From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The argument would be that the police have actually obstructed the
exercise of a common law right, so a person could not be criminally
liable because the police themselves have acted criminally. Can't
remember the legal theory there but it's something in latin.
Steve,
The following post from uk.politics.guns may be a clue.I have not
heard the term before before myself. I will ask the poster if he can
elaborate.
"... It used to be considered an immutable point of orthodox doctrine that
the government that absolves it's self of the obligation to provide
for the defence of it's citizens also absolved them of their
allegiance. This doctrine was very current here prior to the
revolution. It used also to be said, lex mala, lex nula...
A person who fails to perform his legal duties is a "public nuisance" at
common law. I like that term <g>.
Regards, John Hurst.
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
