From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>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's well established that property can be taken for public use
>(e.g. to build a road) if proper compensation is paid.
Steve,
There is a Royal prerogative to take property for public use, and
just compensation must be paid. That is what happens when roads are
built.Our pistols were seized under the threat of imprisonment, and were
destroyed ( allegedly) which is not the same.
I would argue this is in contravention of Articles 2 and 12 of the Bill of
Rights.
"... That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Lawes or the Execution of
Lawes by Regal Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is
illegall..."
"... That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular
persons before Conviction are illegall and void...".
IIRC the case of Chester v Bateson (1920) (KB 829 at 832.) covers this. It
was concerned with the seizure of a house to billet soldiers under the
Defence of the Realm Act 1915 and confirmed that law which is contrary to
the Bill of Rights has no force. There are other decisions along the same
lines. Mike Burke has them in his archive ( aka living room). If anyone out
there wants to help the cause they could do worse than provide him with some
document management software and a CD writer.
One of the cases is Bowles v. Bank of England (1913);
"the Bill of Rights still remains unrepealed, and practice of custom,
however prolonged, or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject can
not be relied on by the Crown as justifying any infringement of its
provisions".
I can hear you thinking that the Bill of Rights relating to the RKBA has
been
repealed by later legislation. The researcher in the House of Commons
library did not think so and quoted Bowles v. Bank of England;
"...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.
>...if they paid proper compensation (which they didn't), how does it fall
>afoul of being "retroactive"? 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.
A FAC is a document which certifies that its holder is qualified to acquire
the weapons
which it specifies. Moving the goalposts later and claiming that the same
person is no
longer qualified is retrospective legislation.
Section 7 permits under the 1968 Act are, however, authorities to possess.
Regards, John Hurst.
--
Like I said before, I don't know how it would change the situation
even if in court it was held to be retrospective because the
damages would be expressed monetarily. The Act itself would
not be wholly illegal on those grounds, only insofar as it
was retrospective. As the guns have been taken and destroyed
you could get money for them (that we already have to some
degree), and if your authorities to acquire were reinstated
that would be something, but how many of us had open authorities
to acquire? I had three at the time. I think the total number
was around 12,000 or so.
I have to say I do find the other argument interesting though,
property is usually taken for public purposes, and then compensation
is paid. In this case it wasn't taken for _public purposes_ it was
simply taken and 99% of it was destroyed.
As far as common law goes I think there is a case there for
violation of property rights, but once again that is up to
proving it in court.
And this is a large chunk of the argument JFS is using.
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
