From: "nick royall", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>banning our firearms isnt retrospective legislation
>because Margaret Thatcher changed the rules to suit
>herself when she nationalised and then privatised the
>Trustee Savings Bank in 1987 before the 1988 Firearms
>Act. We lost that argument before we even had a chance
>to use it because of misplaced political motivations
>and government greed. No Law Lord dare try to untangle
>that one unless a government of the future decides to
>renationalise what has been sold off and I can't see that
>happening without a civil war.
Nick,
No-one has the prerogative to alter the common law,
not even Mrs Thatcher. (The term "prerogative" means a right
or privilege exclusive to an individual or class). The
following quote which explains this is, IIRC, from
the debates on the Bill of Rights.
"No prerogative may be recognised that is contrary to Magna
Carta or any other statute, or that interferes with the
liberties of the subject. The courts have jurisdiction
therefore, to enquire into the existence of any prerogative,
it being a maxim of the common law that the King ought to be
under no man, but under God and the law, because the law
makes the King. If any prerogative is disputed, the Courts
must decide the question of whether or not it exists in the
same way as they decide any other question of law.
If a prerogative is clearly established, they must take the
same judicial notice of it as they take of any other rule of
law."
Regarding Law Lords, they are political appointees of the
Prime Minister and therefore part of the problem, I agree.
But their function is to deliberate and make rulings as
"decided (stated) cases on common and statute law. The
Bill of Rights is a Statute which stands by itself. It
does not need interpretation by Judges in the form of a
decided case to take effect.
If a person exercises his common law rights, for example
the RKBA, it is for the Executive, i.e.. the police and
Crown Prosecution Service, to prove what law he has
broken to a jury who then decide to convict or acquit.
They are entitled to decide on the facts and justice of
the case and disregard laws which would lead to injustice.
This is Jury nullification. And the cunning ploy in the
Bill of Rights is that;
"... noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings
to the Prejudice of the People in any of the said
Premisses ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter into
Consequence or Example...".
This means that even if Mrs. Thatcher did claim to have
changed the rules she had no prerogative to do so and the
new "rules" must be ignored by other members of the executive.
To put it another way, if people steal from shops and are
not caught, the Theft Act remains in force.
Regards, John Hurst.
--
Which is a good point but the question I always have is
there any realistic likelihood of a court enforcing this
interpretation?
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
