From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--snip--
The claim for loss of profits pursued in the European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR) by MPC on behalf of the firerarms retailers and dealers
had been declared inadmissible on the grounds that there was not a
reasonable expectation that the
From: "Alex Hamilton", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At the AGM of Historical Breechloading Smallarms Association (HBSA) at
the Imperial War Museum, Lambeth, London, on 20th November, it was
reported that:-
The claim for loss of profits pursued in the European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR) by MPC on
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The problem with the argument on retrospective legislation
is that even if we successfully argued it in court, the
outcome would be meaningless.
The guns have been destroyed, so the court would order
proper compensation be paid. But we already have
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah, they do the same thing in the US too, except
that we have a 14th Amendment that essentially shuts that
down: equal protection under the law.
Which is to say that grandfathering is a divide and
conquer scheme, as it set the current haves
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The problem with the argument on retrospective legislation
is that even if we successfully argued it in court, the
outcome would be meaningless.
The guns have been destroyed, so the court would order
proper compensation be paid. But we already have compensation
From: "E.J. Totty", [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? I believe this is the way it works in the
States, if youve got one when they ban
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
Steve,
Yeah, they do the same thing in the US too, except
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
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
From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We certainly have a few cameras at some busy junctions in
Cardiff that are obviously aimed at people jumping the
lights on amber and red.
Not many though.
Regards
Jerry
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL
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,
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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-8---8---
"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
From: Dave Reay, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of what our essential civil rights, as
guaranteed by the common law, are: the presumption of innocence; the right
to a fair hearing; no man to be obliged to testify against himself; the rule
against double jeopardy; no
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The speed camera decision is being appealed apparently.
Rememeber this case is not necessarily about speed cameras
it is about the wording of the 'Notice of Intended Prosecution'.
This means that the police may have to persue the vehicle and
detain the
From: [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
From: "niel fagan", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As I said in an earlier message, which was not published:-
Photos taken by the type of speed camera used in this country
could not be used in evidence in Germany, for instance: the
photo would have to show the driver. However, cameras capable
of doing
From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The speed camera decision is being appealed apparently.
Rememeber this case is not necessarily about speed cameras
it is about the wording of the 'Notice of Intended Prosecution'.
This means that the police may have to persue the vehicle and
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK we may not like speed cameras but the effect of this
would be to make most Road Traffic Law unenforcable - you
might identify the vehicle but the owner would be under
no obligation to say who was driving when for instance
the the vehicle was used in a bank raid
From: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regarding the 'misuse' of the ECHR some of the ones that
have come to light or might be tried in the near future
(according to the press and some comments from the legal
profession) :-
Car owners refusing to declare who was driving when an
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
I just wish I could have seen the look on
Charles Clarke's face when the Crown Court in
Birmingham handed down the judgement that speed
camera offences violate the right to remain silent.
[...]
Was that court
21 matches
Mail list logo
