From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>"He is not confined for his remedy to calling the police or boarding up his
>premises. He may still arm himself for his own protection, if the exigency
>arises, although in so doing he may commit other offences. That he may be
>guilty of other offences will avoid the risk of anarchy contemplated by the
>reference."
>Call me a cynic, but I think the chances of that kind of ruling being
issued
>today are zero.
Steve,
There is no need to repeat the ruling, it is a decided case based
on the common law. The foundation of our judicial system is precedent,
otherwise known as "stare decisis".
What we have here, IMHO, is confirmation that an FAC is not necessarily
required for firearms held for self defence purposes.
The Home Office and ACPO say that statute law does not give them the
facility to issue them. And the subject can do anything which is not
unlawful as the decision in R. v. Fegan confirmed in relation to arms for
defence.
Alternatively, statute law does allow the issue of FAC's for self defence on
the mainland and individuals from the Home Office and ACPO are guilty of
misconduct in office and have civil liability to crime victims for failing
to comply with the law.
Either way, the RKBA remains throughout the UK.
Regards, John Hurst.
--
I don't think that's what ACPO and the HO say, what they say is that they
_won't_ issue them, not that they can't. They tried doing the same thing
in 1971 in Northern Ireland and it backfired badly. The
Firearms (Northern Ireland) Act 1969 (since repealed) was based on the
wording of the Firearms Act 1968, so how can they say that it doesn't
allow it?
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.
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
