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
for the guns (various spare parts not included) so it wouldn't
help. You might be able to argue some sort of punitive
damages I suppose but that is a really long shot. >>
Not all the guns were destroyed. Several thousand went overseas.
Ken
--
Hmm, good point, including most of mine. Seeing as I exported
them before the legislation came into effect, I am wondering
how I would argue that one. The argument would be stronger if
you left them with a Section 5 dealer because it would be easier
to show that you did it under duress. I sure as hell didn't
sit in the SLRC clubhouse all day to hand my gun to Chris
Valentine except under duress!
I still the property rights argument under the ECHR is much
stronger though. The UK Govt. seems to do really badly in
the ECHR, they seem to overturn UK Govt. decisions on
principle.
I like John's common law argument though, but judges don't
seem too keen about the Bill of Rights.
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
