From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Isn't it a bit harsh to claim that winnie was the first to introduce gun
>control just because you had to give 'reasonable' proof that you were a
>homeowner ?.
>
>After all the 1903 Act hardly brought in tons of new laws did it ?.
>--
--snip--
>Oddly enough in my research I found evidence that the Pistols
>Bill 1911 was based partly on the New York Pistol Act 1911,
>and subsequently the Firearms Act 1920 was based partly on
>the 1911 Bill, so in fact our gun laws are based on American
>gun laws, how's that for irony?
>
>Steve.
Steve, & James,
At the expense of using the 'C' word (conspiracy),
allow me to infer that it would appear that there were like
minded people of both our nations who had and idea and
were bent on expressing it.
Tenuous connections are the hardest to confirm as
having reliable association to related events, especially when
there appears no written record to validate the suspicions --
at least no written record that we might be privy to.
Laws of one nation, are seldom copied by other nations,
unless there is more than a passing interest. I find it <very>
interesting that Canadian & Brit laws were copied from US laws,
at about the same time,
I find it even more interesting, that NAZI law was
codified into US law.
This isn't simply a matter of what works getting onto
the law books of other nations, but rather, what is viewed as what
is passable in the political sense.
As an exercise here, I might ask (to test the validity of
the premise of conspiracy) just what other aspects of US law were
as well codified into either Brit or Canadian law. If it is only the
firearms laws that were copied, then I will assert that there was
more than a tenuous connection, and look for a likely 'vector'
which promoted the idea in the respective nations.
From my vantage point, someone, or a party of them, were
very well informed of English Law, and American Law. They used
their knowledge of that body of law to formulate law that would
pass the 'slippery slope' test, and be used to build upon later.
There is way too much here that cannot be tossed to
chance. Our respective corpus juris is way too similar, and that's
the tie-in that allows one set of laws to be related to the other.
My two coppers worth.
--
=*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*=
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too
much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
- Thomas Jefferson
=*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*=
ET
--
I don't think it was a conspiracy per se, from reading the
archives of the New York Times and various other old newspapers
I got the impression that in the early 20th century it was
fairly common for Americans to copy our laws and vice versa,
simply because we had more in common in terms of language.
I found references to Home Office officials visiting New
York prior to World War One, the paper said the officials
had meetings with the New York City Police Dept. to
discuss more effective ways of fighting crime and so on.
One article I found did mention a discussion about the
regulation of the "trade in pistols" or something like that.
I think it is a reasonable assumption the Home Office came
away with a copy of the New York Pistol Act from that
meeting.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
