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
