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 retrospective legislation; no legislation to be
>given an effect contrary to international law--an old principle which has
>been there for years; freedom of expression; and freedom of association. All
>of those were in the minds of our delegates firmly secured already by the
>common law to this country, and not intended to be superseded or modified by
>the new inter-state obligations in the convention.
"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 it, you keep it but cannot sell
it or buy another one. Could this be the basis for an appeal? We would
be in a better position to argue the point if our firearms were returned
and the crime rate did not increase. We could reasonably say that when
the ban was total the incidence of shootings with handguns went up, and
having been given back our guns it had stayed the same.
--
Dave Reay
--
I did argue this point with the Home Office at the time but with no
effect. Their argument was that it wasn't retrospective legislation
and compensation was being paid anyway.
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
