent. Nor to imply at any stage that they are squabbling little toadies without an ounce of concern for the vital social problems of today. Nor indeed do we intend that readers should consider them as crabby ulcerous little self-seeking vermin with furry legs and an excessive addiction to alcohol and certain explicit sexual practices which some people might offensive. ... We are sorry if this impression has come across." Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-HO press release
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] A bit heavy on the coppers, or rather a bit light on shooting reps. I count nine in law enforcement, six from shooting backgrounds. Steve, True, and a majority are undoubtedly Crown servants, with an obligation to respect the common law rights of the subject. And I still say that they are all Crown servants. Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-police 'told not to search gunmen'
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] So can this senior officer be charged with "malfeasance in public office" then? Steve, Yes, if the PC's who were witnesses come forward. And then the problems which I described in an earlier posting apply. Their only defence for not acting would be duress of circumstances. "I vos only followink ze orders" would not do. The real significance of this story is that the troops have had enough and are rebelling against the present politicaly correct regime. The same thing happened at the stop the city demonstration earlier this year when Winston Churchill's statue was desecrated but did not reach the national press apparently There is a petition circulating in the Met. BTW in support of the PC who was dismissed for saying bad words. This is unprecedented in my service. It is rumored that the senior officers concerned immediately stripped the PC of his uniform and sent him home in one of the paper suits which rapists get, but this is unconfirmed. The originator of the petition is however a member of a "visible ethnic minority" and they have been left alone I understand. Unlike the late "IG", I am reluctant to give an opinion on policy because the disipline code reserves that for senior officers. I will discuss law as much as you like however, in order to comply with my oath g. Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Tyranny Response Team.
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Colorado TRT takes on Anti Defamation League Activism/Chapters Announcement Source: Tyranny Response Team/Colorado chapter Posted on 08/23/2000 17:50:39 PDT by labgrade On 6/21 the Colorado Chapter of the Tyranny Response Team had ~150-200 good folk in attendance at the Boulder city council administrative hearing. This hearing was to gather public input regarding their (BCC) proposed gun ordinances with which TRT (and all thinking folk) disagreed. "Gun ban" comes to mind. However, the topic of the meeting is not the subject at hand. The nature of the demo is consequent fall-out. A good guy from thefiringline.com steered me to a graphic pix which showed many naked women being hered to their death by the Nazis - the "first million mom march." It was downloaded used to good effect at the demo. Offensive? Of course. Genocide always is. Too, we wore pinned to our shirts, the yellow Star of David with the words GUN OWNER emblazoned thereon. It had the desired effect then later. Below is a letter received by Bob Glass (one of the TRT founders, gun shop owner, all 'round good guy, a Jew a good friend) from Bobbie Towbin (I've taken the liberty - such a sweet word! ;-) to editorialize somewhat in parenthesis) "Dear Mr. Glass, We recognize that reasonable minds may differ over the best way to solve the growing problem of violence in the United States, and we respect the right of your organization to advocate its views. However, we are deeply disturbed by the Tyranny Response Team's exploitation of the Holocaust to advance its position. (they are not reasonable, there is no growing violence problem, they do not respect any one else's views and please value differences as long as you kow-tow to what we find acceptable - which will be nothing) Our office has received a number of complaints from people who were present at the Boulder City Hall hearing last Wednesday night. (one person bitched was probably not even there one who was, told another who knows Ms. Towbin) According to the complainants, the presence of many Tyranny Response Team members wearing black shirts with yellow, six pointed stars, was very distressing. The distribution of flyers containing photographs of Holocaust victims served to raise even more anguish among members of the Jewish community who were present-some of whom were Holocaust survivors. (the fliers and Star of David was effective shocked some into actually examining their stance, one of which knew someone who had a relative who saw a film re the holocaust) We ask - in memory of the six million Jews and millions of others - that you refrain from using the Nazi Genocide as a political tool again in the future. (we retain sole right to use the holocaust as our own political tool - how dare you preempt our money-maker) Sincerely, (not) Bobbie Tobin Associate Director of the ADL" Bob's response "July 24, 2000 Ms. Bobbie Towbin Anti-Defamation League 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1301 Denver, CO 80203-2140 Dear Ms. Tobin, Now that I have had some time to reflect on your letter, and the subsequent phone conversation that we've had, I would like to share some thoughts with you. I must begin by correcting you on the initial faulty premise of your letter. For openers, the Tyranny Response Team is not my organization. Not that I am not extremely proud of the way TRT people conducted themselves at the Boulder City Hall meeting, nor am I trying to distance myself from the TRT-au contraire. I am simply stating a point of fact, that the TRT is a true grass roots movement, and as such, has no leader, no board of directors, no corporate charter, nor any of the other trappings that accompany any hierarchical bureaucracy. You openly state that you respect the right of the TRT to express its views, yet claim to be "deeply disturbed" by the TRT's "exploitation" of the Holocaust, to advance its position." My dear lady, you certainly have chutzpah. If there is anyone who has explaining to do, about exploiting the Holocaust for their own partisan political agenda, it is the ADL, as I shall explain. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to comprehend the notion, that armed citizens are more able to resist state tyranny, than unarmed citizens. One might even call that one, a "no-brainer." When you look at some of the worst examples of state-sponsored genocide in human history, such as the Holocaust, the mass murders in Cambodia, under Pol Pot, the mass murders in the Soviet Union, under Stalin, and the mass murders that took place in China, under Mao, they all have one thing in common: their victims had been disarmed by law. In a very touching moment, outside of the Boulder City Council chambers, where we gathered, a Cambodian gentleman came up to us and spoke of the living hell he had survived, under the murderous regime of Pol Pot and the Khmer
CS: Legal-ECHR
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I presume that you are all aware of 'civil forfeiture'? E.J., It is back, firstly in drug cases and now it is available to the Courts for other offences too. As you no doubt know it breaches Chapter 29 of Magna Carta and Article 12 of the Bill of Rights; " That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void". So did the siezure of pistols, but the Home Office have told Steve that it was all right g. Funnily enough, the House of Commons library did not agree; "The library has received a large number of enquiries, which appear to be the result of campaigns among shooters opposing the new provisions on firearms control. Because of the initial influx of such enquiries, I prepared a section on the alleged constitutional implications of the then Bill as part of our research paper which we published for its second reading debate. There are a numbers of variants of the message sent to members which contain a reference to the Members oath of allegiance. I assume that the argument put forward by shooters is along the following lines; (1) The Bill of Rights 1689 requires all officers and ministers to serve the Monarch according to its provisions. (2) The Bill of Rights 1689 protects citizen's rights to bear arms and not to have their property confiscated. (3) Therefore Members who support this sessions legislation may be in breach of their oath of allegiance. The 1997 Act does not appear to refer at all to the 1689 Statute, and any claims that the earlier statute has been impliedly amended or, indeed, that Parliament has no power to make such amendments, would have to be matters for the Courts if put before them. It is perhaps of interest that, notwithstanding the apparently widespread lobbying on Bill of Rights grounds, virtually no mention of this argument was made during the Bill's passage through Parliament" (Document Ref. 4321 97/3/14HA BKW/aor. 4th March 1997) The briefing document referred to is Research Paper 96/102 dated 8th November 1996. Page 75 quotes the case of Bowles v. Bank of England and confirms that the Bill of Rights remains an operative statute. Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-ECHR
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] But you are not being deprived of anything (depending on your interpretation) if you apply for an FAC and get turned down. Steve, A person who applies for an FAC for self defence in Northern Ireland and is refused without sufficent reason is deprived of his common law RKBA. Even the likes of Jerry Adams have rights. Apparently he has a certificated weapon, according to the press. And if he is not a prohibited person then it is lawful. A person on the mainland who reqires a FAC as a member of a NRA or NSRA affiliated club is claiming his RKBA also. The subjects rights are confirmed in the Royal Charter of the NRA and the articles of association of the NSRA. Here is a reminder from the Mc Kay report; "The Firearms Act 1968, following earlier firearms legislation, makes no attempt to define what should, or should not be regarded as a good reason for possessing a firearm. The stringency of the legal control over Section 1 firearms therefore rests in practice upon the way in which chief officers exercise the wide power of decision vested on them by the law, and on the decisions of the Crown Court in the relatively infrequent cases taken to appeal... There has been no general disagreement over the way in which ... these powers have been exercised. To put the matter very broadly, sporting purposes and target shooting have been accepted as good reasons ... personal protection has not". However, "the time might come when a chief officer or the Crown Court decided to allow a firearm for personal protection ... this decision might be treated as a precedent." The Control of Firearms in Great Britain. HMSO. Note that an FAC is a document which certifies that its holder is a fit person to aquire the arms which it specifies. How they are used is the individuals responsibility. Regards, John Hurst. -- Yes, but this was all within the context of the ECHR, not British law. You're not being deprived of anyt physical thing if the police refuse to grant an FAC, so you are not subject to any sort of compensation. Also Gerry Adams doesn't have an FAC, his convictions preclude that. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-ECHR/Speed Cameras
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve - this subject is not as off-topic as some might think, since the process of covering our road network with cameras has parallels with firearms legislation. As with the latter, people-control by speed camera has a curious history, unstated agendas, and is inimical to liberty. I thought the firearms legislation had always been about disarming... Anthony, I understand, from a discussion on a motoring newsgroup some time ago, that the system known as Traffic Master which is allegedly used to detect congestion on main roads has cameras which recognise number plates. Data is sent by radio to a central computer where average speeds betwen cameras are calculated. This system means that the registration marks and locations of vehicles on main roads are being broadcast in real time. Big brother is here. I know in the debate in 1920 they started off saying it was to stop crime but it ended up being a debate about disarming people. All the Government papers from the period indicate a strong desire to generally disarm the people... Steve, True, but the statute known as the Firearms Act 1920 and is to be interpreted only by what was actualy said in Parliament. Pepper v. Hart and the Attourney Generals practice directions again. For example; "...Hansard records that the intention of Parliament in the Firearms Act 1920 was, "to afford an effective system of control over the possession, use and carrying of firearms so as far as possible to secure that they do not come into the hands of criminals or otherwise undesirable persons..." (The Earl of Onslow in presenting the second reading 27 April 1920.) He stated on 29 April that " speaking generally, it must be assumed that the grounds on which a revolver may be applied for and the application (for a firearm certificate) may be granted by a chief officer of police is for protection of the applicants house" i.e. for self-defence...". Defence of the Realm. Accusing politiians of deceit is a breach of Parliamentary privelige. They will be locking you up in the cell below the clock tower if you are not careful g. Commander Kendrick, who spoke up for the constitution in the 1920 debate, was apperently arrested by Special Branch immediately afterwards. Mike Burke has discovered that he was subsequehtly made Lord Strabogli (?) and spoke up again in the debates on the 1934 Act. He mentioned that his personal choice in PPW's was a full auto pistol BTW. Regards, John Hurst. -- I think you mean Commander Kenworthy MPG. On first reading in the Commons though one of the Govt. ministers did respond to him in essence that the purpose of the Bill was to stop revolutions, rather than crime. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Crime-Rolex Raid
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Too many people live in the ethereal make-believe world where violence isn't suppose to exist. E.J., True, but we are not alone in knowing the truth. The author of this piece is with us, for example; "The power of productivity is always hostage to the power of the gun. This is so fundamental, so ultimate a fact of life, that it is almost never mistaken on the battlelines of society, at those points where the rule of law is contested by violence. In such a showdown, violence can be bettered only by superior force, not by good intentions, much less by pieces of paper with ink on them. Gary Cooper would not have won the showdown in High Noon if he had reached into his wallet instead of his holster. Yet the failure to appreciate the ultimate importance of power is actually quite common. People who live in delightful well-mannered suburbs, who never have to physically contest for their lives and property, often fail to grasp the subtle logic of violence. It is a mistake seldom made by hardened criminals. Criminals are normally connoisseurs of power's subtleties. They understand, as law-abiding people sometimes do not, that laws are merely wishes on paper unless there is sufficient power to enforce them. The ultimate law is the law of the jungle. It is the law that says that what is yours by right and justice is yours only so long as you-or someone-can protect it". The Great Reckoning. James Davidson William Rees-Mogg. Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-ECHR
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] "No retrospective legislation" does that mean that those in possesion of handguns at the time of the ban could keep them and that the ban only applied to future aquisitions? Dave, This common law rule is known as "grandfather rights" and does apply. For example, when the EU moved the goal posts on what type of driving licence was required to drive a mini bus the regulation was not applied to people who were already driving them on car licences. But it the Home Office has said that it does not apply to them they must be telling the truth. See also the comment from the researcher in the House of Commons library about retrospective legislation in another posting. Regards, John Hurst. -- Not sure if that is a relevant comparison. This is the removal of a property right, not just a right to use something. If the Govt. had banned mini-buses, then it would be a different situation. It is another principle of common law that property cannot be taken by the Government without proper compensation, so if they paid proper compensation (which they didn't), how does it fall afoul of being "retroactive"? It's well established that property can be taken for public use (e.g. to build a road) if proper compensation is paid. I know in Canada they always allow people to keep things when they ban them, but they didn't in Australia, the argument being the same as here - compensation was paid. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-gases
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Only lethal gases banned? No it isn't! All gases are banned if my memory of my university degree serves me all right. Hence Section 5(1)(b) of the 1968 Act, I assume. Steve, The debates on the Firearms Act of 1920 mention "deathless gas" being used by criminals to effect robberies, not war gasses only, IIRC. Regards, John Hurst. -- That's interesting, is that put forward as the reason for banning them? Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-responsibilities
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Should it be a more direct failure to uphold the law, say a police officer deliberately standing aside to allow an assault then they could also be charged as an accessory even though they took no active part. In such an example their failure to intervene would be sufficient as they had a sworn duty to intervene. Steve, The common law duty to prevent a breach of the Queens peace, such as an assault, does not arise from an individuals status as a constable. There are recent stated cases on this. R v HOWELL, which deals with the definition of Breach of the Peace, confirms the power of any person to deal with one which involves violence against a person. "Any person may arrest without warrant where there is reasonable apprehension of an imminent breach of the peace, even though at that stage no breach had been committed. Accordingly there is a power of arrest for any person for breach of the peace - (a) when the breach of the peace was committed in the presence of the person making the arrest; (b) when the person making the arrest reasonably believed that a breach of the peace was about to be committed; or (c) to prevent an immediate renewal of a breach of the peace. When such a power was exercised in relation to (b) the belief had to be an honest belief founded on reasonable grounds even if it was mistaken". The case of ALBERT v LAVIN confirms that " At common law every citizen has the right (and, indeed, it is a citizen's duty) to detain any person conducting themselves in such a manner". Statute law covers this as well. The Criminal Law Act 1967 states at Section 3; (1) "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large" . (2) Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of the common law on the question when force used for a purpose mentioned in the subsection is justified by that purpose." Note that Section 3 (2) confirms that this Act only supersedes the common law rules in relation to the prevention of crime and the arrest of offenders. This was acknowledged in the House of Lords debate when Viscount Colville, IIRC, raised it in debate and proposed an ammendment which became Section 3 (2). The common law rules on self defence remain. An offender who resists attempts to make him stop what he is doing is automaticaly an agressor and the common law rules on self defence apply. The defender may us as much force as is neccessary to prevent himself getting hurt. An authority for this is the Met Police "Officer Safety Manual". If an individual fails to do his civic duty he can be bound over by magistrates to be of good behaviour in future. A constable would also be subject to the criminal law and discipline code as you point out. The only excuse for failing to prevent a breach of the peace is the common law one of "duress of circumstances". If IG has never held back until the tactical situation improves he is a braver man than me g. Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-misfeasance
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Say IG knew that tomorrow he had to go and help inventory a pile of seized cigarettes in some town or other, and he didn't want to do it because he objects to cigarette taxes. So he stays in bed and doesn't show up for work. What offence is that? Misfeasance for not showing up? Steve, I would say it would be a breach of the discipline code for "Failing to work his beat or patrol as ordered". The constitutional and legal position of the chief officer of police was stated by Lord Denning in the Blackburn case (1968) as; "I hold that it is the duty of the (chief officer) to enforce the law of the landin these things he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must or must not keep observation on this place or that, or that he must not prosecute this man or that one, nor can any police authority tell him so...The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone". A Chief Officer can order constables to stand in fields etc., and they frequently do. What the constable does or does not do then is down to him. Misfeasance is a common law offence. Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Lawful orders
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CS: Misc-Useful Quotes
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] "A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace." -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers (No. 46). "The one weapon every man, soldier, sailor, or airman should be able to use effectively is the rifle. It is always his weapon of personal safety in an emergency, and for many it is the primary weapon of offense and defense. Expertness in its use cannot be overemphasized." -General Dwight D. Eisenhower "Before God I swear this is my creed: my rifle and myself are the defenders of our country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life. So be it until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!! -From "My Rifle", by Major General W.H. Rupertus, USMC. Almost two centuries ago a group of disturbed men met in the small Pennsylvania State House they gathered to decide on a course of action. Behind the locked and guarded doors they debated for hours whether or not to sign the Declaration which had been presented for their consideration. For hours the talk was treason and its price the headsman's axe, the gallows and noose. The talk went on and decision was not forthcoming. Then, Jefferson writes, a voice was heard coming from the balcony: They may stretch our necks on all the gibbets in the land. They may turn every tree into a gallows, every home into a grave, and yet the words of that parchment can never die. They may pour our blood on a thousand scaffolds and yet from every drop that dyes the axe a new champion of freedom will spring into birth. The words of this declaration will live long after our bones are dust. To the mechanic in his workshop they will speak hope; to the slave in the mines, freedom; but to the coward rulers, these words will speak in tones of warning they cannot help but hear. Sign that parchment. Sign if the next moment the noose is around your neck. Sign if the next minute this hall rings with the clash of falling axes! Sign by all your hopes in life or death, not only for yourselves but for all ages, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom the bible of the rights of man forever. Were my soul trembling on the verge of eternity, my hand freezing in death, I would still implore you to remember this truth: God has given America to be free. As he finished, the speaker sank back in his seat exhausted. Inspired by his eloquence the delegates rushed forward to sign the Declaration of Independence. When they turned to thank the speaker for his timely words he couldn't be found and to this day no one knows who he was or how he entered or left the guarded room. -- Ronald Reagan "...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious." "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly...it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." -- Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Propaganda Minister -- Marines are required to learn the whole of "My Rifle" - "This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine..." Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Should we vote for Chief Constables?
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is a fifty year gap in which the idea of employing "people of high intellect" was replaced by some sort of sandwich course? What happened? Robert, Conspiracy theory has it that Soviet "agents of influence" inside the Home Office changed patriotic and independent Chief Constables recruited from and accountable to the local establishment to the present type. They are not like the old type and are chosen from a list approved by the Home Office. All who get on the list are police officers. Most of them have degrees in sociology and similar subjects which the Home Office sponsored. They typically have had little contact with the public or experience of operational police work but they do move around a lot at short intervals. The Police Federation has described this as the "butterfly syndrome". Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Police; a military force.
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] As for the police leading a military parade thats usually for traffice control not to show their pre-emienence over the military. Jerry, That is not the only reason IIRC. Formed bodies of troops with fixed bayonets may not enter a town unless their unit has the "freedom" of the Borough. This is one of the greivances against standing armies which the Bill of Rights addressed. Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Useful quote
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." - (C.S. Lewis, from the essay "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment" in the book "God in the Dock") Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Bad Laws
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] If ACPO, the Police Federation etc., not to mention yourself know these laws are bad, why not do something about them? You can go and see your MP, you can make representations to your Federation rep. and so on. It is not as easy as that. Constables are bound by the Discipline code which is derived from the Police Acts. Involvement in "political activities" is forbidden if it is likely to compromise impartial discharge of duty. And it is senior officers who sit on discipline boards. They however are not constables and are not bound by the same rules. Going over the head of the management anonymously is also forbidden. I have been a Fed Rep and have made representations to senior ones. The current shower pick and choose common law rights to suit themselves. If an individual wants funds from the insurance scheme to pursue a legal case those senior Reps decide who gets them. If you are enforcing a bad law which harms members of the public, it may be different in magnitude but it is no different in concept with the local SS officer blindly following the orders of the Nazis. True, but the SS were volunteers IIRC and unlikely to dissent. I understand that many Whermacht ( spelling?) Officers refused to condone breaches of the laws of war with impunity. A closer analogy would be with German police officers who were sent into Poland in the early stages of WW2 to impose the new regime. From my reading of Hitlers Willing Executioners, the entire German population in the pre war period were conditioned to regard slavs as sub human. The police as "representatives of their society" went along with the new orders. A lot of people "agreed with the new laws", to coin a phrase. German people that is, not slavs, the disabled, etc. Professor Eisenk wrote a book called "The Road to Serfdom" which describes how it happens. Police officers are not the servants of Parliament or the Home Office, they have autonomy and they are supposed to use discretion. That means that they bear the responsibility to a large degree for what they do. True. But FAC holders are reluctant to make waves by using the complaints system. Perhaps that is because senior officers investigate complaints and the Police Complaints Authority is composed of persons approved by the Home Office. PS. A police officer who was setting up a resistance movement would not breach the first rule of operational security by going public would he. I have always though that the Swiss resistance manual, (Total Resistance by Von Dach Bern, IIRC, was a good read) g. Regards, John Hurst. -- I've never been reluctant to make waves!G And so what if senior officers ignore the Police Federation rep., it is the Police Federation whose opinion we are attempting to change, they are the ones who keep coming out with these incredibly daft suggestions like deactivating and licensing antiques. It's just a cop out (sorry!) for an individual police officer to say that he can't do anything about it. Perhaps he can't do much, but as Edmund Burke said, "Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who does nothing because he could only do a little." If members of the Police Federation protested at L100 million being flushed down the toilet when it could have been used to do some good, that would make a difference, you only have to look at what is happening in Canada. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Once again, Nuremberg
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] What is an illegal order? Something somebody else doesnt like? Get real. IG, An illegal order is one which would result in a breach of law, common or statute, if complied with. As you know doubt know the Constables Oath of Alleigance, which is required by common law, Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, is a follows; "I do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve Our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of constable, without fear or affection, malice or ill will, and that I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved, and prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty's subjects and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law." Note the "to the best of _my_ skill and knowledge ". The responsibility to comply with the law is the individuals and "orders" which are unlawfull have no force. Breach of this Oath is misconduct in office at common law, perjury and treason. Trying to order a consable to break his Oath are the same offences. Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Note from Australian cop..
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is very interesting despite what we hear from other sources. The writer is a Tasmanian Officer who asks anonymity. Joe = I was fascinated reading the Canadian response to gun registration. I must admit to having favoured gun registration until I witnessed the extraordinary and to my mind undemocratic gun grab by the present Australian Government in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre here in Tas. Yes the murder of 35 unarmed innocents is tragic, but as one of the park rangers was heard to say in the aftermath; "If the "f**g govt had permitted us to continue carrying weapons instead of trying to portray a squeaky clean crime free environment to the tourists maybe we could have stopped this mad man." I agree 100% with that Park Officer. They have always been armed and carry out quite often dangerous joint operations with police. They were effectively disarmed some years ago by a system with its head buried in the sand, the very same system advocated disarming police officers also but thank God our union was strong enough to resist the liberals. Anyway, things have at last settled into a more realistic view with respect to present day gun ownership. The Federal Govt buy back scheme cost the taxpayers billions of dollars, armed hold-ups of security vans carrying "bought back" weapons to disposal areas netted criminals an arsenal they would under normal circumstances have only dreamt of. Naturally, many so called "destroyed" firearms have been turning up at armed robberies and murder scenes. The fatal flaw with the government destruction policy was, they removed responsibility from the police to oversee it and handed it to private security firms for fear of a public backlash on an already over indulgence of tax payers money. Naturally, some of the private companies don't have the necessary stops and checks in place to guarantee 100% honesty. After all of the above, the true figures in Australia with respect to violent crime is about what it was prior to the buy back. Naturally the gun reformists say violence is down and therefore it was a good thing and the other side claim increased incidents of gun related crime that leaves people who could previously defend themselves defenceless. Both sides have some merit, the reason for the "decrease" in murder rate is simple. We have not had another Port Arthur, if we did and 35 lives were lost the figures would be static. On the other hand, the people who are now "defenceless", in the main are bank staff. All banks had to hand in their own protective weapons, this netted the government some several hundred hand guns. What they don't say is, bank staff have not been permitted to use a firearm for over 20 years. They were simply wrapped in grease paper and kept in the safe. Those hand guns ended up being given to the Papua New Guinea Police Service as part of our UN charter to "civilise" the country. Whatever the heck that means. Last time I was there it was more civilised than Sydney, unless you happened to get on the wrong side of "The Rascals" in Port Moresby. It was an interesting secondment for six months and one I used to recommend to my classes at the Academy. I think it is important for a police officer to be as culturally aware as possible and secondment to a foreign Police Service is perhaps the best way to get it. We are now sending officers to East Timor, if it was 10 years ago my name would have been on the list. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Target-police and pistols
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Our police are generally prohibited from using fully automatic weapons, the Met anti-terrorist squad have some but they are rarely deployed. Unless someone can correct me I don't believe that anyone has ever been shot in GB with a full-auto by a police officer in the course of his duties. Steve, The IRA member caught with explosives in a hotel room in Hammersmith was, according to the press, shot with an MP5 K on full auto by a policeman who had no respirator and was affected by CS used by his colleagues. Hows that for reflexive shooting g. Regards. John Hurst. -- That's not what I read, they said an MP5 in one source but nothing about it being full-auto. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Ricochets
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Surely there's someone with some practical experience of experimentation with riccochets? What else is sloped armour about on AFVs? Norman, The slope effectively increases the thickness and the chance of a richochet is a bonus. IIRC one of the factors in AP projectile design is to minimise the chance of richochet. Hence the use of HE "squash head" and the probe in front of shaped charges. Regards, John Hurst. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Chaotic police records hide true extent of crimewave
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright 2000 Times Newspapers Ltd. Chaotic police records hide true extent of crimewave BY STEWART TENDLER, CRIME CORRESPONDENT CRIME figures are at least 20 per cent higher than those recorded by the police, according to an independent report due to be published soon. Hundreds of thousands of offences, including assaults, burglaries and car crime, are being excluded from national crime figures because of police inefficiency and bureaucracy. The Inspectorate of Constabulary's report, described by police sources as "explosive", provides the first comprehensive examination of crime recording in England and Wales and raises fresh doubts about the accuracy of current statistics. It also threatens to undermine the central thrust of Jack Straw's policy to improve police performance. That is based on setting demanding targets for cutting particular crimes and publishing figures for individual divisions. Ministers are already vulnerable over law and order and have had to bring forward the release of the latest crime figures after being accused of trying to bury bad news by publishing them on the same day as the Comprehensive Spending Review. The new figures will show that crime has risen by 4 per cent from 5.2 million offences to about 5.4 million in the year to March. If crime levels were really 20 per cent higher than that, it would take the total to at least 6.4 million - and the Conservatives are bound to seize upon the discrepancy. The inspectorate report, On the Record, found inconsistency between forces over the way crimes are recorded and demanded that the 43 forces agree a national system for recording offences. It did not conclude that forces were deliberately attempting to massage crime figures down, but blamed the current police habit of downgrading crimes by, for example, listing attempted burglaries as vandalism. The report also recommends that victims, and not the police, should confirm the nature of crimes. It says that too many decisions on whether a crime had taken place were left to individual officers and that there were too many differences between forces on the categories under which offences should be recorded. The inspectorate report is backed by a second unpublished study by the consultants Morgan, Harris and Burrows which was commissioned by the Home Office several years ago. That report also found shortfalls in the way forces recorded crime, with some divisions under-reporting by even more than 20 per cent. Chief constables have been alerted to the report's controversial findings and are considering adopting a uniform policy for recording offences. Home Office crime figures are based on crimes recorded under categories set by Whitehall. Over the 1990s, recorded crime fell steadily, but the British Crime Survey of victims' experiences has consistently shown that crime was still rising until last year. A crime researcher said the shortfall came as no surprise. Officers were under pressure and may want to avoid recording a minor crime that would produce considerable paperwork. One said "If a handbag was reported missing should it be regarded as a crime?" "One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary mode of being and only total victory is acceptable." -- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War" Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Great Britain and Gun Control
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/10/203335 Great Britain and Gun Control: With Neither Liberty nor Safety Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D. Tuesday July 11, 2000 Great Britain, which gave birth to the great political philosophy of classic liberalism and to America, the flowering of Western civilization, is in moral decline. Not content with holding Gen. Augusto Pinochet hostage, Britain now holds its own citizens hostage like an authoritarian nation that distrusts its own citizens with firearms.(1) Since 1996, when a madman went on a rampage killing 16 children and their teacher in Dunblane, Scotland, Great Britain has tightened to strangulation its already draconian gun control laws so that only certified members of approved target-shooting clubs are allowed to own guns. These must be .22 caliber or smaller and must be kept locked up at the club at all times. Guns have been virtually banned, and the God-given right to self-defense has been virtually abrogated in England. Dramatic Increase in Robberies and Other Crime And yet, crime has steadily risen in Britain in the last several years. The U.S. Department of Justice says a person is nearly twice as likely to be robbed, assaulted or have a vehicle stolen in Britain as in the United States. Although the U.S. remains ahead of Britain in rates of murder and rape, the gap is rapidly narrowing. And while robberies rose 81 percent in England and Wales, they fell 28 percent in the United States. Likewise, assaults increased 53 percent in England and Wales but declined 27 percent in the United States. Burglaries doubled in England but fell by half in the United States. And while motor vehicle theft rose 51 percent in England, it remained the same in America. To make matters worse for England - and this is also true for Canada - in those countries where citizens are disarmed in their own homes, day burglary is commonplace and dangerous because criminals know they will not be shot at if caught flagrante delicto. Not so in the U.S., where burglars not only prefer night burglaries but try to make sure homeowners are not in to avoid being shot at by the intended victim. The rising tide of thievery and burglaries in England has dubbed Britain "a nation of thieves," wrote the London Sunday Times, which noted: "More than one in three British men has a criminal record by the age of 40. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains the crime capital of the West. Where have we gone wrong?"(2) Perhaps England should look introspectively. The most drastic ascendancy of crimes in Britain was found in those types of felonies where recent studies in the U.S. have shown that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens not only save lives but also protect private property, reduce injuries to good people, and crime is generally deterred.(3) Writing in the May/June 2000 issue of the Medical Sentinel of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), Dr. Michael S. Brown writes that while the British laws have disarmed law-abiding citizens, "a black market has flourished, as usual with prohibitions, to supply criminal elements. Up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style executions." Dr. Brown continues, "Young criminals (ages 15 to 25 with prior convictions), according to the Sunday Times, 'own or have access to guns ranging from Beretta submachine guns to Luger pistols, which can be bought from underworld dealers for as little as รบ200 ($320 U.S.).'"(4) In the U.S., ordinary citizens shoot three times as many criminals in self-defense as do the police. Recent work by professor John R. Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago has shown that allowing people to carry concealed weapons deters violent crime - without any apparent increase in accidental death or suicide. While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law is associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed-carry gun laws cuts death rates from public, multiple shootings like those in Littleton, Colo., this year or Dunblane, Scotland in 1996. Professor Lott found that when concealed-carry laws went into effect in a given county, murders fell by 8 percent, rapes by 5 percent and aggravated assaults by 7 percent. For each additional year concealed-carry gun laws have been in effect, the murder rate declines by 3 percent, robberies by more than 2 percent and rape by 1 percent.(5) Women Using Guns for Self-Defense Moreover, studies in the U.S. have shown that guns are the great equalizer for females when accosted in the streets or assaulted in their homes. When a woman is armed with a gun, up to 83 percent of the time she will be successful at preventing rape, and only half as likely of being injured in the process.(3) These figures should be good news in the U.S. for the 17 million America
CS: Misc-Historical Validation of the Superiority of the Firearm for Self-defe
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Historical Validation of the Superiority of the Firearm for Self-defense by Michael Z. Williamson Often, an anti-defense activist will argue that rather than defending oneself with a firearm, one should use teargas, martial arts, or some other method. These methods simply are not effective. The chemical sprays and "non-lethal" weapons pack neither the power, the fear factor, or the usefulness against multiple opponents that a pistol does. Martial arts have their own flaw. Let us consider an historical parallel. At the battles of Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt and others, Welsh longbowmen under English control slaughtered heavily armed French knights backed up with crossbowmen. The power of a bow come from its draw weight times its draw length. A crossbow may have 150-200 lbs of draw weight, but only a 12" draw. Longbows recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose averaged 120 lbs (minimum 90 lbs, maximum an incredible 170 lbs), and had a draw length of at least 30". I say at least because there is evidence that longbowmen overdrew the chisel-like bodkin points used to pierce armor over their hands to the 32-33" mark. The longbow in skilled hands could fire 12 AIMED rounds per minute, almost silently, for ranges up to 400 yards, with accurate direct fire at human-sized targets up to 100 yards, and could be used for indirect fire over barricades. The French and all other Europeans stuck to the mechanically-operated crossbow, usually wielded by hired mercenaries. It was cheaper, since archers took years to train, had to be fed decent food with adequate protein, and--important at the time--treated as professionals rather than gutter scum, lest they pack their kit and go home. They were hard to replace. The early matchlocks replaced the crossbow, displaced the longbow, and were in standard use by the English Civil War ca 1650. It fired a whopping twice a minute by the book, perhaps three times by an expert in combat until it fouled after 4-5 rounds, and was individually accurate to about 25 yards. Volley fire made it useful to ranges of about 200 yards. The typical combat load was 12 rounds, at which time either the musketeers retreated behind the pikes, clubbed their muskets (the bayonet not having been invented yet) or drew swords or any other weapons they'd personally acquired. It had no indirect-fire utility. Clearly, the longbow was a superior arm. This state of affairs continued (with slight improvements in rate of fire) until near the end of the US Civil War when breechloaders were made practical. If we were to take 1000 troops each with Enfield muskets and longbows and put them behind wooden palisades at 200 yards, the longbowmen would exterminate the musketeers in short order, firing three to four times as fast, dropping their armor-piercing points over the palisade and skewering the hapless fusiliers at the rate of scores per second. (I have used all these weapons at historical re-enactments. Anyone who would charge bowmen behind cavalry traps and pitfalls is simply seeking an early death.) So why did the firearm displace the bow so quickly? To be sure, the noise and smoke made it more intimidating than a crossbow, but it was even less effective at short ranges. Back to our example for the answer: the 1000 dead fusiliers can be replaced by new recruits in a matter of a couple of weeks. The 20 or so bowmen taken down must come from a finite pool that has worked with the weapon daily for several years to build the shoulder strength and accuracy necessary. Simple logistics. Coming back to the modern day: to train our potential victim in the martial arts will require a psychological willingness to close and attack, full mobility and range of motion, several years of thrice weekly, quite expensive practice, and will STILL not put a 120 lb woman on par with the superior strength of a 250 lb brawler. The basics of firearm safety and utility can be taught in a day. Unless one plans to engage in serious competition, a practice weekly or monthly with $10 worth of ammo is adequate to maintain proficiency. One can even dispense with much of that by practice operation with snap-caps and dry fire. The pistol is the most effective, cheapest (in terms of cost over span of usefulness), easiest means of self-defense yet created. It is simply unbelievable that any rational person would oppose its use. Copyright (c) 2000 by Michael Z. Williamson. Permission granted to quote for non-profit purposes provided due credit is given. http://64.78.164.2/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=viewarticleid=262 -- Um, I didn't realise firing a can of OC took the skill of an archer. And in this country non-lethal weapons are banned too! Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __
CS: Misc-Defects of the SA80 Rifle.
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] SA 80 "Rifle" By a WW11 Rifleman. It passes comprehension that it should be proposed to throw even more millions after those already wasted on the useless SA 80 "rifle" (if it can be called such!), on top of the original 500,000,000 wasted on its development. It is horribly misshapen. Because the stock is so short, the weight is mostly at the butt end; so that the barrel throws up at automatic, something which the straight butt is supposed to avoid. The barrel waves about wildly, so that the benefit of the vaunted telescopic sight is negated. The shape of the rifle has developed over hundreds of years of trial and error. Why this strange departure? The telescopic sight is useless at close quarters, where a riflemen with a conventional "V" back sight (as on the old Lee Enfield, better at close quarters than the aperture sight favoured by the Americans) will be able to shoot an SA80 wielder several times before the poor fellow can acquire a target. It has no satisfactory open sights. Because of its short butt, the telescopic sight is set on legs so that the riflemen can get his eye to it, so exposing his head from behind cover. It cannot be fired from the left shoulder, because the empty cartridge cases would hit the user in the eye. It may be expected that inconsiderate opponents will take care to advance down the inconvenient street, down which aimed fire will be impossible. It fires from a closed bolt, so preventing cooling air circulating down the barrel, when not firing. The bayonet is shoddy and breaks, but will not take an edge. The bayonet, although useful at close quarters when a magazine is empty, or for use as a dagger, is more usually a tool for chopping wood and all the purposes for which ramblers and Scouts use their sheath knives. This rubbishy thing is useless even for such purposes. The bayonet is the first in the world to be fixed on one side, which must deflect the flight of the bullet. Hence it will fire differently with bayonet fixed. A criticism of the Russian rifle used by the Republican forces in Spain was, that it was designed to be fired with the bayonet fixed, and so fired high without it. That was not too difficult to compensate for, especially with telescopic sights. How does a rifleman compensate for sideways deflection? What lunatic thought of this method of attachment? The barrel is so flimsy that it is liable to bend in bayonet fighting. I understand that bayonet drill has been revised to avoid this. It is heavier than the SLR which it replaced. In the 1985 trials, it failed the sand test three times. What criminal lunatic authorised its production after that? After 300 rounds, if it succeeds in firing that many, the piston has to be removed and carbon deposits scraped off. The piston is in two pieces, and this is a delicate operation. In battle, when the adrenaline is flowing, the soldier's reactions are accelerated, but there is a recognised loss of capacity for fine movements. It is doubtful if this operation could be carried out in action. 300 rounds are nothing with modern automatics. The "Section Support Weapon" derived from the SA80 is even more pitiful. The idea of converting an automatic rifle to a light machine gun, with interchangeable parts, was abandoned by the Americans. The Kalashikovs AK47 and small calibre AK74 were converted successfully, by fitting heavier barrels which do not heat up so quickly, and which can be screwed off and changed when hot. The SSW has the usual slender fixed barrel, which heats up so quickly that guns have to fire in pairs, alternately. The weapon is so flimsy and vibrates so much, that at 300 yards, a burst of 5 rounds ends up 2 feet 6 inches to the left, and higher, than the first round. Consoling thought to those to whom "covering fire" is being given. Some genius has solved this problem. "Fire at single shot". The rate of fire is pitifully slow, limited by the speed at which the gunner can pull his trigger. Presumably, gloves are issued to avoid blistered trigger fingers. The Royal Marines, I am told, have sensibly refused to surrender their tried and trusted Bren Guns. What could be done to make even a cheap cotton purse out of this ugly pig's ear? At enormous cost, involving totally new manufacturing facilities, it could be finished to the same standards of precision engineering expected of weapons on which the very survival of nations may depend, so that it will fire when only lightly oiled, with a smear of graphite grease, or even dry, in sandy or dusty conditions, instead of being so badly finished that it will only fire when awash with oil. It could be assembled more permanently than with weak spot welding, which causes it to fall to pieces if dropped. The flimsy bits of plastic which break off, could be replaced with durable material. The butt could be replaced by plastic which does not melt in c
