THIS IS A LONG DOCUMENT THAT I DOWNLOADED A LONG TIME AGO . IT IS ABOUT
GUNS BUT IT GIVES A OVERLAPPING INSIGHT INTO OUR RIGHTS IN EVERY WAY.
AT THE END IT HAS THE BILL OF RIGHTS 1688.
YOU WILL NOTE HOW PARLIAMENTRY MEMBERS STILL HIDE BEHIND THE PRIVELEGE
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL BUT IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE.
ITS LONG, BUT THIS WHOLE ARTICLE JUST SHOWS HOW BIG A LOT OF CRIMS WE
ARE DEALING WITH.
I HAVE A LETTER FRON THE QUEENSLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL DATED 1996 THAT
CONFIRMS IT IS STILL VALID LAW IN QUEENSLAND FAX 07 4032 1113 IF YOU
WANT A COPY
COL
SAFE,
PO Box 104,
Hampton,
Middlesex,
TW12 lTQ.
Briefing Document
February 1998
Table of Contents:
SELF-DEFENCE AND THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION. 3
SAFETY AND FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE. 5
"DO BRITISH SUBJECTS OF GOOD CHARACTER HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO POSSESS
ARMS FOR SELF DEFENCE?" 6
UNDERSTANDING THE LAW. 6
THE WILL OF PARLIAMENT AND PEPPER V. HART. 6
"OFFENSIVE" WEAPONS. 8
FIREARM LEGISLATION. 9
THE DUTIES OF THE POLICE. 10
THE FIREARMS ACT 1920. 12
FIREARM CERTIFICATES AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS. 13
ALLEGIANCE. 14
HOME OFFICE "POLICY". 15
FIREARM CERTIFICATES AND MAGNA CARTA. 15
THE CONSEQUENCES OF REFUSAL OF FIREARM CERTIFICATES. 16
THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS. 17
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND FIREARMS LEGISLATION. 17
HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK LEGISLATION AND THE POLICE. 18
INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER. 19
CIVIL DAMAGES FOR ASSAULT VICTIMS. 19
POLICE MONOPOLY TO CARRY DEFENSIVE WEAPONS. 19
RIFLE CLUBS. 19
DEFENCE OF THE REALM. 21
POLICE MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING. 22
THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF THE ARMED FORCES. 23
CONSPIRACY THEORY. 23
THE HOME OFFICE "OPERATIONAL POLICING POLICY UNIT". 23
USE OF ARMS FOR SELF-DEFENCE. 24
THE FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) ACT 1997. 25
THE DUTIES OF THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 25
EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES. 27
HOME OFFICE POLICY. 27
THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. 27
THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE JUDICIARY, AND A LITTLE HISTORY. 29
POSTSCRIPT. 31
BLACKSTONE ON ARMS FOR SELF-DEFENCE. 32
THE COMMON LAW: TRADITION & STARE DECISIS. 33
"BILL OF RIGHTS 1688" 36
Notes: 40
MAGNA CARTA 1215. 42
THE CASE AGAINST GUN CONTROL 44
WEAPONS AND THE INDIVIDUAL 45
POLICE MONOPOLY 46
THE HISTORY OF WEAPONS CONTROL 47
GUN CONTROL IN OUR TIME 50
THE HUNGERFORD MASSACRE 53
TAKING THE LAW INTO OUR OWN HANDS 56
GUN CONTROL BY THE STATE, FOR THE STATE 57
INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL COMPARISONS 59
NATIONAL DEFENCE 61
WOMEN AND GUNS 62
THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE NOW 63
LET US ASK THE QUESTION 65
Notes 66
Further Reading 69
This document is available as:
Error! Bookmark not defined. (MS Word format)
and, Error! Bookmark not defined. (HTML format)
see also, Error! Bookmark not defined.
Self-defence and the British Constitution.
During the past hundred years or so, the government of this country has
become increasingly despotic. I do not mean by this that I live in
anything approaching a totalitarian police state. Indeed, I will say
that I live in one of the freest and generally the most fortunate
societies that has ever existed. Though I have spent at least a decade
now denouncing the government of my country, I do not fear for my
personal safety or for my career. I will also say that those foreigners
who favourably compare life in their own countries with life in modern
England are seldom entirely wrong.
Even so, the power of the British State is both more concentrated and
less restrained than at any time in the past. The old notion of the
State, as limited by custom and law, has given way to the common belief
that there should be no impediment whatever to the clearly expressed
will of the people - or of those who can, with any show of reason, claim
to represent this will. For a long time, the effects of the change were
largely confined to certain economic areas. Of course, these are of the
highest importance, and no definite boundary can be drawn between them
and other areas. In practice, though, a boundary was observed; and areas
of life that, by common agreement, lay outside were usually left
unaffected. We could therefore argue for or against socialism within an
undisputed framework of civil and political rights.
However, the intellectual collapse of socialism within the past
generation has tended to break down the old boundary. So far from
allowing the State to be rolled back, this collapse has had the
unexpected result of letting it roll uncontrollably forward into every
other area of life. This should not have been unexpected. Once
established, beliefs about the duty of the State to intervene, and the
benefits of intervention, are unlikely to die simply because the old
justifications for it have died. Therefore, when politicians have
realised the futility - and, more importantly, the danger from a
mercantilist point of view - of trying to manage things like the
telephone network or the prices of food, they will turn naturally to
trying to control our lives in non-economic matters.
And these new controls will be accepted, and even demanded, by a people
so accustomed to control that they cannot accept the lifting of it in
one area without a compensatory extension of it into others. Therefore
the controls on smoking and driving and sport and amusement and child
rearing, and even on the expression of ideas. Therefore the new
supervision of private life that would never have been attempted or
accepted in the days of exchange control and the Selective Employment
Tax. Therefore the breaking down of any legal safeguards that seem to
frustrate the smooth working of the new controls.
And so the threat of unlimited government is actually greater today
than it was in the late 1970s, when it first became a popular concern.
It is greater because it is less well defined. The slide into despotism
will not come because someone like Arthur Scargill wants to nationalise
everything in sight. It will come because of a push that is weaker at
any one point, but applied over a far larger area.
Now because the nature of this threat is new, so the response to it
must be new. The concentration on economic issues, that for most of the
present century, has been the main feature of conservative and
libertarian argument is no longer appropriate in an age when the debate
over economics has mostly come to an end. We must turn to a far greater
degree than has so far been the case to putting the argument for limited
constitutional government. Instead of dealing with one aspect of the
changed conception of the State, we must deal with the changed
conception itself.
Our fellows in the United States are more fortunate in this respect
than we are in England. They have a written Constitution that derives
from an earlier age of English civilisation, when the limiting of state
power was taken as the main end of politics; and they can appeal to the
letter of their Constitution in opposing the spirit of their actual
government. Efforts, no matter how determined, to disarm the American
people can be countered by insisting on their Second Amendment. Every
effort to restrict what can be made available on the Internet has broken
so far without success on the rock of the First Amendment. They have a
text around which conservatives and libertarians and civil libertarians
can unite in the defence of liberty.
But we also have a Constitution. It may not be digested into a single
clear document that was intended to stand forever. But the materials
that were digested into the American Constitution all had their origin
in England. Granted, these materials are scattered through customs,
charters, legal judgements, textbooks, and Acts of Parliament that
accumulated over about eight centuries. But their existence is a matter
of record. They are still a flat challenge to the modern conception of
the British State as the instrument by which the untrammelled
legislative supremacy of the House of Commons is expressed.
Or they would be a flat challenge if they could be made generally
available. At the moment, they are not available. Last summer, for
example, an argument started on the Cybershooters List over the extent
to which the Bill of Rights 1689 guaranteed the right to keep and bear
arms. Before this could be settled, it was necessary to circulate a copy
of the Bill. I had an old copy in print too small for scanning. it was
nearly a week before Bob Allen found or produced an electronic copy that
could be circulated.
Again, I am something of a legal antiquarian - yet I have never found
a complete edition of Sir William Blackstone's great Commentaries on the
Laws of England, first published in the 1760s. These are one of the main
influences on the American Constitution. They were a powerful force in
shaping understanding of the English Constitution well into the 19th
century. Yet I do not know of any modern edition. There are the State
Trials, published in the early 19th century, with some highly valuable
commentaries - these have never been reprinted, and they are only
available in a few specialised libraries.
In short, the primary materials from which an understanding can be
gained of the English Constitution are unavailable to ordinary people.
The intention of this WebPage is to make these materials available on
the World Wide Web, and thereby to assist in the growing debate on the
preservation of freedoms that we once took for granted, but which are
now under growing threat.
I said at the top of this Page that I would lay particular emphasis on
the right to keep and bear arms for self-defence. This means that my
first main job will be to publish the reports on and the parliamentary
debates about the various Firearms Acts of the 20th century, together
with any legal judgements, both ancient and modern, that shed light on
the destruction of this particular freedom. But my ambitions are far
wider, and are limited only by the amount of time that I can afford to
spend in the relevant libraries and then at home with my scanner. I hope
to make this the resource page for English constitutional thought. It
may take some while, though, before hope and reality can be made to
resemble each other.
Sean Gabb. London, May 1997. (English Constitution Resource Page, with
Emphasis on the Fight against Victim Disarmament. Texts Selected and
Introduced by Sean Gabb).
E-mail: Sean Gabb <Error! Bookmark not defined.>
Web: Error! Bookmark not defined.
Safety And Freedom for Everyone.
Sean Gabb�s "Self-defence and the British Constitution" was circulated
on the Internet and led indirectly to the formation of an association of
like-minded persons who shared the author�s concerns and feared for the
future liberties of themselves and their heirs. The nucleus of the
group met each other for the first time by chance at a meeting that was
held at Bisley, home of the National Rifle Association. The purpose of
the gathering was to register protest by licensed pistol owners against
the latest tranche in the progressive suppression of an ancient right.
Our initial focus was on the single issue of firearms legislation. We
began to research the British Constitution to find out what had become
of the right to have defensive weapons. Accounts of this Right had been
passed on to us by word of mouth from our predecessors. Our aim was to
determine what were the legal rights of the law-abiding person to
acquire and use the tools of self-defence. Much time was spent in
libraries and in correspondence with MPs and Government departments.
Home computers and the Internet made communication and the processing
and exchange of information easier than it would have been in earlier
times. What we found went far beyond the narrow interests of a small
minority of sportsmen. When the conclusions, which are set out below,
became apparent a name for the project was chosen. Safety And Freedom
for Everyone is a group of new friends and a Post Office box. We have
pooled our personal and professional resources and expertise to prepare
the document that follows. The work continues and contributions and
constructive criticism are welcome. We believe that the state of
affairs, which we have uncovered, should not be allowed to continue.
Too many innocent victims cry out for justice. To that end this
document is being made public. It is time for the policy maker�s bluff
to be called. This may be the last opportunity to make a stand as the
slide to tyranny accelerates. It is the lesson of history that
dictators disarm their victims first. And the first steps are made by
stealth. We do not know what is in the minds of the proponents of the
policy of victim disarmament in so called "pressure groups" and in the
organs of the State. They have conspired to give themselves the power
of life and death over us. Whatever their present intentions are they
should not have the capability which a disarmed populace gives them. We
are certain that they do not have the right to expose their fellow
countrymen to assault by the lawless. Violent criminals have grown
bolder and more numerous as the futile policy of the disarmers has been
pursued by successive governments. The responsibilities of weapon
ownership are great, but they are not beyond the capability of the
honest citizen.
SAFE. January 1998.
"Do British subjects of good character have a legal right to possess
arms for self defence?"
Recent original research by members of SAFE has determined that the
ancient right of British subjects to possess arms for self defence has
been concealed behind an official "policy" which has no basis in law.
Thousands of innocent persons have been exposed to attacks from the
lawless. The time has come for this immoral situation to change.
The purpose of this document is to set out what has been discovered so
that the information and deductions, which it contains, can be confirmed
by interested parties and used in legal action to reclaim the right to
acquire and carry the tools of self-defence. The information below has
been collated from Acts of Parliament, Hansard, legal textbooks and the
Judgements in appeal cases that have restated the law.
The term "arms" includes weapons of types that are suitable for
personal self-defence. Because firearms and irritant sprays are the
most effective weapons of defence available at the present state of
technology, their legal possession will be the main topic considered
here. Edged weapons are generally prohibited in public places by the
Criminal Justice Act 1988, as are "martial arts" weapons such as rice
flails. Irritant sprays are classified as firearms by Section 5 of the
Firearms Act 1968.
The question that this essay seeks to answer is, "Do British subjects
of good character have a legal right to possess arms for self defence?"
If we have such a legal right, we are entitled to exercise it.
Understanding the law.
The Interpretation Act 1978 and related case law sets statutory rules
for determining the meaning and therefore the effect of Acts of
Parliament. It also lays down rules for the repeal and reinstatement of
legislation. For example, "the title and preamble can help in
ascertaining the scope of the statute and supply the key to the meaning
of doubtful or ambiguous expressions." "The long title states the
function of the Act." and, "Acts are to be construed according to the
intention of Parliament, which is to be sought only in the words used in
the Act unless they are imprecise or ambiguous. The grammatical,
ordinary and natural sense of all the words, read in the context of the
statute in which they appear is to be used. Where the meaning is plain,
it is to be adopted." The word "may" is permissive and "shall" is
imperative.
The will of Parliament and Pepper v. Hart.
The judgement in the case of Pepper v. Hart (1993) means that
clarification about what the intentions of Parliament expressed in an
Act were can be found in the statements of the Bills sponsors when it
was debated in Parliament. A Court "may make reference to Parliamentary
material, such as Hansard, where legislation is,
(a) ambiguous or obscure,
(b) the material relied upon consists of one or more statements by a
minister or other promoter of the Bill together with such other
Parliamentary material as is necessary to understand such statements and
their effect; and
(c) the statements relied upon are clear".
" In the light of the dicta in Pepper v. Hart, the following rules can
be extracted as to the professional duty of legal advisors and advocates
as a consequence of the decision,
1. In practically every case involving the construction of an
enactment, there must be a search in Hansard. This is because it is
rarely possible to be sure, without full knowledge of the background,
that the Pepper v. Hart conditions are not satisfied.
2. The duty extends to the construction of delegated legislation and
not only where it is debated in Parliament. The sponsor may have made a
statement in debates on the Bill for the parent Act that indicates the
way the delegated power was intended to be exercised.
3. The duty may extend to Hansard reports on other related Bills, as
happened in Pepper v. Hart itself.
4. A relevant passage in Hansard must be studied in the light of
parliamentary proceedings as a whole. In particular, care must be taken
to ensure that a statement by the sponsor was not affected by subsequent
developments, e.g. a later amendment to the Bill.
5. Practitioners need to know how to find and search parliamentary
materials competently.
6. Practitioners need to understand the parliamentary legislative
procedure in order to evaluate the significance of passages found and
present them to the Court."
(All England Law Reports Annual Review 1992, page 386.)
Any legal advice which does not take the above principles into account
will not be valid. None of the submissions to the Cullen inquiry were
made on Bill of Rights grounds. This was because the government gave
instructions to Lord Cullen to only consider sporting uses of arms. As
far as we are aware, SAFE has made the first study of the constitutional
rights of the subject which takes Pepper v. Hart into account.
The case of Pepper v. Hart was referred to in Parliament and caused The
Speaker of the House of Commons to issue a reminder to the Courts and
all other persons of their duty to take notice of the Bill of Rights,
confirming that it is an operative Statute (Hansard, 21 July 1993) She
said, "This case has exposed our proceedings to possible questioning in
a way that was previously though to be impossible. There has of course
been no amendment of the Bill of Rights (see below) ... I am sure that
the House is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be required
to be fully respected by all those appearing before the Courts".
The reference to the fact that there has "of course" been no amendment
to the Bill of Rights is because all Crown servants are bound by their
oath of allegiance to respect its provisions as a Statute in force. All
other persons are obliged to respect it by the Crown and Parliament
Recognition Act 1689. Parliament does not have authority to remove the
rights of the subject that it protects, as will be shown below. This is
because individual MPs are bound by their Oath of Allegiance to respect
the laws including this one above all. Attempts to overthrow the laws
and Constitution are treason. New rights may be conceded to the
subject, for example if the European Convention on Human Rights were to
be added to British law, but existing rights may no be taken away. The
only method by which the Constitution and the rights that it protects
could be changed would be by revolution. For this to occur all Crown
servants would have to be persuaded to take a new Oath of Allegiance.
The principle of Pepper v. Hart allows, perhaps for the first time, the
layman to determine the meaning of Statute law. In the Judgement, Lord
Oliver of Aylmerton stated that "A Statute is, after all, the formal and
complete intimation to the citizen of a particular rule of law which he
is enjoined, sometimes under penalty, to obey and by which he is both
expected and entitled to regulate his conduct".
"Offensive" weapons.
Weapons such as telescopic batons are allowed to be carried by
responsible persons in public places because the Bill of Rights gives
lawful authority for them to be possessed for self-defence. This was
recognised in the debates on the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. The
stated purpose of the Bill was to "tackle the ruffian and those on the
fringe of the community who would go out armed with a cosh,
knuckle-duster or similar and terrorise others in the neighbourhood.
Its main effect was to be not in the vast number of prosecutions, but
the "in terrorem effect". It was intended only to "discourage" certain
persons from carrying offensive weapons unless they had "lawful
authority or reasonable excuse" while respecting the liberty of the
subject.
The Bill only applied to the carriage of weapons in public places.
Lord Lloyd (a sponsor of the Bill) reminded the House of Lords that "it
should be noted a person who remains on his own property may with
impunity go around positively festooned with weapons. If he has a
firearm he would need the appropriate certificate. His house may be a
veritable arsenal. He will be committing no offence under this Bill".
(Hansard, 14 April 1953.) Maxwell Fyffe (also a sponsor) assured the
Commons, "it excludes the whole class of persons who are on their
employers property and doing their work. The night watchman who carries
a bludgeon or a life preserver would not come within the scope of this
Measure when carrying out his duties on his employers property."
(Hansard, 26 Feb. 1953.)
The definition of "lawful authority" was not described in the debates
in the Commons. However, the Bill of Rights is a statute in force,
which means that the police and Courts are obliged to accept that the
subject may possess arms for defence. The Interpretation Act confirms
this by saying that the liberties of the subject are to be assumed. A
search of legal textbooks has shown that the Courts have only given
rulings on what is, or is not, "reasonable excuse" For example,
nightclub bouncers carrying truncheons in a public place was not
excusable. The status of the Bill of Rights as "lawful authority" has
not been questioned because Crown servants are obliged to respect it.
No cases where the "lawful authority" of an ordinary person (i.e. not a
Crown servant off duty) was an issue have been placed before the Courts
by the police as far as we have been able to determine.
In the debates on the Bill in the House of Lords it was confirmed by
Lord Lloyd, that "it is the Common Law duty of every citizen to take
what steps he can to prevent a breach of the peace, and that this duty
may include the bringing of assistance to the victim of an unlawful
assault of which he may be a witness". (Hansard, 28 April 53.) This
also is a form of lawful authority to carry weapons. The duty and right
of the citizen to have arms comes from the obligation to join the "hue
and cry" to catch criminals and to assist in the defence of the realm in
an emergency.
The meaning of the term "reasonable excuse" was described in the Lords,
"If a woman has reasonable cause for thinking she was going in danger of
her life, she can carry a weapon. There is no absolute prohibition."
(Lord Lloyd, Hansard, 14 April 1953.) The Home Secretary Sir Frederick
Maxwell Fyffe, (also a sponsor) said in the Commons " it is not the
intention of the Bill to place in peril (of breaking the law) the
innocent citizen pursuing his or her daily round." (Hansard, 26 Feb.
1953.)
Lord Saltoun, who had spoken vigorously on behalf of the liberties of
the subject, summarised the position by reminding the Lords of the
importance of the statement made by Lord Lloyd, who represented the
Government, saying, "it is not the purpose of this Bill to prevent
people from carrying weapons if they think it is necessary for their
defence. I hope that is noted." The principle from Pepper v. Hart now
allows us to reclaim the right to carry the tools of self-defence which
has been unlawfully encroached on by Government as a matter of "policy."
The Home Office has pursued this "policy" which discourages the
carriage of defensive weapons by giving incomplete summaries of the law
in their crime prevention advice publications which are distributed by
police forces. They recommend "instant arming" with everyday objects
such as rolled up newspapers as likely to be effective. Some older, pre
Pepper v. Hart, publications claimed that there was no right to carry
arms for self-defence. Recent examples are more carefully worded,
presumably because the civil servants concerned are aware of their legal
responsibilities as Crown servants to respect the subject�s rights. The
training given to police officers has selectively described the law by
focusing only on "reasonable excuses."
Firearm Legislation.
The legal controls on firearms in the UK derive from the Firearms Act
1920. The legislation was reviewed by a Working Party led by Sir John
McKay in the early 1970's. Their report is not available to the public
but some observations and recommendations from it were published by the
Home Office in a consultative document in May 1973 (The Control of
Firearms in Great Britain. HMSO),
"The Firearms Act 1968, following earlier firearms legislation, makes
no attempt to define what should, or should not be regarded as a good
reason for possessing a firearm. The stringency of the legal control
over Section 1 firearms therefore rests in practice upon the way in
which chief officers exercise the wide power of decision vested on them
by the law, and on the decisions of the Crown Court in the relatively
infrequent cases taken to appeal... There has been no general
disagreement over the way in which � these powers have been exercised.
To put the matter very broadly, sporting purposes and target shooting
have been accepted as good reasons ... personal protection has not".
However, "the time might come when a chief officer or the Crown Court
decided to allow a firearm for personal protection ... this decision
might be treated as a precedent."
The Home Office expressed "grave concern" to avoid such a development
and proposed that a Statutory Instrument be created allowing them to
issue instructions to chief officers of police as to what should be
"good reasons" in future. SAFE understands that no such Instrument has
been created. We believe that it would be unlawful to attempt to do so
for the reasons set out below. The Home Office has instead promoted a
"policy" which claims that "firearms are not considered appropriate for
personal protection in this country." (Firearms Law; Guidance to the
Police. HMSO.)
Since the Firearms Act of 1920, firearms may be lawfully held only by
persons who have obtained in advance a firearm certificate or exemption
permit (except for Crown servants). The procedures for obtaining these
documents are laid out in the Firearms Acts.
Hansard records that the intention of Parliament in the Firearms Act
1920 was, "to afford an effective system of control over the possession,
use and carrying of firearms so as far as possible to secure that they
do not come into the hands of criminals or otherwise undesirable
persons..." (The Earl of Onslow in presenting the second reading 27
April 1920.) He stated on 29 April that " speaking generally, it must
be assumed that the grounds on which a revolver may be applied for and
the application (for a firearm certificate) may be granted by a chief
officer of police is for protection of the applicants house" i.e. for
self-defence.
The principles of repeal which are specified in the Interpretation Act
mean that provisions in the Firearms Acts of 1920 and 1937 are brought
forward into the Firearms Act 1968. Section 59 of the Firearms Act 1968
states "things done under an enactment repealed by this Act ... shall
so far as may be necessary for the continuity of the law be treated as
done under the corresponding enactment in this Act. Earlier enactments
are therefore recognised in the current law."
Sponsors of the Bill confirmed this during the debates on the 1968 Act
in replies to questions from Lord Swansea on 4 April 1968 in the Lords.
Mr. Graham Page confirmed in the Commons on 13 May 1968 that no
Statutory Instrument was created for the guidance of chief officers of
police that removed the right to arms for defence.
The duties of the Police.
"The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime,
the next is that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is
committed. To these ends, all the efforts of the Police must be
directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of
public tranquillity, and the absence of crime, will alone prove whether
those efforts have been successful and whether the objects for which the
Police were appointed have been attained." (Sir Richard Mayne, Joint
Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, 1829.)
"In attaining these objects, much depends on the approval and
co-operation of the public, and these have always been determined by the
degree of esteem and respect in which the Police are held. Therefore
every member of the Force must remember that it is his duty to protect
and help members of the public, no less than to bring offenders to
justice. Consequently, while prompt to prevent crime and arrest
criminals, he must look on himself as the servant and guardian of the
general public and treat all law abiding citizens, irrespective of their
race, colour, creed or social position with unfailing patience and
courtesy."
(Paragraphs 2 & 3 of the Metropolitan Police Instruction Book, which
were required to be memorised by all recruits 1829 - c1985.)
The Police are regarded as a civil, not military force, under the
control of the locally elected authorities and as a consequence, look
upon themselves as servants of the civil community locally, and not as
state servants under military discipline.
So much for the theory. In practice the Home Office controls the
police. Parliament debated the introduction of a Police Bill in July
1919. The police in general had suffered from poor pay and conditions.
There had been a police strike in 1918. Protests to the government had
brought no results and in desperation, the police had formed their own
union with which to represent themselves. During the debate, the
Government agreed to improve pay in and conditions following the
recommendation of a committee. However, the improvements were subject
to certain conditions. The House was asked to agree to the proposals
for improved pay etc. on condition that the police union was suppressed
by an act of Parliament. In place of the union the Government proposed
to set up "Police Federation". This in effect meant that the Home
Office would then have control over pay, promotion and discipline,
clothing, pensions, expenses and conditions of service.
Mr. Shortt (Secretary of State for the Home Department) and a sponsor
of the Bill said, "May I remind my hon. Friend that the Home Office is
not any sense the employer of the police. So far from that, the Home
Office, as head of the police, is part of the police force itself."� "In
this Bill we have taken power to enable the Secretary of State to make
regulations as to Government, pay, allowances, pensions, clothing,
responsibility and conditions of service of the members of all police
forces in England and Wales, and every police authority shall comply
with the regulations so made." (Hansard, 18th July 1919.)
This meant that the intention of the Government was to take control of
the police. Many MPs raised objections about this new and
unconstitutional development,
"It seems to me that these Clauses, and the attitude of mind which has
brought them into being, with the subsequent idea of a federation of the
Police, to be formed with due regard to the interests of the officials
of the State and the mind of the State official is a product of the war
mind. We regard this once again as the thin end of the wedge. We know
there is in this country a growing opinion in favour of State ownership
and of State control thereby bringing larger and larger numbers of the
citizens of this country under the State umbrella, and we see in this a
deliberate attempt to undermine the liberty and freedom of individuals
when they are working for the State. We regard this Bill as contrary to
public policy. We say it is not the right way of dealing with the
problem, and we are amused at the attempts by the government to set up a
federation under the auspices of officialdom and expect that this
federation is going to be a useful tool in the hands of these men�It is
foreign to the spirit of the time in which we live, and so far as we are
concerned we will offer it - and I am convinced the same will occur in
the country - our strongest opposition inside this House and use every
legitimate effort to frustrate the intentions of the Government as
incorporated in this Bill."
(Mr. A Short)
"The policeman - there is no question of the military system - acts as
the representative of the ordinary citizen...it is important to bear in
mind that the constable, even in the execution of his duty for the
preservation of peace acts not as the agent of the Government exercising
powers derived from them, but as a citizen representing the rest of the
community."
(Sir Henry Craik)
Mr. Shortt replied in the Commons, "The inclusion of the word
"government" does not in the least take the real executive power out of
the hands of the local watch committees or local authorities�"
Similar objections were raised in the Lords. In the final debate Lord
Monk Bretton reminded the House that even the County Councils
Association objected to the word "government" because it implied
executive powers. Furthermore, he said,
"The adoption of direct central control of the Police would be foreign
to the constitutional principle to which we have referred, by which the
preservation of law and order in this country is primarily the function
of the proper local authority. It would alter the whole basis of the
Police system, and, in particular, would prejudice the intimate
relations between the police and the localities where they serve, which
many experienced witnesses have regarded as one of the most desirable
characteristics of the present system, and to which they attribute in
great measure the happy relations which have existed between the Police
and the general public in this country."
(Hansard, 8th August 1919)
In his reply, Viscount Sandhurst gave the following assurance from the
Government,
"�only general regulations will be made, and that the clause cannot be
used to transfer to Whitehall the control of the Police now carried out
by Standing Joint Committees and by Watch Committee."
We may conclude two principles from the above;
1. The Home Office has no mandate to "govern" police forces by taking
executive power away from watch committees, their successors or local
authorities. "Policy" cannot be imposed on chief officers by the Home
Office.
2. Regulations as to pay, allowances, pensions, clothing,
responsibility and conditions of service of the members of all police
forces in England and Wales are decided by the Home Office.
Can it be a coincidence that Home Office "policies" are almost
invariably enthusiastically endorsed by the Police Federation and the
Association of Chief Police Officers? Victim disarmament is one example
and persecution of licensed gun owners is another. Perhaps the fact
that promotions to senior ranks are from a list of names selected by the
Home Office has something to do with it. And by what authority is
promotion a Home Office responsibility?
The Firearms Act 1920.
When the Home Office presented the Firearms Bill to Parliament in 1920,
the authority to issue firearm certificates was placed in the hands of
chief officers of police. This was contrary to normal practice where
licensing was the responsibility of local magistrates. Commander
Kenworthy objected,
"I very much object to power being given to the police to judge whether
a person is fit to have a firearm or not� Under the original Pistols Act
(1903) that power was placed in the hands of Magistrates in petty
sessions, and this giving the right to the police to decide a point of
this kind is quite a new development in this country, and is contrary to
English practice. In England the police are very respected public
servants, on the Continent they are petty officials with tremendous
powers, which they use to the full and which are not conducive to the
free development of those nations. We do not want that kind of thing
here, and I hope that the power will be given, not to the police, but to
the magistrates at petty sessions, and that there will be no attempt to
make police officers petty officials to control the concerns of private
people. Any such attempt should be resisted by the House to the
utmost. We have here a chance at any rate of stopping one more attempt
to set up a petty police bureaucracy in this country."
(Hansard, 10th June 1920)
This observation refers to Magna Carta which states;
"No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other royal officials are to hold
lawsuits that should be held by the royal justices."
This debate continued for eight pages covering a variety of related
subjects including the application of the Bill to Ireland and how
treaties with foreign Governments should affect British law. Commander
Kenworthy had begun the debate with the following observation,
"There is a much greater principle involved than the mere prevention of
discharged convicts having weapons. In the past one of the most
jealously guarded rights of the English was that of carrying arms. For
long our people fought with great tenacity for the right of carrying the
weapons of the day...It has been a well know object of the central
Government in this country to deprive people of their weapons... I do
not know whether this Bill is aimed at any such goal."
The Home Secretary Mr. Shortt did not answer the points that had been
raised saying, "These are mainly Committee points which it will be
impossible to deal with at this stage." Research is continuing and it is
not yet know what justification was given for the apparent infringement
of Magna Carta. This is another important point of law that appears not
to have been tested in a Court.
Firearm certificates and the Bill of Rights.
Section 27 of the Firearms Act 1968 states, "A firearm certificate
shall be granted by the chief officer of police if he is satisfied that
the applicant has a good reason for having in his possession, or for
purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which
application has been made and can be permitted to have it in his
possession without danger to public safety or to the peace."
The constitutional and legal position of the chief officer of police
was been stated by Lord Denning in the Blackburn case (1968) as,
"I hold that it is the duty of the (chief officer) to enforce the law
of the land....in these things he is not the servant of anyone, save of
the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must or
must not keep observation on this place or that, or that he must not
prosecute this man or that one, nor can any police authority tell him
so...The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is
answerable to the law and to the law alone".
The Oath required by the Bill of Rights to be taken by all police
officers includes, "I, A. B., will be faithful and bear true allegiance
to our sovereign lady the Queen... I will, to the best of my skill and
knowledge, prevent all offences against the persons and property of Her
majesties subjects."
In making his decision about the issue of a Firearm certificate the
chief officer is bound by his Oath of Office to comply with the laws,
including the Bill of Rights 1689 to "prevent all offences against the
persons and property of Her Majesties subjects". The Bill of Rights is
a Statute in force which, as Madam Speaker reminds us, has not been
amended. It was the first passed by Parliament after the civil wars and
the "Glorious Revolution". It remains our "central constitutional
document, the nearest approach to a constitutional code which we
possess." (Sir William Anson 1922, from Bill of Rights by Richard
Munday.) Its long title is "An Act declaring the Rights and Liberties
of the subject and Settling the Succession to the Crown." It is in
effect a job specification and employment contract for Crown servants.
Included amongst these "ancient rights and liberties of the subject" is
Article 7 which states,
"The subjects which are Protestant's may have arms for their defence
suitable to their condition and as allowed by law."
The right of Protestants to arms was affirmed because it was they who,
as the preamble makes clear, had been disarmed "contrary to law" after
the Restoration. The right to defensive weapons was not restricted to
them as was made clear by another Act of the same year (W & M Sess 1, c.
15.). The wording "suitable to their condition" reflected the Bill of
Rights appeal to ancient usage. It means the personal service weapons
of the day. The Bill did not seek to create rights, but to reaffirm
immemorial principles of common law. Constitutional commentary and case
law would later confirm that this condition could not be construed to
exclude "people in the ordinary class of life" (R. v Dewhurst, 1820).
As has been shown above, the current Firearms Act respects the
provisions of Article 7 of the Bill of Rights and the subject is
"allowed arms by law."
The Bill of Rights insists that its provisions be respected. Article
13 states, "And for the redress of all grievances and for the amending,
strengthening and preserving of the Laws Parliaments ought to be held
regularly."
'The word "amend" means to make improvement to something. Article 13
confirms that Parliament has no authority to diminish the subjects�
rights under the law. It is a reference to Magna Carta and Common Law
and the reason why it would not be possible to make a Statutory
instrument which directed a chief officer of police not to respect the
right to arms for defence. The Bill of Rights makes this clear in the
following passages, "No declarations Judgements Doings or Proceedings to
the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any
wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example." � "All and
singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in (this)
declaration are the true ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of
the people of this kingdom and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged,
deemed and taken to be and that all and every the particulars aforesaid
shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed
in the said declaration and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall
serve their majesties according to same in all times to come."
In the case of Bowles v. Bank of England (1913) it was ruled that " the
Bill of Rights remains unrepealed and practice or custom, however
prolonged ... can not be relied on by the Crown as justifying any
infringement of its provisions". Self-defence is therefore a statutory
good reason for a chief officer of police to issue a firearm
certificate, and is one of the rights or liberties of the subject. A
chief officer of police may not refuse a legitimate application because
to do so would be an offence against the person of one of Her Majesties
subjects.
Magna Carta states that the Crown will appoint as officers and
constables, "none but sure men who know the law and mean to keep it."
Ignorance is no excuse and Halsbury�s Laws of England confirms that
breach of Magna Carta is an offence at common law. This provision is
the reason why Crown servants take Oaths. The form of the oath is
specified by the Bill of Rights.
The Oath, which is required by the Bill of Rights to be taken by
members of the Judiciary, includes, "I will do right to all men
according to the laws and usage�s of the Kingdom." A person who has been
refused a Firearm Certificate for defensive purpose may appeal to the
Crown Court. If the facts of the case are established and the appeal is
well founded the Judge is obliged to respect the liberty of the subject
and allow the appeal.
The reader will now see why the McKay report said, " the time might
come when a chief officer or the Crown Court decided to allow a firearm
for personal protection ... this decision might be treated as a
precedent."
Allegiance.
"Natural allegiance is found on the relationship every man standeth in
to the Crown considered as the head of that society whereof he is born a
member, and on the peculiar privileges he deriveth from that relation
which are with great propriety called his birthright; this birthright
nothing but his own demerit can deprive him of; it is indefeasible and
perpetual, and consequently the duty of allegiance which ariseth out of
it and is inseparably connected with it, is in consideration of law
likewise unalienable and perpetual."
(Frost C.L. quoted with approval in R v. Casement (1917).)
The duty of Allegiance comes from the ancient principle that a ruler is
expected to provide protection for his subordinates. Therefore the term
"I will bear true allegiance to the Crown" in an Oath is a promise to
respect the rights of subjects of the Crown.
Home Office "policy".
A Home Office "policy" which seeks to discourage applications for arms
for defence has no basis in law. The judgement in the case of R v.
Wakefield Crown Court, ex. p. Oldfield (1978) states, "A person
entrusted by law with a discretion may formulate a general policy for
the exercise of that discretion but that policy must not he applied so
rigidly that he does not in fact exercise any discretion at all."
In a debate on the 1988 Firearms (Amendment) Bill in the Commons on
21st January 1988, Douglas Hurd (Secretary of state for the Home
Department) spoke about good reason for applying for a shotgun
certificate. He said, "The existence of a good reason is not a matter
for arbitrary decision. I know there is a real worry that a future
Labour Government might seek to use this to give expression to their
views on what they call blood sport to declare, for example, that
sporting purposes should not constitute a good reason for having a
shotgun. That is why we have put on the face of the Bill, that is, in
primary legislation which could be changed only by further primary
legislation, that a good reason includes sporting or competition
purposes and vermin control."
Firearm certificates and Magna Carta.
In making his decision, the chief officer must then determine if the
applicant for an FAC, " can be permitted to have arms without danger to
public safety or the peace. The decision must be on the facts of the
case and the applicant is entitled to the presumption that he is to be
considered innocent of wrongdoing until proven guilty. If there is no
evidence against him, the applicant is to be regarded as a fit person.
Article 39 of Magna Carta (confirmed in the Statue Law Review Act 1967)
states " no free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his
rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his
standing in any other way, except by the lawful judgement of his peers
or by the law of the land" (British Library 1989).
"Lawful judgement" means a conviction based on evidence from credible
witnesses in a public trial before a jury. "By the law of the land"
does not apply in this case because, as has been shown above, the
Firearms legislation has not removed the right to arms for defence.
This principle was also stated in the case of R. v. Casement 1917
"nothing but his own demerit can deprive the subject of his
birthright." Article 12 of the Bill of Rights has the same meaning;
"All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons
before Conviction are illegal and void".
The term "otherwise undesirable person" which was used in the original
debate in 1920 as justifying disqualifying a person from the issue of a
license, is defined as "of intemperate habits or unsound mind" in later
Acts. A minimum age of 14 years was also specified in the legislation.
A person of "good character" (i.e. one who has no criminal convictions
and is not disqualified by law) is therefore entitled to exercise his
liberty and claim a Firearm Certificate for weapons to be held for
self-defence purposes.
The intention of the Firearms Acts is only to ensure that firearms do
not come into the hands of criminals and otherwise undesirable persons.
The provisions of the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta are not
contradicted or repealed by firearms legislation since 1920.
The consequences of refusal of firearm certificates.
The effect of being denied the use of defensive weapons on the
individual can be death, maiming and a life spent in fear. It may also
cause disillusion with the political process and non-compliance with the
law to become widespread.
A refusal of a Firearm Certificate for defensive use may be appealed
against in the Crown Court under Section 44 of the Firearms Act 1968.
The Judge hearing the case would be obliged by his own Oath to uphold a
well founded appeal, "I will do right to all men according to the laws
and usage�s of the Kingdom." It should be noted that the ruling in the
case of Dyson v. Attorney General (1911), states that the litigant
cannot be driven from the seat of judgement by any use of the Rules of
the Supreme Court in cases of constitutional importance.
The consequences for a chief officer of police who could be shown to
have acted unreasonably and not "to the best of his skill and
knowledge," could include convictions for perjury (for breaking his Oath
of Office) and the common law crime of misconduct in office for wilfully
neglecting to perform a duty he is bound to perform by common or statute
law. A jury who decides whether a case has been made out when they have
heard the facts can try this offence. This provides a flexible and
publicly accountable system of control on public servants.
The present Home Secretary has proposed that misconduct in office be
replaced by an equivalent statutory provision. He has claimed that new
legislation is required because MPs cannot be prosecuted for misconduct
because they are "privileged". He would say that. As has been noted
above, the only legal immunity that MPs have comes from Article 9 of the
Bill of Rights. They are not, or should not, be immune from the
consequences of criminal acts.
The penalties for offences of perjury and misconduct in office can
include disqualification from public office. This derives from Magna
Carta; "We will appoint as officers none but sure men who know the law
and mean to keep it". Any breach of the provisions of Magna Carta is
itself against common law.
The subjects rights are also protected by Article 1 of the Bill of
Rights which states "the pretended power of suspending laws and the
execution of laws without consent of Parliament is illegal" and Magna
Carta "to no one will we deny or delay right or justice". These
principles were recognised in the case of R v. Lord Chancellor, ex parte
Witham (1997) where it was held that "A citizen�s right of access to the
courts was a common law constitutional right which could only be
abrogated by specific statutory provision or by regulations made
pursuant to legislation which specifically conferred the power to
abrogate the right....to do so was ultra vires ("beyond the power") and
unlawful."
During this case Mr. Justice Laws said, "Access to the Courts is a
constitutional right: it can only be denied by the Government if it
persuades Parliament to pass legislation which specifically - in effect
by express permission - permits the executive to turn people away from
the court door."
He explained the basis of his conclusion as follows; "What is the
precise nature of any constitutional right such as might be outwith the
power of government... to abrogate? In the unwritten order of the
British state, at a time when the common law continues to accord a
legislative supremacy to Parliament, the notion of a constitutional
right can in my judgement inhere only in this proposition, that the
right in question cannot be abrogated by the state save by specific
provision in Act of Parliament, or by regulations whose vires in main
legislation specifically confers the power to abrogate. General words
will not suffice. And any such rights will be the creatures of the
common law, since their existence would not be the consequence of the
democratic process but would be logically prior to it."
The authors of this document believe that it has been shown that the
common law right to possess arms has not been abrogated. It has instead
been protected and preserved by "our principle constitutional document,
the Bill of Rights". The ancient rights and liberties that it
enumerates are protected from subversion by adherence to the Oaths that
it specifies to be taken and respected by "all crown servants... in all
time to come".
The House of Lords and the Bill of Rights.
The Judiciary may only recognise statute law as valid when Parliament
has passed it. The constituents of a valid Parliament are specified by
the Bill of Rights They are the Monarch who gives Royal Assent, the
Hereditary Peers in the House of Lords, and MPs sitting in the Commons
as representatives of the people. Any attempt to alter this arrangement
would be an unlawful breach of the Bill of Rights.
The New Labour party has threatened to alter this arrangement by
removing the voting rights of hereditary peers. We understand that this
has caused the Law Lords to warn the present Government that they will
resist any such attempt.
The Law Lords are as the final Court of Appeal in this country and
would have final jurisdiction in any such case put before them. They
are of course bound to uphold the provisions of the Bill of Rights.
Since the Parliament Act of 1911 the Commons have claimed that they can
override the Lords and pass any Bill despite objections from the Lords.
However, this is another matter that has not been tested in the Courts.
It is likely that the Government will find it difficult to win such a
case.
We are confident that the Law Lords would uphold any case involving the
subjects right to arms for defence. We understand that no appeal
connected with the subjects liberties can be prevented from being placed
before the House of Lords by a lower court.
International treaties and firearms legislation.
Ministers of the Crown have, from time to time entered into "arms
control treaties" on behalf of the UK. It should be noted that the
Ministers concerned must seek authority from the Crown by the Royal
Prerogative before signing. Because the Monarch is constitutionally
bound to respect the provision of the Bill of Rights, such Royal
Prerogative has the following restrictions.
(a) Prerogative cannot be used in an innovatory way. If this were not
so, the executive could dispense with Parliament and Judiciary and
become an unlimited tyranny. Any future Attorney General could claim
that an edict was part of a treaty and it would become unquestionable.
(Governments since the 1972 European Union treaty have claimed this
power. However, like the firearms issue it has not yet been tested. An
attempt was made to bring this matter to Court in 1972 by Ross McWirter
of the Freedom Association. He invoked the Bill of Rights to show that
the government did not have authority to sign the treaty. He was
mysteriously assassinated before the matter was decided. His brother
Norris made a similar attempt to question the legality of the Maastrict
treaty in 1993. Summonses were issued against the Foreign Secretary for
treason. The Attorney General used a purported power to take over the
case and then drop it as "not in the public interest". This would
appear to be contrary to the prohibitions in the Bill of Rights against
"suspending laws or the operation of laws". It was also contrary to
natural justice because the Attorney General was sitting in judgement in
his own case. He was a member of the Cabinet with joint responsibility
for the actions of other members of the Cabinet. (From Treason at
Maastrict by Norris McWirter) If the UK did not join the EU lawfully
then European legislation should not be binding on British subjects. We
understand that the European Treaty specifies that a nation can only
join if the requirements of its constitution have been met. European
legislation is imposed on the UK in the form of Statutory Instruments.
The Witham case (p.15) makes the point that such Instruments are only
valid if the primary legislation which authorises them is valid.)
(b) The use of Prerogative power may not be subversive of the rights and
liberties of the subject. (The case of Nichols v. Nichols stated
"Prerogative is created for the benefit of the people and cannot be
exercised to their prejudice".)
(c) Royal Prerogative may not be used to suspend or offend against
Statutes in Force. This comes from the Bill of Rights and the
Coronation Oath Act which specifies the following form of words;
"Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland...according
to their respective laws and customs." Prospective Monarch: "I solemnly
promise so to do." Note the similarity to the Judicial Oath. This is
because the Courts dispense justice on behalf of the Crown.
(Command Paper 3301, 1967, Legal and constitutional implications of UK
membership of the European Community.)
It is a fact that International treaties are often given as
justification for new British firearms legislation. This occurred in
1920 and 1934. There was an arms control conference sponsored by the UN
in Cairo in 1995. Mr. Major signed the agreement without reference to
Parliament. A coincidence perhaps?
Provisions of treaties, which are to the prejudice of the rights and
liberties of the subject, are not to be taken into consequence or
example.
Health and Safety at Work Legislation and the police.
From April 1998 the full rigor of Health and Safety at Work Act (HSAW)
legislation applies to police forces. They can no longer claim legal
immunity for their unlawful "policy" on the carrying of defensive
weapons by responsible members of the public.
Both chief officers and members of police authorities will be
personally liable for their actions because HSAW legislation places a
duty on an employer to prevent danger to any person affected by his
undertaking.
Involuntary Manslaughter.
If death results from an omission to comply with a duty imposed by
Statute or common law, the person responsible may be convicted of
involuntary manslaughter. Criminal and civil penalties for themselves
and their organisation could follow.
Civil damages for assault victims.
A person who has survived a criminal assault may make a civil claim for
compensation. For example the victim of a rape who had been told by the
police or Home Office that they were not entitled to arms for self
defence would have grounds to claim damages against the individuals who
were responsible for the breach of their legal duty to respect the
rights of the subject. This would be in addition to a claim from the
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
Police monopoly to carry defensive weapons.
The Lords debates on the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 show that the
police have no legal monopoly to carry defensive weapons. This matter
was raised by Lord Soulton quoting from Lord Halsbury�s Laws of England
on a private person�s common law power of arrest who said,
"I have always held that the preservation of the Queen�s peace was the
duty of everyone of her subjects, and the police were only citizens with
special responsibilities"... "In fact, the idea that a person could not
defend himself was, in Lord Halsbury�s time, unthinkable. This was not
the first time that it had been sought to make the police into a
privileged class, but the attempt had always been rejected, and I hope
that it will be rejected again"... "If the citizen was not allowed to
defend himself, the Government would have to accept responsibility for
his defence, at least in public places."
"The Government will have the sole responsibility. Are they prepared
to accept a benefit from their failure to discharge the duty they have
undertaken? If no-one is allowed to carry any sort of weapon to defend
himself or herself against the strong and armed, and defence becomes a
peculiar function of the policeman, will the relatives of the killed or
injured have a right to compensation if the Government fail in the
discharging of the duty they are undertaking? If I am wrong, then it
must be that the theory is that the Government are the shepherds of Her
Majesty�s subjects, with the right to shear, kill or let die as best
please themselves."
The Lord Chancellor said that this was not a Bill tipped against the
poor person. It was designed to protect all people alike and it would
give a wrong balance to suggest that it favoured one section of the
community.
Rifle clubs.
The right to have arms is not restricted to individual use for private
self-defence, as the following Judgement demonstrates:
"The right of His majesties subjects to have arms for their own
defence, and
to use them for lawful purposes, (such as hunting) is most clear and
undeniable. It seems, indeed, to be considered, by the ancient laws of
the Kingdom, not only as a right, but as a duty... And that this right
which every (subject) most unquestionably possesses individually may,
and in many cases must, be exercised collectively, is likewise a point
which I conceive to be most clearly established...
"It seems to follow, of necessary consequence, that it cannot be
unlawful to learn to use them (for such lawful purposes) with safety and
effect. For it would be too gross an absurdity to allege that it is not
lawful to be instructed in the use of anything which is lawful to use...
"The lawful purposes for which such arms may be used (besides immediate
self defence) are the suppression of violent and felonious breaches of
the Peace, the assistance of the Civil Magistrates in the execution of
the laws, and the defence of the kingdom against foreign invaders.
"To strengthen the civil power, and to keep themselves at all times
prepared for a vigorous and effectual discharge of their duty as
citizens ... are, in my view, sufficient visible and legal objects for
the continuation of the London Association."
The Recorder of London, 1795.
(From "The Origins and Development of the Second Amendment". David T.
Hardy. 1995). The London Association was ancestral to the volunteer
movement of the Victorian period which led to the establishment of the
UK National Rifle Association. (The NRA).)
The Royal Charter of the NRA, whose Patron is HM The Queen, states that
the object of their activities is " to train Her Majesties subjects in
marksmanship in the interests of the permanence of the Territorial
Forces". The NRA and their affiliated rifle clubs therefore continue to
exercise their rights to train together in the use of arms for defence.
This was recognised in the debates in Parliament on the Firearms Act
1920. On 9th August 1920 Lt. Comdr. Kenworthy MP said, referring to
disorder in the world that threatened British interests in the period
after the Great War,
"I endorse the value of the rifle practice before the War. We are
faced with another war now... Having utterly failed to establish the
reign of peace we were promised, I think we had better encourage rifle
clubs in every possible way and train young men to the profession of
arms. Let us give up the idea of disarmament and the reign of peace
which the Government have taken."
The Home Secretary, sponsor of the Bill, replied " I can assure my
Honourable and gallant friend... the last thing which the Government
intend is to bring discouragement to any single rifle club. The Bill
makes specific provision to give privileges to members of rifle clubs.
It is necessary for those members to get permits to use their rifles.
Anyone who wants to use his individual rifle can do so on getting a
permit. This is a small thing and must be done in future."
The Ministers assurance is thus part of the law of the land which
subjects are entitled to regulate their conduct by. The Home Secretary
is empowered by the Firearms Act 1968, to "approve" rifle clubs and is
obliged to co-operate fully. This is because the power to authorise
collective training in the use of arms which was specified in the
Unlawful Drilling Act 1819 was amended by the Firearms Act 1920 and
given to the Home secretary of the day. The subjects right to arms and
the provisions of the Bill of Rights were raised in the debates in
Parliament in 1819 and were accepted by the sponsors of the Bill. They
therefore continue in force.
Other Crown servants, such as the Charity Commissioners, chief officers
of police and officials of the Ministry of Defence who allocate the use
of service rifle ranges to clubs have the same responsibilities.
Certain local authorities that have recently adopted policies of non
co-operation with clubs are acting unlawfully.
Defence of the Realm.
Throughout history, this country has always been able to call upon men
who were prepared to test their skill and courage against their
country�s enemies;
"Those men whose pleasure it is to use their spare time making
themselves proficient in the use of the rifle, in preference to playing
golf or tennis or idling on the river, amusements which, while pleasant,
have a very small national value�I suggest that no unnecessary obstacle
should be put in the way of these men practicing and becoming
efficient�so that in the event of the country being confronted with
another war, we may be able to rely on that great reservoir of
semi-trained men who proved so useful in 1914."
(Colonel L Ward, in the debate on the 1920 Firearms Bill)
At the outbreak of World War 1, over 50% of the recruits of territorial
units came from Rifle Clubs. Prior to the formation of territorial
units, the counties had largely relied on the militia ("volunteers" and
later "Territorials") for their defence. They also relied on the
militia for county policing until Sir Robert Peels Police Act. The
exceptions being towns and cities which had their own watch system to
uphold the law. Had it not been for these men, it would have been
impossible to send Territorial units to France in the early days of
September 1914.
This tradition was commended in evidence to the Cullen Inquiry;
"The Army regards high standard of marksmanship with all forms of
weapons to be a vital skill for most members of the armed forces...Far
from rendering such skills obsolete, the technical advances which have
occurred in modern weaponry have provided the means for more effective
use of small arms, but this effectiveness is still wholly dependant upon
the skill of the soldier with the weapon. Precision is important -
whether it be in making sure that the enemy is hit with the first shot
(in modern warfare you seldom get a second chance) or in ensuring that
innocent bystanders are not hit. This is of particular importance for
all Arms as been highlighted in some current UK peacekeeping operations.
"We value immensely the co-operation and assistance we receive from the
NRA and the civilian sector in achieving improvements in the overall
standards of military marksmanship, and I am quite certain that the
present level of skill, particularly among our snipers who form an
important element of every infantry battalion, could not have been
achieved without it.
"The sniping rifle itself bears this out: the rifle, its sights and our
sniping ammunition have been designed and developed out of equipment
tried, tested and improved within the civilian target shooting world�Our
encouragement of civilian rifle and pistol clubs continues particularly
in the context of their use of military ranges: this has benefits in
both directions, because not only do many members of the Armed Forces
benefit from being able to join civilian clubs practicing on ranges with
which they are familiar, but the civilian clubs, the NRA and the NSRA
(National Smallbore Rifle Association) are able to provide us with
training in coaching techniques. In recent years these techniques have
been developed largely in the civilian sector as the clubs have been
able to devote considerable time and effort to the subject which we have
been unable to match with the pressure on our limited resources.
"In addition, much of the sophisticated modern targetry and range
development, essential to the training of special forces and for
advanced combat shooting, have been derived from current civilian
practice through the activities of the NPA (National Pistol
Association) the UKPSA (United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association)
and their affiliated clubs.
"I feel I should also stress the benefit which the Armed Services
derive through recruitment as a direct or indirect result of the
activities of rifle and pistol clubs. Current information suggests that
considerable recruitment into the Forces comes through the TA and cadet
movement. There is no doubt whatsoever that rifle and pistol shooting
is one of the main reasons why most cadets and TA join the movement in
the first place, and (it is recognised) how reliant upon the NRA and a
great many civilian clubs the TA and cadet movement are for support.
"Finally, the nation has called upon the skill of civilian marksmen and
the resources of the clubs in every major conflict this century to
augment the training organisation. There are no plans for a third line
reserve on this basis, but it would be rash to discount circumstances in
which the Services would again look to this reservoir of support.
"To sum up�the Army regards a high standard of marksmanship as being an
essential skill for the majority of soldiers, and we regard target
shooting by civilian rifle and pistol clubs, along with the activities
of the NRA and other major bodies, to be fundamentally important in
achieving that high standard."
(Lt. Gen. Sir Peter Duffell, Inspector General Doctrine and Training.)
"While of course the military train themselves in the use of their own
weapons, the value of the civilian clubs is - first of all - that they
provide an arena for competition, particularly for long range
sniper-type shooting, over and above what the military can offer.
Secondly - and more importantly - there is the experience of the senior
members of those clubs, who provide coaching expertise beyond what is
available in military training."
(General Sir Roger Wheeler, Commander in Chief)
The Government ignored the report of the Cullen Inquiry. As a result
many rifle clubs have closed. A loss of recruits has already been noted
by the armed forces. At the time of writing, morale is reported as
being at a new low and mass resignation of key personnel has been
threatened. Yet the world is a more dangerous place than before with
the threat of a new Gulf War, terrorist attacks on the UK mainland, and
the resurgence of Nazism in the German Army which is the largest and the
most powerful in Europe.
Police marksmanship training.
A former member of the Association of Chief Police Officers� Police Use
of Firearms Advisory Committee recently made the following remarks.
"One fact which might not be appreciated is that the majority of
policemen are introduced to shooting only by reason of their police
duties, few come to police firearms training with any pre-knowledge,
unlike driving etc. Consequently their knowledge and ability is
confined and measured by that given during police training which gives
few opportunities to regularly handle and use firearms�Police who have
received only in house training are initially surprised and embarrassed
by the standards displayed by civilian shooters. In consequence many
policemen become motivated to improve and during my period with the
Police, I encouraged officers to consider taking up shooting as a sport,
knowing they would benefit.
"In the same way that sniping and camouflage for the military evolved
from deer stalking and hunting skills, so police shooting techniques
have often developed from competition shooting. Police instructors
scour shooting magazines for all developments relating to techniques and
equipment and much of current police equipment has evolved from civilian
ideas.
"In police Firearms Training, shooting is just one of the many skills
to be acquired, but from them all, shooting skills (or lack of them)
continues to be a worry for many policemen. It troubles them that other
demands within the service do not permit more time/training to ensure
higher standards. It is here that civilian clubs can and do offer
additional opportunities to improve skills and confidence to those
Police who become members� The consequences of private individuals being
denied the right to shoot and possess firearms would in my opinion, lead
to a drying up of knowledge and skills that in the past have served our
country well."
(Supt. Waldren. From Guns and Violence by Munday and Stevenson.)
The constitutional position of the armed forces.
Members of the forces swear personal loyalty to the Monarch to defend
her against all enemies. As a constitutional monarch it is her duty and
therefore the duty of her forces to protect the rights and liberties of
her subjects. We understand that senior members of the armed forces are
aware of the constitutional implications of the Governments disregard of
the subjects liberties expressed in the Bill of Rights. The problems
described in the previous paragraph are undermining the ability of the
armed forces to perform their sworn duty. One of the checks and
balances put in place by the framers of the Bill of Rights to protect
the constitution, was the implied duty of the armed forces to act
against her majesties enemies from within the kingdom. We understand
that the forces may issue military arrest warrants for persons guilty of
treason. The Habeas Corpus Act could then be used to place the person
before the High Court where the evidence against them could be heard.
It is believed that the Army refused to be involved in the seizures of
arms resulting from the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 because they were
concerned about the constitutional implications. Royal Ordnance PLC, a
private company, were used by the Government instead.
Conspiracy theory.
Students of the history of British firearms legislation will be aware
of the Blackwell Committee report which was prepared by senior civil
servants in 1918 and has recently been de- classified. Its
recommendations were adopted and formed the basis of the 1920 Act which
has been carried forward to the present day. The spirit of the report
was contrary to the Home Secretaries statements in Parliament. The
principle in the case of Pepper v. Hart is that the Ministers words in
Parliament are part of the law. What may have been said and done
elsewhere to the detriment of the rights and liberties of the subject is
not to be taken into consequence or example.
The Home Office "Operational Policing Policy Unit".
Correspondence between members of SAFE and the Home Office "operational
policing policy unit", which is the department responsible for giving
advice to MPs and Ministers on firearms matters, has been collated. The
present regime appears to have changed their admitted perception of the
legislative basis of their policies of firearms control since early
1996. They initially claimed that Firearms legislation since 1920 was
"perfectly proper" in their standard letter to persons who raised the
issue of the subject�s right to arms. They now accept that their
policies merely "have not been challenged" and in any case are the
responsibility of chief officers of police. We believe that they know
that their position is untenable because the McKay report warned them in
1972.
It is rumoured that a large number of MPs now realise that they were
misled by the OPPU as to the true legal position of the right to arms.
Apparently many of the present generation of MPs did not know of the
existence of the Bill of Rights. One of our members has reported that
when he raised the subject with an official of the OPPU in October 1996
the reply was "What Bill of Rights? Er...I�m sure our lawyers will have
looked into it a long time ago". When the same member contacted Her
Majesties Stationary Office for a copy to send to the Home Office the
answer was "Not another shooter. We have had a run on the things and
are out of stock". HMSO later gave authority for the Bill to be
privately printed by the Bill of Rights Appreciation Society.
We understand that consideration has been given to impeaching the
senior Home Office official responsible for the OPPU at the bar of the
House of Commons because faulty advice was given to the House.
Historians have noted that it can be difficult to determine what was
once "common knowledge" because it is usually the rare event which is
recorded. The knowledge of the rights and liberties of the subject may
have faded in recent years for this reason. The other main lesson of
history is that "those who forget history are doomed to relive it."
Use of arms for self-defence.
Persons who have duly licensed firearms are entitled, when threatened
with death or serious injury to themselves or those whom they are
obliged to protect, to use those arms. The legal defence of "duress"
excuses them from any conditions that may be applied to their use of
weapons in normal circumstances. It is part of the Common Law that
every subject, unless excused by infirmity, has a duty to prevent any
breach of the peace in his presence. It is said that a shotgun
certificate holder decided not to engage Michael Ryan at an early stage
of the Hungerford incident in 1988 "for fear of the consequences". If
that person had been trained in the use of arms and the rights and
obligations of the subject, history would have taken a different course.
The common law rights of the subject to use force in self-defence and
to effect the arrest of offenders were recognised in the debates on the
Criminal Law Act 1967. Research is continuing, but it seems the right
to use lethal force against a nocturnal housebreaker and to be absolved
of legal responsibility for injuries or death so caused, or in
self-defence, or in efforts to arrest offenders have been preserved.
This interpretation has not yet been confirmed to the same level of
confidence as the remainder of this work.
Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 states "any person may use
reasonable force in self defence, for the prevention of crime or to
arrest offenders". The word "may" is permissive and the subject�s
rights cannot be denied to them. The policy of some employers to forbid
staff to use force in self-defence, for example teachers or social
services employees, is therefore unlawful.
Part of the debate revolved around the term reasonable force and its
interpretation. It was suggested that reasonable force meant moderate
force but the Joint parliamentary Secretary of State (Lord Stonham)
clarified this point by illustrating that reasonable force could in fact
be force of a major kind, even to the point of fatal consequences. This
was consistent with Section 7 of the 1861 Offences Against the Persons
Act, (Justifiable Homicide), which was repealed by the Criminal Law Act.
Section 7 stated that no offence was committed if a person should kill
another "by misfortune or in any other manner without felony in
self-defence". Section 7 was in fact incorporated in the Criminal Law
Act and the infliction of death in the protection of a person or
property may therefore be considered excusable. It was further argued
that it was not necessary for someone to know of the particular
provision and interpretation of "reasonable force" or have to stop and
think what his rights were. The provision was provided to protect
someone who, on the spur of the moment, behaves in a common sense and
public-spirited way. It would not be right therefore for this provision
to give rise to nice, exact questions, argued with hindsight, after the
event, in the sedate atmosphere of the law courts, as to whether the
action taken was strictly necessary, or as to what alternatives there
may have been. The Common Law rules on justifiable homicide appear to
have been incorporated into this Act. In a Coroner�s Court a verdict of
"death by misadventure" can be decided by a jury.
The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.
The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 changed the classification of pistols
to Section 5 of the 1968 Firearms Act. It did not otherwise change the
law because no mention was made in debate of the Bill of Rights. The
interpretation Act specifies that a statute may be repealed only by
words or where a later enactment is incompatible with an earlier one.
Neither of these conditions applies in this instance. A Section 5
Authority is therefore required for pistols to be lawfully owned. The
Home Secretary has the same obligations in law to issue such authorities
as a Chief officer of Police has for Firearm Certificates and can be
held to account through the Courts.
The fact that the 1997 Act and all previous firearms legislation did
not revoke or repeal the right to arms is the best evidence that we are
protected by the checks and balances provided by our forefathers. If
Governments had been able to abolish the subject�s rights in this
respect they would have done so long ago. We believe that the
Government in 1997 did not dare to raise the issue of the right to
arms. If they had tried to revoke it the public would have become aware
that they had been lied to and would have taken their revenge to the
guilty parties through the Courts and at the ballot box.
The duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
A member of SAFE wrote in late 1996 to the Speaker of the House of
Commons. He reminded her of the Speakers responsibility to read the
relevant section from the Bill of Rights to the House before any debate
where the subject�s liberties might be called into question. She
replied;
"The Bill of Rights remains on the statute book, and will do so until
such time as it is amended by Parliament. I enclose a copy of the Bill
of Rights for your information.
"The questions that you raise are relevant to the current debate but
since these matters are in contention between the political parties it
would not be appropriate for the Speaker to express a view".
(Personal letter. 12th November 1996).
Note the use of the word "amend". The Speaker does not say that the
provisions of the Bill of Rights can be repealed, only "amended". As
noted elsewhere in this document the term means "to improve". The House
of Commons library later reported that "virtually no mention of the Bill
of Rights was made in the debates in the House". The authors of this
document can remember no mention in the mainstream media either. There
was one exception. The illustrious politician and toe fancier David
Mellor was interviewed on daytime TV shortly after the Amendment Bill
was announced. He argued with another guest and shouted "As for the
idea that is being put about by the wild men of the Conservative party
that we have some kind of right to bear arms in this country, it�s
nonsense". Mr. Mellor is a Barrister and would have taken the Oath of
Allegiance. He must have been telling the truth.
Other SAFE members wrote to as many MPs as possible to register their
concern about possible infringement of the Bill of Rights and to warn
them that they could be held to account through the Courts for their
actions if they did not comply with the law.
It is believed that this correspondence is the reason why the library
of the House of Commons felt obliged to issue the following document for
the information of members;
Gun control and the Bill of Rights.
The library has received a large number of enquiries, which appear to
be the result of campaigns among shooters opposing the new provisions on
firearms control. Because of the initial influx of such enquiries, I
prepared a section on the alleged constitutional implications of the
then Bill as part of our research paper which we published for its
second reading debate.
There are a numbers of variants of the message sent to members which
contain a reference to the Members oath of allegiance. I assume that
the argument put forward by shooters is along the following lines;
(1) The Bill of Rights 1689 requires all officers and ministers to
serve the Monarch according to its provisions.
(2) The Bill of Rights 1689 protects citizen�s rights to bear arms and
not to have their property confiscated.
(3) Therefore Members who support this sessions legislation may be in
breach of their oath of allegiance.
The 1997 Act does not appear to refer at all to the 1689 Statute, and
any claims that the earlier statute has been impliedly amended or,
indeed, that Parliament has no power to make such amendments, would have
to be matters for the Courts if put before them.
It is perhaps of interest that, notwithstanding the apparently
widespread lobbying on Bill of Rights grounds, virtually no mention of
this argument was made during the Bill�s passage through Parliament"
(Document Ref. 4321 97/3/14HA BKW/aor. 4th March 1997)
The briefing document referred to is available from constituency MPs as
Research Paper 96/102 dated 8th November 1996 Page 75 quotes the case of
Bowles v. Bank of England which was referred to above and confirms that
the Bill of Rights remains an operative statute. Page 10 contains the
following passage,
"The underlying purpose of firearms legislation in the UK is to control
the supply and possession of all rifles, guns and pistols which could be
used for criminal or subversive purposes while recognising that
individuals may own and use firearms for legitimate purposes..."
The authors of this essay have no objection to the sentiments expressed
here. They are concerned to point out that there should be no
distinction between "criminal or subversive purposes". If there is no
evidence of criminal intent then mere possession of weapons by an
individual should not be regarded as subversive to the state. In other
words there should be no forfeitures of rights without conviction.
Fact sheet no.8, "The Glorious revolution" is available on request from
the House of Commons information office. It contains a brief history
and summary of the provisions of the Bill of Rights; including the
following example, "the Bill of Rights set forth certain points of
existing laws and simply secured to Englishmen the rights of which they
were already legally possessed." (Quoting Thompson, Constitutional
History of England, 1938.)
Exemption Certificates.
Section 7 of the Firearms Act 1968 states that chief officers of police
may issue exemption certificates where a full Firearm Certificate would
not be appropriate. It is believed that many thousands of individuals
have personal protection weapons in the UK by this means. This subject
has been raised in the Commons but Home Office Ministers have declined
to comment. We believe that the principles which govern the issue of
FAC�s apply to these permits also. The only difference is that no
appeal against refusal is provided for in legislation. Any refusal
could however be tested by means of Judicial review.
Home Office policy.
The recent seizure of pistols following the passage of the Firearms
(Amendment) Act 1997 is unlawful because it contravenes the principles
described above. When pistols were re-classified to Section 5 of the
Firearms Act 1968 those persons who were exercising their right to have
arms for defensive purposes as members of rifle clubs should have been
given the opportunity to apply for Section 5 Authorities to the Home
Secretary. The arbitrary withdrawal of approval to use pistols from
clubs was also unlawful. It is the sworn duty of the Home secretary to
comply with the law and respect the rights and liberties of the subject.
To do so would after all have been "a small thing which must be done in
future."
The presumption of innocence.
"Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is
always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the
prisoner�s guilt�No matter what the charge or where the trial, the
principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is
part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can
be entertained."
Stones Justice�s Manual. Preface to 1990 Edition.
An authoritative book entitled "Taylor Upon Evidence" has this to say
about burden of proof,
"The right which every man has to his character, the value of that
character to himself and his family, and the evil consequences that
would result to society if charges of guilt were lightly entertained, or
readily established in Courts of justice:- these are the real
considerations which have led to the adoption of the rule that all
imputations of crime must be strictly proved."
The Firearms Act 1920 and the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 are based on
the principle that Parliament can create new offences that everyone is
guilty of from the date of their adoption, and then allow exceptions at
the discretion of the police. They have shifted the burden of proof
onto the defence, which is something that never happened before.
This purported power of Parliament was objected to strongly by many MPs
in the debates on the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. They generated
about 90 pages of debate in Hansard on a Bill that was little more than
one page long. Several MPs were only prepared to accept the Bill as a
short-term emergency measure to be reviewed after five years. The
Government claimed that the measure was necessary to deal with an
outbreak of violent crime. James Carmichael (MP for Glasgow,
Bridgeton), pointed out that Scottish crime figures had actually dropped
significantly in the preceding years and the Bill was an over-reaction
to misleading press reports (Hansard, 26 March 1953). Several
references were made to the fact that at that time the assurances given
by Ministers that the police would act responsibly and with restraint
was worthless because what had been said in Parliament could not be
referred to in the Courts. The Bill was passed, and soon the
presumption of innocence was set aside in other legislation without a
murmur.
This has resulted in the proliferation of Statutory absolute offences.
In the common law guilt could only be inferred from a persons actions
and evidence of his mental intent at that time. Thus stealing is the
taking of property belonging to another with evidence of an intention to
permanently deprive the owner of it. The Statutory offence of simple
possession of a "prohibited weapon" is a crime regardless of the
circumstances as are selling apples by the pound or beef on the bone.
Statutory "crimes" are whatever the legislature decides. A victim or
intent is not required.
We have come to a point where the ancient rightness of the common law
has been set aside. As Mr. Justice Laws said in the case of Witham,
"What is the precise nature of any constitutional right such as might
be outwith the power of government... to abrogate? In the unwritten
order of the British State, at a time when the common law continues to
accord a legislative supremacy to Parliament..."
We believe that is the key. The Courts have given up legislative
supremacy to Parliament. And they have been allowed to do this because
no one has gone before a Court and claimed his common law rights. Those
rights of the subject are written, but have been hidden and forgotten.
And here lies the danger to us all. The only power that Government has
is to manufacture criminals. If Government believes that it can do as
it wishes without the restraint of a Constitution then no one and
nothing is safe from the whims and prejudices of the legislators. John
Locke the philosopher, was a major influence in the education of the
generation that debated what became the English Bill of Rights in 1688.
We can have an insight into the mischief that the participants sought to
avoid with the passing of the Statue which "Declares the Rights and
Liberties of the subject...in all time to come".
"Man is a maker of things, and a property owning animal... From the
right to self-defence and protection of property comes the right to the
rule of law, and a multitude of like rights, such as the right to
privacy expressed as �An Englishman's home is his castle�. A ruler is
legitimate only in so far as he upholds the law. A ruler that violates
the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed; his commands are
mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are
unlawful, are mere criminals."
The responsibilities of the Judiciary, and a little history.
The situation in which we find ourselves has happened before. It seems
that Governments will, from time to time, attempt to subvert the
liberties of the subject. In the first instance we are entitled to
appeal to the Courts for redress of our grievances. The Courts function
on the basis that they will adjudicate in disputes that are put before
them. That is why we say that the time has come to test the validity of
the Firearms Acts. The principle at stake is wider than the issue of
arms. The reversal of the presumption of innocence is a threat to us
all.
The question therefore is; will our judiciary stand on the ramparts of
justice and the ancient constitutional rule of law? Would our judiciary
act, resign or abandon their judicial oaths and state freely that they
are no longer prepared to serve a country entitled to be called a free
democracy?
Does Parliament have the power to deprive the Court of its authority to
hear a citizen�s claim to enforcement of a fundamental legal right?
Parliament derives its sovereignty and privileges from the Bill of
Rights 1689 and from a body of authority. As described above, the
Speaker was at pains to remind the Court which was considering the case
of Pepper v. Hart to respect Article 9 of the Bill of Rights which
states " That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in
Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or place
out of Parliament". How can Parliament then justify ignoring the other
Articles when it suits them to do so? And what are the other privileges
of Parliament? The Clerk of the Commons was invited to explain to that
Court what they were. And he did not answer.
In the Bill of Rights the victors in the Revolution sought to protect,
not to change, the fundamentals of the constitution. The framers of
that document were simply declaring common law that already existed and
would continue to exist. The preamble to the bill reads:
"And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons...do
in the first place (as their ancestors in like cases have usually done)
for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties
declare�"
Clearly, the intent and true meaning was not to abolish their ancient
fundamental rights and liberties for a pretended parliamentary
sovereignty, which is generally believed and accepted today. They were
vindicating and asserting them, and reclaiming them, from a despotic
King James II whom had grievously violated them, as had his
predecessors.
Applying the principle of Pepper v. Hart to the debates on the Bill of
Rights itself, Sir Robert Howard, a member of the Committee�s which
prepared the Bill, said;
"The Rights of the people had been confirmed by early Kings both before
and after the Norman line began. Accordingly, the people have always
had the same title to their liberties and properties that England�s
Kings have unto their Crowns. The several Charters of the people�s
rights, most particularly Magna Carta, were not grants from the King,
but recognition�s by the King of rights that have been reserved or that
appertained unto us by common law and immemorial custom."
The intent throughout that debate was clear; - The Bill was intended to
reserve fundamental rights. Edmund Burke also extolled the virtues of
the Declaration of Rights;
"In the 1st of William and Mary in the famous statute, called the
Declaration of Right, the two houses utter not one syllable of a �right
to frame a government for themselves.� You will see that their whole
care was to secure the religion, laws, and liberties, that had long been
possessed, and had been lately endangered...You will observe that from
Magna Carta to the Declaration of Right, it has been the uniform policy
of our constitution to claim and assert our liberties, as an entailed
inheritance derived to us from our forefathers, and to be transmitted to
our posterity; as an estate specially belonging to the people of this
kingdom without any reference whatever to any other more general or
prior right."
(Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (Penguin ed.) 118ff)
In fact, at the time of James II it was the Parliament who was on the
defensive and it is the Parliamentarians who deployed fundamental law
first. Magna Carta became the focus of the debate, and its clauses on
the due process of law caused Parliament to frame a proposal to James
that said:
"That according to Magna Carta and the Statutes aforenamed, and also
according to the most ancient Customs and Laws of this Land, every free
subject of this realm hath a fundamental propriety in his goods, and a
fundamental liberty of his person."
(Gough, Fundamental Law in English Constitutional History (2nd ed.) at
63.)
Parliament in this instance claimed the right to use fundamental law to
rebel as a lawful step in securing adherence to the fundamentals, just
as the Barons had explicitly negotiated a right to rebel with King John
in Magna Carta over four hundred years before. The historical parallels
with the present situation are clear. If we are rebels, then we are
entitled to claim the protection of the Article of the Bill of Rights
that states;
"That it is the Right of subjects to petition the King and all
commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal."
SAFE is aware of several persons who have applied the their chief
officers of police to exercise their right to arms for defence and had
their firearm certificates revoked. Chief officers are Crown servants
and such actions by them are in breach of this provision of the law.
Winston Churchill was well aware of the significance of Magna Carta and
as a historian wrote this warning and reassurance to future generations,
"The facts embodied in it and the circumstances giving rise to them
were buried or misunderstood. The underlying idea of the sovereignty of
the law, long existent in feudal custom, was raised by it into a
doctrine for the national State. And when in subsequent ages the State,
swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride roughshod over the
rights or liberties of the subject it is to this doctrine that appeal
has again and again been made, and never as yet, without success."
(Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples (1956) Vol. 1,
201-202)
Postscript.
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both
instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly
unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of
change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of
the darkness."
Justice William O. Douglas
"Where did the men of honour go that made Britain great? Many gave their
lives in the cause of liberty that we carelessly give away without a
second thought. Who will take their places?"
John Pate. 1996.
"Give us the tools- and we will finish the job".
Winston Churchill. 1940.
"You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is
better to perish than to live as slaves."
Winston Churchill
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has
is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
(Ayn Rand "Atlas Shrugged")
Criminals prefer unarmed victims. What greater ally does a criminal have
than a Government that guarantees most victims will be unarmed and
helpless?
Blackstone on Arms for Self-Defence.
"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at
present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to
their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is
also declared by the same statute 1 W.& M. st. 2, c.2, and it is indeed
a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of
resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws
are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. In these
several articles consist the rights, or, as they are frequently termed,
the liberties of Englishmen: liberties, more generally talked of than
thoroughly understood; and yet highly necessary to be perfectly known
and considered by every man of rank or property, lest his ignorance of
the points whereon they are founded should hurry him into faction and
licentiousness on the one hand, or a pusillanimous indifference and
criminal submission on the other. And we have seen that these rights
consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of
personal liberty, and of private property. So long as these remain
inviolate, the subject is perfectly free; for every species of
compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or other
of these rights, having no other object upon which it can possibly be
employed. To preserve these from violation, it is necessary that the
constitution of parliament be supported in full vigour; and limits,
certainly known, be set to the royal prerogative.
And lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or
attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to
the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of
law; next, to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for
redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using
arms for self-preservation and defence.
And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy
entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under
necessary restraints - restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate,
as will appear upon further enquiry, that no man of sense or probity
would wish to see them slackened.
For all of us have it in our choice to do everything that a good man
would desire to do; and are restrained from nothing, but what would be
pernicious either to ourselves or our fellow-citizens."
(This extract is taken from pages 143 and 144 of the first volume (of
four) of the 21st edition of Sir William Blackstone's book 'Commentaries
on the Laws of England' dated 1884 in which it Is stated that it derives
from the edition of 1783 with the author's last corrections. It is
commonly to be found in law libraries and in the larger reference
libraries.)
The Common Law: Tradition & Stare Decisis.
By Peter Landry.
"I now deal with a species1 of law known as the common law. Common law
is law that comes from the common people, vers, legislation, which,
comes from the "experts."
It took a long time to learn the true nature and office of governments;
to discover and secure the principles commonly indicated by such terms
as 'Magna Carta,' the 'Bill of Rights,' 'Habeas Corpus,' and the 'Right
of trial by jury;' to found the family home, with its laws of social
order, regulating the rights and duties of each member of it, so that
the music at the domestic hearth might flow on without discord; the
household gods so securely planted that 'Though the wind and the rain
might enter, the king could not'.
It took a long time to learn that war was a foolish and cruel method of
settling international differences as compared with arbitration; to
learn that piracy was less profitable than a liberal commerce; that
unpaid labor was not as good as well-requited toil; that a splenetic old
woman, falling into trances and shrieking prophecies, was a fit subject
for the asylum rather than to be burned as a witch.
It took a long, long time after the art of printing had been perfected
before we learned the priceless value, the sovereign dignity and
usefulness of a free press.
But these lessons have been taught and learned; taught for the most
part by the prophets of our race, men living in advance of their age,
and understood only by the succeeding generations. But you have the
inheritance.
The common law is a great scientific lab, the resources and results of
which are brought to bear on the populations which are fortunate enough
to possess an English common law tradition, such as exists, for example,
in: Canada, the United States and Australia. My use of the adjective,
"scientific," will be better appreciated after one reads my essay,
Siren's Song. Sufficient to say here, at this place, that nature is the
great and ultimate scientific testing lab, and it always, in time,
shakes out the truth. Whether we appreciate it, or not, for hundreds of
years: the common law tests, observes, adjusts and re-observes on a
continual basis.
The fact of the matter is that there exists all around us a great body
of law which has not ever been (nor could it be) written down in one
spot. In a way, its, its more of a process which has a single guiding
rule, the "golden rule," a negative rule: "Don't do something to someone
that you don't want to have visited on yourself, either directly or
through the agency of a government." Though it has suffered much at the
hands of legislators, common law is yet followed in all major English
speaking nations around the world.
Common law to England was and is its very force. The greatness of
England, certainly in the past, is attributable, I would say fully
attributable, to the stabilising and enriching institution that we have
come to know as common law. This subject of the common law is a great
and wonderful subject: its evolutionary development and its great
benefits make it the most superior law system known in the world, as
history will readily tell. The common law is as a result of a natural
sequence which hardened first into custom and then into law. It did not
come about as an act of will, as an act of some group aware only of the
instant moment, unaware of the nature and history of man. It come about
as a result of a seamless and continual development, through processes
we can hardly begin to understand; it evolved along with man.
Primitive man knew nothing of laws, all he knew was custom. Custom, or
tradition, evolved into rules for living. They grew spontaneously, viz.,
not deliberately designed by some particular human mind. While no one
can point o the origins of our traditional moral rules, their function
in human society is clear enough. These moral rules, or traditions, are
necessary to preserve the existing state of affairs; such that culture
was allowed to evolve; and in turn, with culture, civilisations came
about.
Thus, as David Hume wrote, man developed in an evolutionary fashion --
not only biologically, but also culturally. That, like the lot of all
animals, man evolved in accordance with certain natural rules, in that
"no form can persist unless it possesses those powers and organs
necessary for its subsistence: some new order or economy must be tried
and so on, without intermission; until at last some order which can
Support and maintain itself, is fallen upon."
The preservation of existing laws as was represented by traditions and
cultural rules, to early man, at least, was of greater concern then
putting up with bad laws: change was what men feared: change and its
social upheaval was what brought on suffering and death. I quote from
Bagehot's work:
In early societies it matters much more that the law should be fixed
than that it should be good. Any law which the people of ignorant times
enact is sure to involve many misconceptions, and to cause many evils.
Perfection in legislation is not to be looked for, and is not, indeed,
much wanted in a rude, painful, confined life. But such an age covets
fixity. That men should enjoy the fruits of their labour, that the law
of property should be known, that the law of marriage should be known,
that the whole course of life should be kept in a calculable track, is
the summum bonum of early ages, the first desire of semi-civilised
mankind. In that age men do not want to have their laws adapted, but to
have their laws steady. The passions are so powerful, force so eager,
the social bond so weak, that the august spectacle of an all but
unalterable law is necessary to preserve society. In the early stages of
human society all change is thought an evil. And most change is an evil.
The conditions of life are so simple and so unvarying that any decent
sort of rules suffice, so long as men know what they are. Custom is the
first check on tyranny; that fixed routine of social life at which
modern innovations have, and by which modern improvement is impeded, is
the primitive check on base power. The perception of political
expediency has then hardly begun; the sense of abstract justice is weak
and vague; and a rigid adherence to the fixed mould of transmitted usage
is essential to an unmarred, unspoiled, unbroken life.
(Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution, at pp. 229-30.)
Stare Decisis:- This idea, as expressed by Bagehot, is picked up in the
law as it exists today. When a court decides a case it does so on the
merits of the case before it. The court's decision is meant to only
effect the rights of the parties, the litigants, before it. The court,
however, is obliged to apply settled principles of law. The decision of
any respected court amounts to a recap of the law needed to resolve the
case before it. The law as it is used in the particular case has a
universal applicability to all future cases embracing similar facts, and
involving the same or analogous principles. These decisions, many being
years and years old, thus became statements of law, to be applied by all
courts when measuring the private and public rights of citizens. It is
this stream of cases, within the arc of the great pendulum of time,
which changes the banks of the law: the common law, thus, as it turns
out, is a living, creeping, creature.
Do not, however, be mistaken - there is a conscious effort by those
involved (lawyers and judges) to keep the law pure: not to change it,
but to apply it. This principle is called stare decisis, Latin, which
literally translated means, "stand by things decided." Stare decisis has
come to us as a most sacred rule of law. A judge is to apply the law as
it is presented to him through the previous decisions of the court; it
is not the judge's function to make or remake the law that is the
function of the legislature.
However, judges do make law even though they try not to; indeed it is
their function, under a system of common law, to do so; but not
consciously and only over the course of time, many years, as numerous
similar cases are heard and decided. The common law has been and is
built up like pearls in an oyster, slowly and always in response to some
small personal aggravation, infinitesimal layer after infinitesimal
layer. It is built up upon the adjudications of courts:
"...built up as it has been by the long continued and arduous labors,
grown venerable with years, and interwoven as it has become with the
interests, the habits, and the opinions of the people. [Without the
common law a court would] in each recurring case, have to enter upon its
examination and decision as if all were new, without any aid from the
experience of the past, or the benefit of any established principle or
settled law. Each case with its decision being thus limited as law to
itself alone, would in turn pass away and be forgotten, leaving behind
it no record of principle established, or light to guide, or rule to
govern the future."
(Hanford v. Archer, 4 Hill, 321.)
Tyrants can only get a hold of a central system where the rules issue
from a single authority (government); tyrants cannot get a hold of a
system which depends on a spontaneous participation in the law-making
process on the part of each and all of the inhabitants of a country,
viz, a system of common law.
"Bill of Rights 1688"
An Act Declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing
the Succession of the Crowne
Whereas the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons assembled at
Westminster lawfully fully and freely representing all the Estates of
the People of this Realme did upon the thirteenth day of February in the
yeare of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty eight present unto
their Majesties then called and known by the Names and Stile of William
and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange being present in their proper
Persons a certaine Declaration in Writeing made by the said Lords and
Commons in the Words following viz
Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse
evill Counsellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to
subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and
Liberties of this Kingdome
1. By Assumeing and Exerciseing a Power of Dispensing with and
Suspending of Lawes and the Execution of Lawes without consent of
Parlyament.
2. By Committing and Prosecuting diverse Worthy Prelates for humbly
Petitioning to be excused from Concurring to the said Assumed Power.
3. By issueing and causeing to be executed a Commission under the Great
Seale for Erecting a Court called The Court of Commissioners for
Ecclesiasticall Causes.
4. By Levying Money for and to the Use of the Crown by pretence of
Prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted
by Parlyament.
5. By raising and keeping a Standing Army within this Kingdome in time
of Peace without Consent of Parlyament and Quartering Soldiers contrary
to Law.
6. By causing several good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at
the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.
7. By Violating the Freedome of Election of Members to serve in
Parlyament.
8. By Prosecutions in the Court of Kings Bench for Matters and Causes
cognizable onely in Parlyament and by diverse other Arbitrary and
Illegal Courses.
9. And whereas of late years Partial Corrupt and Unqualifyed Persons
have been returned and served on Juryes in Tryalls and particularly
diverse Jurors in Tryalls for High Treason which were not Freeholders.
10. And excessive Baile hath beene required of Persons committed in
Criminall Cases to elude the Benefitt of the Lawes made for the Liberty
of the Subjects.
11. And excessive Fines have been imposed.
12. And illegall and cruell Punishments inflicted.
13. And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures
before any Conviction or Judgement against the Personsupon whome the
same were to be levied.
All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known Lawes and
Statutes and Freedome of this Realme.
And whereas the said late King James the Second haveing Abdicated the
Government and the Throne being thereby Vacant, his [Highnesse] the
Prince of Orange (whome it hath pleased Almighty God to make the
glorious Instrument of Delivering this Kingdome from Popery and
Arbitrary Power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spirituall and
Temporall and diverse principall Persons of the Commons) cause Letters
to be written to the Lords Spirituall and Temporall being Protestants
and other Letters to the severall Countyes Cityes Universities Burroughs
and Cinque Ports for the Choosing of such Persons to represent them as
were of right to be sent to Parlyament to at Westminster upon the two
and twentyeth day of January in this Yeare one thousand six hundred
eighty and eight in order to such an Establishment as that their
Religion Lawes and Liberties might not againe be in danger of being
Subverted, Upon which Letters Elections haveing beene accordingly made.
And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons
pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled
in a full and free Representative of this nation takeing into their most
serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid
Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually
done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and
Liberties, Declare;
1. That the pretended Power of Suspending of Lawes or the Execution of
Lawes by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.
2. That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Lawes or the Execution
of Lawes by Regal Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of
late is illegall.
3. That the Commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for
Ecclesiasticall Causes and all other Commissions and Courts of like
nature are Illegall and Pernicious.
4. That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of
Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other
manner than the same is or shall be granted is Illegall.
5. That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all
Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall.
6. That the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in
time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law.
7. That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their
Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
8. That Election of Members of Parlyament ought to be free.
9. That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament
ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of
Parlyament.
10. That excessive Baile ought not to be required nor excessive Fines
imposed nor cruell and unusuall Punishments inflicted.
11. That Jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned and Jurors
which passe upon Men in Trialls for High Treason ought to be
Freeholders.
12. That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular
persons before Conviction are illegall and void.
13. And that for Redresse of all Grievances and for the amending
strengthening and preserveing of the Lawes Parlyaments ought to be held
frequently.
And they do Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular the Premises
as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations
Judgments 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.
To which Demand of their Rights they are particularly encouraged by the
Declaration of his Highnesse the Prince of Orange as being the onley
means for obtaining a full Redresse and Remedy therein. Haveing
therefore an entire Confidence That his said Highnesse the Prince of
Orange will perfect the Deliverance so farr advanced by him and will
still preserve them from the Violation of their Rights which they have
here asserted and from all other Attempts upon their Religion Rights and
Liberties. The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons assembled
at Westminster doe Resolve that William and Mary Prince and Princesse of
Orange be and be declared King and Queene of England France and Ireland
and the
Dominions thereunto belonging to hold the Crowne and Royall Dignity of
the said Kingdomes and Dominions to them the said Prince and Princesse
dureing their Lives and the Life of the Survivour of them And that the
sole and full Exercise of the Regall Power be onely in and executed by
the said Prince of Orange in the Names of the said Prince and Princesse
dureing their joynt Lives And after their Deceases the said Crowne and
Royall Dignitie of the said Kingdoms and Dominions to be to the Heires
of the Body of the said Princesse and for default of such issue to the
Princess Anne of Denmarke and the Heires of her Body And for default of
such Issue to the Heires of the Body of the said Prince of Orange. And
the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe pray the said Prince
and Princesse to accept the same accordingly.
And that the Oathes hereafter mentioned be taken by all Persons of
whome the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy might be required by Law
instead of them And that the said Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy be
abrogated.
I A B doe sincerely promise and sweare That I will be faithfull and
beare true Allegiance to their Majestyes King William and Queene Mary
Soe helpe me God.
I A B doe sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhorr, Detest and Abjure as
Impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes
Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of
Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other
whatsoever. And I do declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate,
State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power
Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiastical or Spirituall
within this Realme Soe helpe me God.
Upon which their said Majestyes did accept the Crown and Royall
Dignitie of the Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and the Dominions
thereunto belonging according to the Resolution and Desire of the said
Lords and Commons contained in the said Declaration. And thereupon
their Majestyes were pleased That the said Lords Spirituall and
Temporall and Commons being the two Houses of Parlyament should continue
to sitt and with their Majesties Royall Concurrence make effectuall
Provision for the Setlement of the Religion Lawes and Liberties of this
Kingdome soe that the same for the future might not be in danger againe
of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and
Commons did agree and proceede to act accordingly.
*Now in pursuance of the Premisses the said Lords Spirituall and
Temporall and Commons in Parlyament assembled for the ratifying
confirming and establishing the said Declaration and the Articles
Clauses Matters and things therein contained by the Force of a Law made
in due Forme by Authority of Parlyament doe pray that it may be declared
and enacted That all and singular the Rights and Liberties asserted and
claimed in the said Declaration are the true auntient and indubitable
Rights and Liberties of the People of this Kingdome and soe shall be
esteemed allowed adjudged deemed and taken to be and that all and every
the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and
observed as they are expressed in the said Declaration And all Officers
and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majestyes and their
Successors according to the same in all times to come.
*And the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons seriously
considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous
Providence and merciful Goodness to this Nation to provide and preserve
their said Majestyes Royall Persons most happily to Raigne over us upon
the Throne of their Auncestors for which they render unto him from the
bottome of their Hearts their humblest Thanks and Praises doe truely
firmely assuredly and in the Sincerity of their Hearts thinke and doe
hereby recognize acknowledge and declare That King James the Second
haveing abdicated the Government and their Majestyes having accepted the
Crowne and Royall Dignity [as] aforesaid Their said Majestyes did become
were are and of right ought to be by the Lawes of this Realme our
Soveraigne Liege Lord and Lady King and Queene of England France and
Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging in and to whose Princely
Persons the Royall State Crowne and Dignity of the said Realmes with all
Honours Stiles Titles Regalities Prerogatives Powers Jurisdictions and
Authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully,
rightfully and intirely invested and incorporated united and annexed.
*And for preventing all Questions and Divisions in this Realme by reason
of any pretended Titles to the Crowne and for preserveing a Certainty in
the Succession thereof in and upon which the Unity Peace Tranquility and
Safety of this Nation doth under God wholly consist and depend The said
Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe beseech their Majestyes
That it may be enacted established and declared That the Crowne and
Regall Government of the said Kingdoms and Dominions with all and
singular the Premisses thereunto belonging and appertaining shall bee
and continue to their said Majestyes and the Survivour of them dureing
their Lives and the Life of the Survivour of them And that the entire
perfect and full Exercise of the Regall Power and Government be onely in
and executed by his Majestie in the Names of both their Majestyes
dureing their joynt Lives And after their deceases the said Crowne and
Premisses shall be and remaine to the Heires of the Body of her Majestie
and for default of such Issue to her Royall Highnesse the Princess Anne
of Denmarke and the Heires of her Body and for default of such Issue to
the Heires of the Body of his said Majestie And thereunto the said Lords
Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe in the Name of all the People
aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submitt themselves their Heires and
Posterities for ever and doe faithfully promise That they will stand to
maintaine and defend their said Majesties and alsoe the Limitation and
Succession of the Crowne herein specified and contained to the utmost of
their Powers with their Lives and Estates against all Persons whatsoever
that shall attempt any thing to the contrary.
*And whereas it hath beene found by Experience that it is inconsistent
with the Safety and Welfaire of this Protestant Kingdome to be governed
by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queene marrying a Papist the said
Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe further pray that it may
be enacted That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be
reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or
shall professe the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist shall be
excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the
Crowne and Government of this Realme and Ireland and the Dominions
thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise
any Regall Power Authoritie or Jurisdiction within the same [And in all
and every such Case or Cases the People of these Realmes shall be and
are hereby absolved of their Allegiance]
*And the said Crowne and Government shall from time to time descend to
and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should
have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons
soe reconciled holding Communion or Professing or Marrying as aforesaid
were naturally dead [And that every King and Queene of this Realme who
at any time herafter shall come to and succeede in the Imperiall Crowne
of this Kingdome shall on the first day of the meeting of the first
Parlyament next after his or her comeing to the Crowne sitting in his or
her Throne in the House of Peeres in the presence of the Lords and
Commons therein assembled or at his or her Coronation before such person
or persons who shall administer the Coronation Oath to him or her at the
time of his or her takeing the said Oath (which shall first happen) make
subscribe and audibly repeate the Declaration mentioned in the Statute
made in the thirtyeth yeare of the Raigne of King Charles the Second
Entituled An Act for the more effectual Preserveing the Kings Person and
Government by disableing Papists from sitting in either House of
Parlyament
*But if it shall happen that such King or Queene upon his or her
Succession to the Crowne of this Realme shall be under the Age of twelve
yeares then every such King or Queene shall make subscribe and audibly
repeate the same Declaration at his or her Coronation or the first day
of the meeting of the first Parlyament as aforesaid which shall first
happen after such King or Queene shall have attained the said Age of
twelve yeares.] All which Their Majesties are contented and pleased
shall be declared enacted and established by authoritie of this present
Parliament and shall stand remaine and be the Law of this Realme for
ever And the same are by their said Majesties by and with the advice and
consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parlyament
assembled and by the authoritie of the same declared enacted and
established accordingly.
And bee it further declared and enacted by the Authoritie aforesaid
That from and after this present Session of Parlyament noe Dispensation
by Non obstante of or to any Statue or any part thereof shall be allowed
but that the same shall be held void and of noe effect Except a
Dispensation be allowed of in such Statue [and except in such Cases as
shall be specially provided for by one or more Bill or Bills to be
passed dureing this present session of Parliament.]
Notes:
1. The item numbering has been added for clarity.
2. The asterisked paragraphing in the second half of the document is not
original, but has been added for easier reading and place-finding.
3. The familiar title Bill of Rights 1688 comes from the Short Titles
Act 1896.
The full title of the Act is as given.
4. According to the authoritative Halsbury's Statutes (4th edition, 1995
Reissue), all parts of this Act are still in force in England, Wales and
Northern Ireland save that the Preamble was repealed in part (Juries) in
so far as extending to Northern Ireland by the Statute Law Revision Act
1950.
5. This Act is sometimes dated as 1689 and sometimes called the
Declaration of Rights.
6. At the time this Act was passed, the years began at Easter and the
Julian Calendar was in effect. In 1752 Britain adopted the New Style
Gregorian calendar and the beginning of the year was set as 1 January.
7. Authoritative copies of the original printed version of this Act are
available from the House of Lords Record Office - 0171 219 3074. Ask for
copies on A3 paper - they're a great deal easier to read.
Magna Carta 1215.
JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of
Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops,
abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards,
servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, ...
Greeting. KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of
our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the
holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom know that;..
TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our
heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to
keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:
�No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other royal officials are to hold
lawsuits that should be held by the royal justices.�
�In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own
unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth
of it.�
�No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights
or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in
any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send
others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the
law of the land.�
�To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice�.
�We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials,
only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.�
�For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to
the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly,
but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way,
a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the
implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal
court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on
oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.�
... all these customs and liberties that we have granted shall be
observed in our kingdom in so far as concerns our own relations with
our subjects. Let all men of our kingdom, whether clergy or laymen,
observe them similarly in their relations with their own men.
SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering
of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and
our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their
entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the
barons the following security:
We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or
those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions
or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be
procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of
it, either ourselves or through a third party.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY OUR WISH AND COMMAND that the English Church shall be
free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these
liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fullness
and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all
things and all places for ever.
Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in
good faith and without deceit. Witness the above mentioned people and
many others.
Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between
Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth
year of our reign (i.e. 1215: the new regnal year began on 28 May).
G R C Davis Magna Carta Revised Edition, British Library, 1989.
THE CASE AGAINST GUN CONTROL
By David Botsford
Political Notes No. 47
ISSN 0267 7059
ISBN 1 870614 74 7
An occasional publication of:
The Libertarian Alliance,
25 Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street,
London SW1P 4NN, England.
Email: Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
(c) 1988, David Botsford; Libertarian Alliance.
The views expressed in this publication are those of its author, and not
necessarily those of the Libertarian Alliance, its Committee, Advisory
Council or subscribers.
LA Director: Chris R. Tame
Editorial Director: Brian Micklethwait
Netmaster: Ian Geldard
FOR LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY
Whoever controls the weapons makes the rules. Political power, that is,
the power of one individual over another, rests partly on assent on the
part of the ruled, whether through perceived self-interest or belief in
the justice of the ruler's claim to power (or a combination of both),
and partly on the capacity of the ruler to enforce his power over the
subjugated by his control of more physical force than the latter. These
factors are related: the majority of people throughout history either
have not been in a position, or have not had the inclination, to make up
their minds about abstract political ideas and then decide whether or
not their current political arrangements suit these ideas; the very fact
that the claim or assumption of power is made, backed up with sufficient
capacity for violence to enforce it, is enough to make most people not
only go along with the wishes of the ruler, but few will question the
abstract legitimacy of his right to assert them. State power is a
combination, in varying proportions, of violence, fraud, extortion and
conspiracy to rob other people. In politics, unfortunately, might makes
right, generally speaking. And neither is this true simply of
conventional political relationships: psychologists record many cases of
victims of terrorist hijackings falling in love with their captors, and
in situations, such as the end of the American civil war, or the
abolition of slavery in other countries, where slaves have suddenly been
released from bondage, plentiful evidence exists that many ex-slaves
were far from happy about their new situation.
The same principle applies to situations where the individual is simply
trying to preserve power over himself or herself, rather than impose it
on someone else. Where the individual has the capacity, if necessary, to
defend himself and his property by force, and to inflict injury or death
on those attempting to violate them, that factor will always be present
in the thinking of those seeking to exercise coercion over him, whether
by political power or by more honest forms of robbery. While this
capacity will by no means make anybody immune to such coercion, it will
nonetheless be a limiting factor in what potential coercers will attempt
to get away with.
Weapons and The Individual
This history of technology has, in general, been partly one of
continuous enhancements in the power of the individual (interrupted by
various Dark Ages and relatively static periods), and partly one of
attempts by those in power to restrict the spread of such improvements:
for centuries after the invention of printing, Church and state
authorities attempted to restrict the spread of both printing presses
and printed books. Many inventions have been used both for the benefit
of individuals, and for state control over individuals. Barbed wire
greatly assisted the farming of cattle, and also made possible the
development of concentration camps. With the expressed fear that they
would facilitate totalitarian controls by the state over the individual:
in fact, while such fears have proved far from groundless, more
significant is the use of personal computers in setting up alternative
networks of information which have helped to undermine totalitarianism,
particularly in the Soviet bloc.
Nowhere is this dichotomy clearer than in the field of weaponry.
Throughout most of history the technology of weaponry made it rather
difficult for the individual effectively to defend himself against more
powerful enemies. This led to political dependence on somebody else. In
Europe in the early middle ages, for instance, the development of
feudalism meant that the peasantry lost what individual autonomy they
had: unable effectively to defend themselves against invading
barbarians, the peasant had to accept an arrangement with a local lord
whereby he became the latter's vassal in return for protection. The lord
was rich enough to pay for the castle and knights which were able to
defeat the barbarian raiders; this capacity, and the political
arrangements consequent on it, gave him in most cases virtually the
power of life and death over his villeins and serfs. While feudalism
varied greatly from place to place, control over effective weaponry
clearly reflected political power. In 1215, the barons of England, each
with their own feudal armies, succeeded in forcing King John to sign
Magna Carta because they had the military power to do so when the king
was temporarily unable to finance sufficient forces to resist them. In
1381, by contrast, the great uprising against prices and incomes policy
and poll tax known as the Peasants' Revolt (but actually lead by
merchants, craftsmen, clerics and townspeople) was tricked and then
brutally repressed by the royal authorities because, according to a
contemporary source, "some carried only sticks, some swords covered with
rust, some merely axes and others bows more reddened with age and smoke
than old ivory, many of their arrows had only one plume."[1]
The development of gunpowder, artillery and other firearms brought
about a changed situation. On the one hand, the king was able to destroy
the power of local barons and establish a centralised monarchy in which
his power was exercised throughout his realm, as only he could afford
the huge cost of armies equipped with artillery, which could destroy the
barons' castles' walls, if they failed to submit to the king's wishes.
On the other hand, the development of small arms made it increasingly
possible for the ordinary individual to provide for his own defence,
either alone or in concert with others. The introduction of repeating
rifles and revolvers in the 19th century marked one of the most
important technological revolutions in history in this respect. Before
the introduction of small firearms, the individual armed with a sword,
axe or pike would stand little chance against a group of marauders
similarly armed; the bow took years of practice to master, and even an
expert bowman could almost never prevail against a number of
similarly-armed enemies, who could strike him down as he notched another
arrow. Even the musket had a lengthy and complicated reloading
procedure, during which its possessor was vulnerable, and could be
rendered ineffective if rain extinguished the fuse. Another problem was
that early muskets and pistols could only be produced expensively by
hand, thus restricting the number of people who could afford to buy
them: the many fine specimens with intricate silverwork that we see in
museums were specially made by gunsmiths for wealthy customers; the more
plain ones were generally for the use of soldiers in royal armies.
But the repeating rifle and revolver enabled the user to fire several
shots in succession without having to reload; the chances of a skilled
marksman against several enemies were greatly improved. These could also
be mass-produced in factories at very low cost, bringing them within the
reach of almost everybody. The individual armed with these weapons, and
practised in their use, therefore achieved considerable autonomy in
terms of the defence of his own life and property. One political
implication of this was that, since political authority, whether that of
the feudal master or the modern state, had rested largely on the claim
that the powerful were protecting the powerless, who in return owed the
powerful (whether an individual monarch or noble or an idea, such as
"state", "nation" or "society") allegiance, the scope of this authority
could therefore be reduced to the extent that the previously powerless
were now able to defend themselves. In response to this situation the
state sought to restrict private ownership of weapons and establish a
monopoly of legal force within society, in order to reinforce and
increase its own power. Indeed, if the state could convey the illusion
that the private ownership of weapons, and the willingness of
individuals to use these weapons to defend themselves if necessary, was
itself a "threat to society" of some sort, for example by associating it
with the use of weapons in robbery and murder, then this progressive
technological development could be used as a justification for even
further extending state power at the expense of individual liberty. Not
only would the individual be made dependent on whatever the state may or
may not effectively provide for his protection against aggressors, but
he would be incapable of self-defence if the state itself should become
the aggressor.
Police Monopoly
This, of course, describes the situation in Britain today. Britain has
by far the strictest controls on the private ownership of firearms and
other weapons of any western country, and the smallest distribution of
(legally-held) firearms. During unrest in Soviet Georgia early in 1989,
in the course of which 21 demonstrators were shot dead in Tbilisi by the
Soviet authorities, one measure introduced by the regime to put down the
protests was the seizure of all privately owned firearms in Georgia. The
number seized proved to be almost exactly the proportion of legally-held
firearms per head as those owned by the British population. It is a
sobering thought to anyone who has noticed how short and insecure in
history are the periods of relative freedom compared to the periods of
oppression that the British people would be in no better position to
defend themselves from any future tyranny imposed by a British
government than are the oppressed people of Georgia.
Indeed, we are not even allowed adequately to defend ourselves from
violent assault by individual aggressors. In 1987 Eric Butler, aged 55,
who had been entirely law-abiding throughout his life and who was, among
other charitable activities, a fund-raiser for the Royal National
Lifeboat Institute, was assaulted on the London Underground by a gang of
drunken young men. Evidently motived by entertainment rather than
material gain, the youths first punched, strangled and kicked Mr Butler,
then held him against the door of the train and repeatedly punched him
and pushed his head hard against it. He succeeded, however, in drawing a
sword-stick which he carried with him and wounding one of his assailants
in the stomach (the attacker ended up in hospital for several days),
thereby breaking free. At the next station he immediately informed the
police, who proceeded to arrest Mr Butler and charge him with carrying
an offensive weapon and causing grievous bodily harm, while releasing
the two attackers. Mr Butler was fined, thereby gaining him a criminal
record, and his sword-stick was confiscated. After a public outcry, two
of the attackers were eventually charged with assault and themselves
fined.
The individual is expected to rely exclusively on the police for
protection, and to use no force against attackers beyond what is
officially considered the level of force being used against him (or
her). Neither may the individual attack or even warn off a burglar with
any form of weapon. In 1987 John O'Connell, aged 40, a south London
grocer, whose shop had been burgled seven times in just over a month,
kept watch at night in his cellar and attacked the eighth burglar with a
piece of lead piping which broke his jaw: the burglar spent two weeks in
hospital. When he called the police Mr O'Connell himself was arrested
and tried for grievous bodily harm! Fortunately the jury acquitted him,
and it was reported that he had not been raided since (although
neighbouring properties had been hit as hard as ever). What is
instructive is what the burglar, who was given a sentence of 80 hours
community service for four burglaries (in practice gardening and other
activities many people do as a hobby), said after the trial:
"Good luck to him. I don't blame him at all, but I just wish he had not
hit me so hard. I know he had to protect his property, and I probably
would have done the same thing in his position. This has certainly
stopped me committing any more crime."[2]
A burglar, in other words, accepts his victim's right to self-defence
far more than does the law of the land! If all victims of burglary and
other crimes were legally allowed to defend themselves with effective
weapons, including firearms, a large number of other criminals would be
stopped from committing any more crimes.[3]
A recent Government Statistical Office survey reveals that the official
clear-up rate for burglary throughout the country is 26.9%; robbery
20.9% and criminal damage 22.1%.[4] This does not, of course, mean that
the victim will get any of his property back, even if the case is
solved, but demonstrates the low efficiency of the monopoly police
service which the taxpayer is forced to pay for, and which will be used
against him if he attempts to provide for his own protection. On 17 July
1989 Douglas Hurd, the Home Secretary, admitted that in the London area
seven out of every ten reported crimes (outside certain "serious"
categories) are ignored by the Metropolitan Police as a matter of
policy, with "non-aggravated" burglary and car break-ins top of the list
of offences to be ignored. The individual is, in short, unilaterally
disarmed by law against potential attackers and robbers.
What is striking, in examining the history of weapons ownership control
in England, is how recently this situation has developed, and what a
striking departure from historical practice it represents.
The History Of Weapons Control
In examining the history of weapon controls in England, a distinction
should be made between the private ownership of weapons by individuals,
and the use of weapons by the militia system, which was the main method
of law enforcement in England throughout most of its history. From
Anglo-Saxon times onwards, individuals were enrolled in groups of about
ten families called tythings, which were responsible for local law
enforcement, and, where necessary, for the defence of the realm, as
there was no police force or standing army. Every freeman had a duty to
keep arms in order to carry out these functions. The Assize of Arms
(1181) detailed the type of weapons to be kept by persons of various
ranks. The Statute of Winchester (1285) commanded
"that every man have in his house Harness for to keep the Peace after
the ancient Assize; that is to say every man between fifteen years of
age and sixty years shall be assessed and sworn to armour according to
the quality of their lands and goods."[5]
The spread of firearms in the early 16th century, then regarded as
inefficient novelties, caused concern about armed crime and the neglect
of archery, and in 1541 Henry VIII forbade the use of "crossbows,
handguns, hagbutts and demy-Hakes" by anybody with an income of under
UKP 100 a year. Even this latter class were to have handguns "not less
than three quarters of one whole yard in length".[6] However, exceptions
to this law permitted the use of such weapons by the inhabitants of
towns "for shooting at butts or banks of earth" and by anyone to defend
a house outside the limits of a town.
In 1671, in order to reserve game for the wealthy, Charles II enacted
that any person without an annual income of over UKP 100 (except those
of or above the rank of esquire and owners and keepers of forests) were
not allowed to keep any gun, bow, greyhound, setting dog or long dog.
Neither of these laws, however, affected either the duty to keep arms
under the militia system, or the right to private ownership of other
weapons (principally pikes for the lower orders by 1671). The Roman
Catholic king, James II, however, violated these traditional rights,
among others, by dismissing many Protestants from the militia and
prohibiting them from owning weapons. When William of Orange overthrew
James in 1688, parliament presented him with the Bill of Rights, which
complained that James did "endeavour to subvert and extirpate the laws
and liberties of the Kingdom" in thirteen ways; the sixth of these was
that James had
"Caused several good subjects, being protestants, to be disarmed at the
same time when papists were both armed and imployed, contrary to law."
Claiming that they were asserting no new rights, parliament declared
"that the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their
defence, suitable to their condition and as allowed by law".[7] The
Bill, which was accepted into law by William and Mary, did not seek to
disarm Roman Catholics, but to end discrimination against Protestants in
arming themselves.
Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, first
published in 1765, is a study of common law rights and the (unwritten)
constitution which is still regarded as the definitive statement of the
common law at that time. Blackstone wrote:
"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall mention
at present, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their
condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also
declared by the same Statute I W & M St 2 c2 and it is indeed a public
allowance under due restrictions of the natural right of resistance and
self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found
insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression ...
"And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free
enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty and of private
property. So long as these rights remain inviolate, the subject is
perfectly free; for every species of compulsive tyranny and oppression
must act in opposition to one or other of these rights, having no other
object upon which it can possibly be employed ... And, lastly, to
vindicate these rights, when actually violated and attacked, the
subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular
administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next to
the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of
grievances; and, lastly to the right of having and using arms for self
preservation and defence. And all these rights and liberties it is our
birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have
laid them under necessary restraints; restraints in themselves so gentle
and moderate, as will appear upon further enquiry, that no man of sense
or probity would wish to see them slackened."[8]
A comparison between this view and current official attitudes to the
desire of individuals to provide for their own defence gives a good idea
of the decline of liberty in this country over the past two centuries.
The right to possess arms was vigorously defended and upheld by
parliamentarians throughout the 19th century.
Following the industrial unrest of the 1810s, when the government
believed a revolution was brewing, the repressive administration of Lord
Liverpool introduced the Seizure of Arms Act 1820, which authorised a
Justice of the Peace, on the oath of a credible witness, to issue a
warrant to enter any place to search for
"Any pike, pike head or spear in the possession of any person or in any
house or place; or any dirk, dagger, pistol or gun or other weapon
which, for any purpose dangerous to the peace is in the possession of
any person or in any house or place."[9]
Weapons seized were to be detained unless the owner satisfied a JP that
they were not kept for a purpose dangerous to the peace. Although the
Act applied only to the industrial areas affected by disturbances
(Lancashire, the West Riding of Yorkshire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire,
Nottinghamshire, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Northumberland, Durham,
Renfrewshire and Lanarkshire, and the cities of Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
Nottingham and Coventry), and was limited to two years, several members
of Parliament objected to the infringement of liberty the Bill entailed.
George Bennet protested that the distinctive difference between a free
man and a slave was the right to possess arms, not so much to defend his
property as his liberty. Neither could he do battle, if deprived of
arms, in the hour of danger. T. W. Anson protested that the principles
and temper of the Bill were
"so much at variance will the free spirit of our venerated constitution
and so contrary to the undoubted right which the subjects of this
country have ever possessed - the right of retaining arms for the
defence of themselves, their families and properties that I cannot look
upon it without loudly expressing my disapprobation and regret."[10]
George Canning, a senior minister (and later Prime Minister) replied:
"I am perfectly willing to admit the right of the subject to hold arms
according to the principles laid down by the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman, having stated it on the authority of Mr Justice Blackstone.
The doctrine so laid down, I am willing to admit, is no other than the
doctrine of the British Constitution. The Bill of Rights, correctly
quoted and properly construed, brings me to the construction of the Bill
which, in fact, recognises the right of the subject to have arms, but
qualifies that right in such a manner as the necessity of the case
requires."[11]
The Gun Licences Act 1870 required that, with certain exceptions, any
person carrying or using a gun elsewhere than in or within the curtilege
of a dwelling-house should pay a revenue fee of 10 shillings. This was
purely an excise measure, with no intent of controlling firearms:
licences were available without question at any post office.
Nonetheless, in committee P. A. Taylor condemned the Bill as "an attempt
to bring our laws and customs into harmony those of the most despotic
Continental Governments - it is an attempt to disarm the people!"[12]
It should be noted that during the 19th century, when British people
were completely free to arm themselves, although the population grew to
several times its original size (from 11 million in 1801 to 41 million
in 1911), the crime rate fell not only in relative but also in absolute
terms. Nonetheless, the final decades of the 19th century saw a marked
increase in the control by the state over the life of the people in many
fields, and demands were increasingly put forward for various measures
of gun control. A leader in the Daily Telegraph, of 5 November 1888, for
instance, argued that
"We can conceive instances in which it is justifiable, or at least
excusable, for civilians to have revolvers in their dwellings ... The
carrying of a revolver on the person is quite another matter; and it is
distinctly a cowardly, bloodthirsty, and un-English habit ...
"Let the proprietors of revolvers be registered and let no person be
placed on the register until he can show his right to possess such a
weapon, which should be numbered, and let infraction of the law be made
a misdemeanour punishable by fine and imprisonment."[13]
In this new mood, the government introduced the Pistols Bill 1893,
which sought to impose restrictions on pistol sales and use, but the
Bill was defeated. C. H. Hopwood objected that
"It attacked the natural right of everyone who desired to arm himself
for his own protection, and not harm anyone else."[14]
In 1895 a private member's bill which sought similar restrictions was
again defeated, the same Hopwood arguing that
"To say that because there were some persons who would make violent use
of pistols, therefore the right of purchase or possession by every
Englishman should be taken away is monstrous."[15]
Colin Greenwood, former Chief Inspector of the West Yorkshire
Constabulary and now editor of Guns Review, in his definitive study
Firearms Control, summarises the legal situation with regard to firearms
in 1900:
"England entered the twentieth century with no controls over the
purchasing or keeping of any types of firearm, and the only measure
which related to the carrying of guns was the Gun Licence Act, requiring
the purchase of a ten shilling gun licence from a Post Office. Anyone,
be he convicted criminal, lunatic, drunkard or child, could legally
acquire any type of firearm and the presence of pistols and revolvers in
households all over the country was fairly widespread..." "�guns of
every type were familiar instruments and ... anyone who felt the need or
desire to own a gun could obtain one. The cheaper guns were very cheap
and well within the reach of all but the very poor ... the right of the
Englishman to keep arms for his own defence was still completely
accepted and all attempts at placing this under restraint had
failed."[16]
Gun Control In Our Time
The Pistols Act 1903 introduced the first restriction on retail
firearms sales, albeit an apparently mild one. It made unlawful the
retail sale or hire of a pistol unless the purchaser either held a gun
licence under the Gun Licences Act 1870, or proved that he was a
householder seeking to use the pistol in, or within the curtilege of his
own house, or produced a signed declaration from a magistrate or police
inspector that he was about to go abroad for at least six months. More
significantly, it was made unlawful for persons under 18 to buy, hire,
use or carry a pistol, and for anyone to sell or deliver a pistol to a
person under 18, or knowingly to sell a pistol to anyone intoxicated or
of unsound mind. Also, retailers were required to maintain full records
of all pistols sold, and show these on demand to a police or revenue
officer. This could have little practical effect on retail sails to
adults, as a gun licence was available on demand to anyone for 10
shillings, and no restriction was placed on private sales or gifts
between individuals. Nonetheless it removed the freedom of a large group
of British subjects - those under 18 - to arm themselves with pistols,
and also subjected the right of everybody else under the control of
statutory legislation, however apparently innocuous, for the first
time. Although other firearms were not affected, this was a dangerous
precedent, in that when, in a more intolerant atmosphere, the state
sought further restrictions on firearms, and these were objected to, it
could point to the existence of the Act as justification for the
principle of further statutory controls.
Such an atmosphere emerged with the First World War and its
revolutionary aftermath. In 1918 the Sub-committee on Arms Traffic saw
the vast quantities of surplus weapons that would come onto
international markets after the war as a possible threat to the British
Empire, both from "Savage or semi-civilised tribesmen in outlying parts
of the British Empire" and "The anarchist or `intellectual' malcontent
of the great cities, whose weapon is the bomb and the automatic pistol.
There is some force in the view that the latter will in future prove the
more dangerous of the two."[17]
It is important to stress that the government was not seeking to disarm
the broad mass of responsible British people. Indeed, at the end of the
war the government gave away nearly all its huge stockpile of captured
German weapons to individuals who had contributed to the war savings
scheme. Each person who had given a small amount received a rifle; those
who had given more received a machine-gun; and those who have given
particularly large donations were given a piece of German field
artillery each![18]
The Firearms Act 1920 introduced major firearms control for the first
time in British history, although in theory it did not extinguish the
right to keep arms to defend the person and household. Under Section 1,
with certain exemptions, an individual could only purchase or possess a
firearm or ammunition if he held a firearms certificate, valid for three
years and renewable for three-year periods, which "shall be granted by
the Chief Officer of Police" in the applicant's district, if the
applicant had "good reason for requiring such a certificate"; could be
permitted to possess, use and carry a firearm without endangering public
safety; and on payment of a fee. The Chief Officer was to deny a
certificate to anyone he considered "unfitted to be entrusted with
firearms". The certificate, which was to be shown on demand to a police
officer or magistrate, would list the number and nature of the firearms.
Section 2 introduced the registration of firearms dealers; trade in
firearms was restricted to those who registered with the local Chief
Officer of Police; registration could be refused if the police believed
the dealer "Could not be permitted to carry on business without danger
to the public safety or the peace."[19] It was made an offence to supply
a firearm to persons under 14, persons drunk or of unsound mind, or
certain convicted persons for specified periods. The Act also introduced
the concept of "prohibited weapons", which means any "designed for the
discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing". (One result of
this section of the Act is that anti-mugging aerosol cans which
discharge CS or Mace gas in the face of an attacker without doing him
permanent harm - and would thus be ideal for those who wish to defend
themselves without risking killing anyone - are illegal.) In
parliamentary discussion of the bill, Mr Kiley objected that a burglar
seeking firearms could easily burgle a place where they were stocked and
steal them wholesale.
"While it achieves no useful purpose, so far as I can see, it does
interfere with legitimate traders. So far as burglars are concerned it
will have no effect."
Only Lt-Commander Kenworthy objected on constitutional grounds,
pointing out that there was
"... a much greater principle involved than the mere prevention of
discharged prisoners having weapons. In the past one of the most
jealously guarded rights of the English was that of carrying arms. For
long our people fought with great tenacity for the right of carrying the
weapon of the day, the sword, and it was only in recent times that it
was given up. It has been a well known object of the Central Government
of this Country to deprive the people of their weapons."[20]
Nonetheless the Bill became law. It should be noted that the 1920 Act
was never intended as a measure against the ordinary criminal use of
firearms, and did not prevent it. Nonetheless, it was typical of the
slap-dash and superficial treatment of British firearms legislation this
century that in 1934 the Bodkin Committee assumed, presumably without
examining the background to the 1920 Act, that that had been its
purpose, and regarded the well-publicised (though not much increased)
criminal use of firearms as evidence that further restrictions were
necessary. The Committee recommended, along with several minor changes,
the classification of machine-guns as "prohibited weapons", and the law
was updated in the Firearms Act 1937.
During the Second World War, the government, which was short of small
arms, repeatedly appealed to the public to offer privately-owned
firearms for sale, and thousands were bought in this way. At the end of
the war, despite prohibition from military authorities, thousands of
servicemen brought home weapons as souvenirs. In 1946, under a six-week
amnesty (under which illegal weapons could be surrendered without fear
of prosecution), 75,000 illegal weapons were handed in, including 59,000
pistols and 1,580 machine-guns. In October 1946 the Home Secretary went
further than previous legislation in controlling private arms when he
said:
"I would not regard the plea that a revolver is wanted for the
protection of an applicant's person or property as necessarily
justifying the issue of a firearm certificate."[21]
The legislation of the 1960s, which gave Britain the strictest firearms
control in the western world, was in Greenwood's view the result partly
of a political trade-off with the abolition of the death penalty, partly
based on ignorance of facts and misinterpretation of data connected with
firearms and crime. In 1965 the government was seeking to abolish the
death penalty, a step strongly opposed by public opinion and many MPs.
At that time, a number of well-publicised robberies and murders,
committed with firearms, had taken place (although the statistical
incidence of such offences was no higher than in the late 1940s). As a
concession, in order to be seen to be "cracking down on crime" and thus
obtain support for the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Bill, and
also fearing an increase in armed crime after the passage of that Bill,
the government very hastily introduced the Firearms Act. As well as
minor further restrictions, this introduced the offence of carrying
firearms with intent to commit an offence; further restricted carrying
firearms in public; extended the powers of the police to require that
weapons be handed over for inspection, search persons and vehicles
suspected of carrying arms, and to arrest without warrant; and
drastically increased the penalties provided in the 1937 Act. The police
were empowered to impose conditions on registered firearms dealers, and
for the first time those who dealt in shotguns were required to be
registered, and to keep records of all transactions.
In an incident in August 1966 three policemen were murdered in London
by a criminal gang using pistols. Massive protests from the public, the
Police Federation and other bodies demanded the return of the death
penalty for murder, arguing that the criminals would not have killed the
officers if it was still in force. Roy Jenkins, the Home Secretary
promised new restrictions on firearms in order to head off this pressure
and avoid restoring the death penalty. In the important Criminal Justice
Act 1967, which brought about a major overhaul of the criminal justice
system, Mr Jenkins introduced, in Part V, a system in which, for the
first time, persons had to obtain a licence before acquiring a shotgun.
In the Lords discussion of the bill, Lord Mansfield described the first
parts of the Bill as the "Criminal Justice (Encouragement of Evildoers)
Bill" and Part V as the "Criminal Injustice (Harassment of Citizens)
Bill". Lord Stonham, Under-Sectretary of State at the Home Office,
admitted that
"Of course a determined criminal can get one [a shotgun] illegally, as
he can get a pistol despite the 1937 Firearms Regulations, stringent
though they are. Of course he can; and this Bill will not stop a
determined criminal from getting a shotgun."[22]
Nonetheless the Bill became law, and all the legislation relating to
firearms was amalgamated into the Firearms Act 1968. Even the more
powerful air weapons were brought under firearms control legislation
with the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969, although there was
not a single incident in which an air-gun had been used in a crime,
making a mockery of the number of police man-hours required to process
the paperwork relating to them.
In 1972, in the only academic study ever made of British firearms
legislation and its effects, Greenwood showed that none of the
legislation had been based on proper research, and that all if it had
been a complete failure in controlling the criminal use of firearms,
which had increased - often dramatically - after every act of firearms
control.
"The use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no
controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic,
could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of
strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use
of this class of weapon in crime than ever before."[23]
He compared the use of (strictly controlled) firearms with that of
shotguns (uncontrolled until 1968) in robberies in the following tables
and concluded that "despite the fact that they were unrestricted until
1968, shotguns were used in only a relatively low proportion in the
periods immediately before and after the imposition of controls."[24] An
armed robber's choice of weapon for any particular "job", in other
words, is based on what he considers the most appropriate weapon, and
not the legal restrictions on it.
On the elaborate licensing system established by the legislation, he
concluded that;
"The voluminous records so produced appear to serve no useful purpose.
In none of the cases examined in this study was the existence of these
records of any assistance in detecting a crime and no one questioned
during the course of the study could offer any evidence to establish the
value of the system of registering weapons ... it should surely be for
the proponents of the system of registration to establish its value. If
they fail to do so, the system should be abandoned."[27]
The Hungerford Massacre
Nonetheless, Greenwood's conclusions had no apparent effect on official
attitudes towards firearms legislation. In August 1987 Michael Ryan
murdered 16 people and wounded another 14 in a few hours in the town of
Hungerford with a legally-owned semi-automatic rifle, one of five
legally-owned firearms he possessed (along with two illegally-owned,
indeed "prohibited", sub-machine guns), before committing suicide. The
government's response was to introduce still further restrictions with
the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. An informed person, however, would
make three observations about this appalling mass murder.
First, it was proof that the most restrictive system of firearms
control and registration in the western world had failed legally, to
deprive of firearms exactly the sort of person it was supposed to deny
them to, demonstrating the sheer futility of such restrictions. As the
government's White Paper, published shortly after the massacre,
admitted:
"... legislation cannot offer a guarantee against the repetition of the
tragic events of Hungerford. It cannot eradicate entirely the
possibility of the abuse of legitimately held firearms by an unstable or
criminal individual."[28]
Second, even if Ryan had been refused firearms certificates, or if
there had been a total ban on the private ownership of firearms, he
could still have carried out the massacre with the two sub-machine guns
he owned, in spite of the fact that they were "prohibited weapons" and
illegal for any private citizen to possess without written permission
from the Home Secretary, which simply is not given.
Third, the restrictiveness of the system deterred the large majority of
law-abiding citizens from seeking to obtain firearms certificates and
thus be allowed to own and become proficient with firearms; a potential
maniac like Ryan who would use guns for mass murder would persevere
through the bureaucracy and obtain a certificate (or else buy from the
huge illegal market in firearms). The result was that the people of
Hungerford were unilaterally disarmed against Ryan, who could shoot them
down at will.
Had there been a large proportion of law-abiding Hungerford people who
owned guns and knew how to use them, they could have shot down Ryan at
an early stage in his rampage. As it was, they had to wait until the
police realised what was happening, obtained and deployed police
marksmen, located Ryan and surrounded him - all of which took several
hours in which lives could otherwise have been saved. This should be
compared with a similar tragedy in a rural area in western France in
July 1989, in which a man armed with a sporting rifle murdered 14
people, again without motive, before being brought down (but not killed)
by police fire. The ownership and use of long guns is widespread in
rural France, and a local man armed with a rifle succeeded in hitting
and wounding the murderer during the rampage.
The British government, however, learnt none of these lessons. The
Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 simply introduced further restrictions
along the lines of previous legislation. Along with other minor
restrictions, semi-automatic weapons were classified as prohibited
weapons, although for the first time compensation was paid to owners of
them when they were surrendered: this category includes many pump-action
and self-loading rifles, some models dating from 1882. The more powerful
shotguns were brought to the same rigid level of control as pistols and
rifles, requiring a firearms certificate. All shotguns had to be
individually registered, ending the practice of holding several on one
licence. The police were empowered to refuse a shotgun licence if they
were not satisfied that the applicant had "good reason" for possessing a
shotgun. The practice of converting a weapon to place it in a less
strictly controlled category was outlawed. The penalties for violating
the new shotgun legislation were increased drastically. In 1975 Douglas
Hurd, later Home Secretary, was fined UKP 5 for possessing a shotgun
without a certificate (he had forgotten to renew his certificate); under
the 1988 Act the maximum possible penalty was increased to three years'
imprisonment.
Such is the law as it stands at present, and it is interpreted in a
strict manner by the police and Home Office authorities. It has been
official Home Office policy continually to reduce the number of
legally-owned firearms, and this is reflected in the number of
certificates (on which details of each firearm, and purposes for which
it may be used, are included) held by members of the public: in 1969
there were 216,281 firearms certificates held by private individuals; in
1986 the figure was 160,285. A less harsh view was taken of shotgun
certificates during this period (before the 1988 Act): in 1969 637,108
people were licensed shotgun owners (i.e. permitted to own any number of
shotguns); in 1986 there were 840,951. Virtually all these certificate
holders are either members of gun clubs (for target shooting), people
who engage in hunting game for sport, or farmers (for the control of
vermin). Government and Home Office policy is that self-defence is not
considered a good reason for requiring a firearm or shotgun certificate,
although this is not written in any law, and is a purely bureaucratic
decision. The attitude of the police has varied from one place to
another, with some chief officers of police openly taking the view that
the law should prohibit even sporting firearms. The following remarkable
piece of logic is from Ken Sloan, legal editor of Police Review, in
1987, rather than a Chief Constable, but is not atypical of some of the
opinions of the latter:
"My personal view of this is that anyone wishing to possess an automatic
or semi-automatic weapon such as a Kalashnikov or M1 carbine, must be of
unsound mind or unfitted to be entrusted with such a firearm."[29]
How many firearms are in illegal ownership in Britain? In the Police
Review, of 7 January 1988, Michael Yardley, one of Britain's leading
experts on firearms, estimated the figure at a remarkable 4 million.[30]
Some indication of the size of the stockpile of illegally-owned weaponry
is given by the number of firearms handed in during amnesties, in which
the police encourage the public to hand in uncertified weapons for a
period of several weeks, with no questions asked.
Firearms surrendered in England and Wales under amnesties since
1933:[31]
1933 16,409
1935 8,469
1937 14,000
1946 76,000
1961 70,000
1965 41,000
1968 25,088
1988 42,725
These figures exclude rounds of ammunition surrendered (795,000 in
1968; 1.5 million in 1988), other "offensive weapons" (4,280 in 1988),
and the substantial numbers of firearms handed in other than during
amnesties; 58,006 firearms were handed to the Metropolitan Police alone
from 1946 to 1969, for instance.[32] In the 1965 amnesty a man in
Royston, Hertfordshire, handed over an anti-tank gun, four service
rifles, 12,000 rounds of ammunition, several live grenades and three
booby traps.[33] In 1988 a man in Windsor surrendered 88 boxes of
ammunition, three machine-guns (one with tripod), four rifles, three
revolvers, a flare pistol and an anti-aircraft gun.[34] (Weapons handed
in during amnesties, except those of historical interest, are melted
down.)
One must remember that only those law-abiding people who wish to divest
themselves of their firearms would hand them in in this manner, and the
number of firearms involved clearly shows that the supply is not drying
up. Certainly criminals have no problem in acquiring firearms for
robberies: from 1974 to 1984 the number of robberies using firearms in
England and Wales rose from 650 to 2,098.[35] On 26 July 1989, Donald
Kell aged 67, attempted to tackle two men, armed with a pistol, who had
just robbed a security van, and was shot dead.[36] Firearms control has
kept guns out of the hands of people like Mr Kell, while failing to keep
them from his murderers. As Greenwood comments:
"Criminals have proved to us that firearms controls will not deny their
small class of people access to firearms whenever they want them, but
even if it were possible to deny them guns, little would have been
achieved if they simply turned to other weapons such as coshes, ammonia
sprays and the like which, in fact, cause more injuries than
firearms."[37]
Gun control has, in short, been a complete failure in terms of the
objectives which people normally associate with it. It has succeeded in
giving a virtual monopoly of privately-owned guns to professional
criminals and those otherwise law-abiding individuals who own illegal
firearms, the number of who can only be guessed at. Let us now propose
positive arguments against firearms control and for the legal right of
the individual to possess firearms and other weapons for his or her own
protection.
Taking The Law Into Our Own Hands
Generally speaking, most people would pay at least lip service to
opposition to slavery, in that they would defend the right of the
individual to the ownership and control of his or her own mind and body.
It follows therefore that the individual also owns the products of his
own mind or body, which he or she is free to use, exchange, sell or give
as he or she wishes. This is the fundamental justification for property
rights, which are absolute in the sense that nobody has any right to use
violence against anybody else to violate that person's rights. Within
this context of non-coercion, the individual is free to obtain whatever
items of property he or she chooses without interference from others,
and this includes all forms of weapons. Following from the above
principles, an individual also has the right to use force to defend his
or her self or property, or someone else's self or property, when they
are subjected to coercive force. No individual has the right to initiate
force against anybody else or his or her property.
The state, however, makes the claim that we should depend exclusively
on the power of the law and the state monopoly of policing for our
protection, and have no right to "take the law into our own hands". Yet
the police and the criminal courts spend a large proportion of their
time pursuing people who have violated no property rights, and as we saw
above, only a small proportion of crimes against the individual and
property are solved. Quite large numbers of people, usually on low
incomes, do not pay their television licence fees; when they are caught
watching without a licence they are charged and fined; unable to keep up
the payments on the fine, a total of about 600 a year are imprisoned for
defaulting on fines. Yet violent criminals who have viciously beaten
their victims are routinely given a suspended sentence, which means no
real punishment at all. It is hardly surprising that violent crime is
rising and getting nastier. In the past, the violent criminal was
generally satisfied with using force sufficient to get what he wanted;
today, horrifying stories about gratuitous torture, beating, mutilation
and rape of robbery victims, evidently for fun rather than gain, are
routine newspaper reading. Knowing their victims to be unilaterally
disarmed, such is the contempt these people hold for their victims that
they treat them in this manner. I submit that the widespread ownership
of firearms among ordinary people would drastically reduce these
assaults. In a study of criminals in US prisons, three-fifths said that
a criminal would not attack a potential victim known to be armed;
two-fifths had decided not to commit a crime because they thought the
victim might have a gun.[38] In 1982 the small town of Kennesaw,
Georgia, USA, passed a law making it compulsory, for householders to
keep a firearm and ammunition on the premises; house burglaries fell
from 65 per year to 26, and to 11 the following year.[39] Of course, the
libertarian would not support such a coercive measure any more than he
would, for example, force children to go to school, but the lesson
stands. If even a small number of victims shot and killed their
attackers, it is reasonable to assume that the message would get to the
other criminals and violent crime would drop. For this to happen,
though, the legal right to use force - if necessary lethal - in
self-defence would have to be enshrined in law.
But actual crimes of violence are only the tip of the iceberg. "Kill
one, frighten ten thousand." For every burglary, robbery, mugging, rape
or other assault, many individuals are frightened to go out at night,
some even by day, and often feel fear even in their own homes. This is
particularly true of those groups with the smallest degree of real power
in our society: old people, people on low incomes, "working class"
women, residents of council estates, and non-whites. While there is
never any shortage of hot air merchants in parliament, pressure groups,
local government and the bureaucracy, who are quick to sound off on
behalf of these "underprivileged" people, these latter always make
proposals which will enhance their own power, and avoid the issues which
really concern those whom they claim to represent, of which violent
crime is the most important. It is hardly surprising that the police,
short of manpower and resources and often not wishing to strain
"community relations" are quicker to respond to complaints by the
better-off, who can kick up a more effective fuss if they are
dissatisfied with the police, than to those of the lower orders, who are
generally cut off from political influence. (It is worth pointing out
here that some elements of the left have in the past had more wisdom on
the subject than others. The Banner of the London School of Economics
students' union, made in the 1960s, and still carried on demonstrations,
carries the bold legend "ARM THE WORKERS AND STUDENTS". One can only
agree.)
Gun Control By The State, For The State
But it is not just the private criminal from whom the ordinary citizen
needs the right to protection. Even more important is self-defence
against the state and its actual or potential violence. Throughout the
world, tyranny is more common than freedom. In our century, tens of
millions of human beings have been murdered by oppressive regimes which
believed that their victims stood in the way of creating some utopia or
other by violence. Hundreds of millions - if not billions - more have
had to live under totalitarian tyrannies, deprived of the most basic
freedoms that we in Britain take for granted. In every case, the one
distinctive difference between the agents of the regime and their
victims was the fact that the former had a monopoly of weapons. Before
coming to power, Adolf Hitler wrote:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who
have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own
downfall by doing so."[40]
In 1937 the Nazi regime introduced a Firearms Act which stipulated that
no civilian was to have a firearm without a permit, which would not,
according to a contemporary commentary, be issued to those "suspected of
acting against the state. For Jews this permission will not be granted.
Those people who do not require permission to purchase or carry weapons
[include] the whole S.S. and S.A., including the Death's Head group" and
Hitler Youth Officers.[41]
Would it not have been better if the Jewish and other victims of the
Nazis had been armed and able to resist being dragged to concentration
camps? The fact that the victims could not effectively resist and
overthrow these regimes made mass murder and tyranny possible. Dictators
as diverse as Ferdinand Marcos, Fidel Castro, Idi Amin and the Bulgarian
communists have ordered firearms confiscations immediately on taking
power, for good reasons. The current suppression of the democracy
movement in China, for instance, would be impossible without a state
monopoly on weapons.
Totalitarian regimes know that disarming the people must be an early
step in consolidating their tyranny. In the early days of communist rule
in both Russia and China, the private ownership of firearms was
prohibited, and spies and informers in the villages were rewarded for
revealing the names of those who defied the regime's decrees. These
measures were preludes to the seizure of the peasants' land in both
countries, accompanied by the extermination by artificial famine of
millions, along with the deportation to slave-labour camps of millions
more who attempted to resist.
Such events seem, thankfully, to be a remote possibility in Britain
today, but how do we know what might happen a hundred, two hundred or
five hundred years in the future? Might the British people one day face
a situation where they have to use force to resist a domestic tyranny?
Indeed, it makes a decisive difference in the relationship between the
state and the people if the latter is known to be armed. The fact that
the people are armed creates a "bottom line" of oppression below which
the government may be resisted, if all else fails, by force. If the
people cannot defend their rights directly, then any freedoms they are
permitted by the state are, strictly speaking, temporary privileges
which can in practice be removed by the one institution which has a
monopoly of legal violence in society. Soon after the Hungerford
massacre, one regional English Chief Constable publicly urged that it be
made illegal for members of the public to own bullet-proof vests and
similar equipment, so that it will be easier for the police to shoot
them! He was, of course, talking in reference to events like Hungerford,
but the totalitarian implications are obvious. Any political authority
seeking to remove basic human rights will tread very warily if it knows
its subjects to be armed. In its measures it will always seek to err on
the side of caution, not wishing to provoke resistance. A disarmed
people, however, is ultimately at the mercy of those in power, dependent
on their goodwill for their own survival.
Some indication of the degree of totalitarian pressure that can already
be applied in our supposedly free society was given by the notorious
events in Cleveland, County Durham, in 1987. Certain paediatricians
working for the Cleveland Social Services Department (who happened, not
coincidentally, to be socialists) engaged in a piece of empire-building
by alleging that an epidemic of child sexual abuse was taking place in
Cleveland. As a result hundreds of children were - apparently at random
- forcibly taken away from their parents, and a totalitarian atmosphere
imposed on the town. With none of the normal protections of the law,
such as the presumption of innocence, parents were accused of abusing
their own children, and attempts were made to blackmail them into
confessing. Attempts were also made to threaten and trick the kidnapped
children into denouncing their parents. As a result of the trauma
involved, many parents had nervous breakdowns, others split up, and
others attempted suicide. After several months, the scandal was exposed,
the children returned and the whole exercise proved to be completely
fraudulent, although the psychological damage had been done.
It is here that the private ownership of firearms for self-defence
becomes relevant. Hundreds of innocent parents had to undergo the
smarting humiliation and shame of their own children being kidnapped
from them and turned against them by individuals whose salaries they -
the parents - were paying through taxes on their earnings. One just has
to imagine the ordeal of neighbours, colleagues, relatives and friends
knowing about the appalling accusations made against these parents, and
perhaps wondering for years afterwards if there might have been
something in it. Had the falsely accused parents, however, been armed,
and had the legal right to defend their children against kidnapping by
anybody, regardless of whether the latter were state employees or not
(after it was established in court that the intervention was
groundless), I submit that the bureaucrats would have kept their ghastly
fantasies to themselves. If they had been so foolhardy as to proceed
under these circumstances, they would have done so entirely at their own
risk.
Many people are horrified at the idea that the individual should resist
the intervention of the state by force, even in cases such as the
Cleveland outrage. Yet most of the people who express this horror are
more sympathetic to the right of parents to resist kidnappers who seize
children for their own private gain. There is surely little moral
difference between the two; indeed, the professional kidnapper is
arguably preferable: he acts purely selfishly, and wants nothing more
than the money he can extract from the parents, at which point he has no
reason not to return the child. The "altruistic" Cleveland
paediatricians had little interest in personal financial gain, and,
probably convinced of the righteousness of what they were doing, were
prepared to use the coercive power of the state to destroy families and
reduce their victims to nervous wrecks in order to enhance their power.
Why is it less moral for the individual to resist the latter than the
former? And why should the law deny him or her the means to do so?
International And Regional Comparisons
A comparison of international and regional policies on firearms control
gives no evidence to suggest that legal restrictions on firearms have
any effect in reducing either crime, or the criminal use of firearms,
while by definition prohibiting or restricting the ownership of
firearms by law-abiding citizens. Within the UK, the Channel Islands,
with their wide degree of self-government, have very moderate gun
controls, and the private ownership of firearms, including sub-machine
guns and other automatic weapons, is widespread. It also has a very low
rate of violent crime, and the use of firearms in crime is negligible
compared to the mainland. In Northern Ireland, on the other hand, and
also in the Irish Republic, gun controls even more draconian than those
on the mainland have been imposed as a result of the terrorist situation
there, and even air pistols and rifles are subject to the most severe
controls. Yet the IRA and other terrorist groups have no difficult in
obtaining effective military weapons, whether from abroad or on the
black market, only in finding the men to use them. No comment is needed
on the murder rate using firearms in Northern Ireland. Indeed,
individuals in the province, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, are
at much greater risk of being murdered in "retaliation" attacks, in
which a paramilitary group will target a law-abiding person of the other
religion virtually at random, than people on the mainland. Their need
for personal protection is much greater, and one can envisage that if a
few cases took place in which terrorist gunmen were shot by their
civilian victims, the deterrent effect would be enough substantially to
reduce the terrorism in the province.
Switzerland has the highest level of private firearms ownership in the
world, with pistols freely purchasable by adults from gunshops on
presentation of a permit obtainable as easily as a television licence
here. Retail sales of rifles and shotguns, and private sales of pistols
between individuals are completely unregulated. Despite, or rather
because of, the fact that several firearms are held in almost every
home, the criminal use of firearms is so low that it is not even
recorded separately in police statistics.[42] Denmark has a similarly
high rate of firearms ownership, with small-calibre guns completely
unregulated and an easily-obtained permit needed for larger ones. In
Belgium private citizens can buy hunting and sporting guns with a
readily-granted permit, with a stricter licensing system for more
powerful guns. West Germany and France have found strict gun controls,
introduced as a response to terrorism, impossible to enforce. In 1973,
following the Baader-Meinhof, Middle Eastern and other terrorist
campaigns, the West German government imposed severe firearms control,
including registration of all guns.[43] In 1973 there were between 17
and 20 million privately-owned guns in West Germany; by 1976 only 3.2
million had been registered. Over 80% of firearms in West Germany are
illegally held, the large majority by otherwise law-abiding people who
have been criminalised by this action, and a series of police raids to
find them has, fortunately, been a failure.[44] The French government
introduced strict gun control in 1983 after violence inside France by
Middle Eastern terrorists; again, the laws have been defied on a massive
scale by French people who do not regard their freedoms as subject to
bureaucratic removal as a result of somebody else's terrorism.[45] It is
well-known that Malaysia has the death penalty for drug traffickers;
the same penalty exists for illegal firearms ownership. Recently a Thai
salesman visiting Malaysia was found with a .22 calibre pistol and
ammunition: simply for possessing these, he was hanged. So much for the
argument that strict gun control prevents unnecessary deaths!
Japan has much stricter gun control than most parts of the USA, yet
Japanese-Americans, who have much easier access to firearms, have much
lower violence rates than Japanese in Japan. Mexico has more restrictive
gun control than the USA, and also a much higher murder and armed crime
rate. In Taiwan, like Malaysia, the death penalty can be imposed for
illegal ownership of guns, and gun control is stricter than Japan. Yet
the murder rate in Taiwan is four times higher than that of Japan, and
30% higher than in the USA. South Africa has much stricter firearms
control than the USA, yet has twice the murder rate.[46]
Before independence in 1962, Jamaica had a tolerable level of crime,
and permitted private ownership of guns, subject to having a police
permit. From 1962 to 1973 the homicide rate rose by 450% and violent
crimes, including armed robberies, rose even more sharply. In 1973
(after an incident to which four businessmen were murdered by shooting)
a total ban on the private ownership of all types of guns and ammunition
was imposed. Police seized all legal firearms and were given the power
to search any vehicle or house they believed to contain guns or
ammunition, arresting without warrant any violators. These were taken to
a "gun court", with no bail allowed, and, after a delay of perhaps
weeks, arraigned in secret courts without representation, and those
convicted were imprisoned in a "gun stockade" for an indeterminate
period. For three months after the introduction of this system the rate
of armed crime dropped, and then it grew completely out of control. Any
political activity was accompanied by armed men roaming the streets, and
armed troops had to preserve order during elections. Murders by
shooting, armed robberies and other crimes set new world records, and
spread throughout society. Later the Commissioner of Corrections
admitted that the ban had not affected the hard core criminals, and the
worst excesses of the system were corrected.[47].
The example of the USA is usually cited in arguments against the
relaxation of British firearms control. It is alleged that the high rate
of murder and other violent crimes in the USA is caused by the wide
legal availability of firearms, and this would occur in Britain if
firearms controls were removed. Many anecdotes, perhaps true, perhaps
apocryphal, are put forward to support this proposition: a man in
Kentucky shot his brother for using too much toilet paper; a dispute
between two men in a New York City cinema over who would have the last
bag of popcorn became a gunfight in which one of them was shot dead. The
defence by many Americans of the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, is cited
with feigned horror by some British observers, who are ignorant of the
fact that this was a fundamental principle of English law which was
carried over from the unwritten British constitution, and which, as it
has never been formally removed by parliament, and no court has ever
ruled that it no longer exists, can be still said, legally speaking, to
exist in England.
In the first place, the US has over 20,000 laws at Federal, state and
local level which restrict firearms ownership and use. The cities with
the highest levels of violence and criminal use of firearms, including
New York City, Washington DC, Detroit and Chicago, have gun control even
stricter than that of the UK. 20% of murders in the USA take place in
these cities, which have only 6% of the population. Firearms bans are
widely defied in cities where in some areas the police are effectively
losing control of the streets. New York City, for instance, has had a
virtual ban on handguns since the 1911 Sullivan Act, yet has an
estimated 2 million illegal pistols (including those used in the
anecdote mentioned above). If it is replied that guns can easily be
brought in illegally from other states with less gun control, one can
reply that surely the same would be true of, for instance, Minneapolis,
which has no gun ban and a murder rate of 2.9 per 100,000, compared to
17.5 in New York. As in Britain, no correlation has ever been shown
between the legal availability of firearms and armed crime.[48] The fact
is that the USA has a higher rate of murder without firearms (i.e. using
knives, poisons, blunt instruments, etc.) than any western European
country: quite apart from the huge illegal markets in guns, murderers
could simply substitute other weapons if guns were further restricted,
while knowing that they victims would be disarmed. It is in the USA,
more than any other country, that firearms control is a hotly-contested
political issue, and the media, the bureaucracy, academia and most
politicians are almost unanimous in seeking to disarm law-abiding
citizens, who have had to fight a defensive political action against
repressive legislation seeking to remove their freedom. The Bureau of
Tobacco, Alcohol and Firearms uses every possible legal and illegal
device to make life difficult for law-abiding American gun owners. Only
one side of this debate - no need to say which one - ever gets heard in
the British media.
National Defence
The private ownership and civilian use of firearms can also play an
important role in defence. The best known example is that of
Switzerland, where every adult male is required to be a member of the
militia (which numbers 625,000), to store a fully-automatic rifle and
ammunition at home and to practise with it regularly. Separately from
these government weapons, Switzerland has the world's highest level of
private firearms ownership. Firearms, including semi-automatic rifles,
can be bought freely from gunshops on presentation of a purchase permit
which is issued without question to any adult (except those with certain
criminal convictions or records of mental instability). Yet armed crime
is negligible: firearms homicides have not increased since records began
in 1931, and armed robberies are so few that they are not even recorded
separately.
Denmark is second only to Switzerland in its level of private firearms
ownership, and considerably ahead of the USA. It has a Home Guard of
75,200 the members of which store semi-automatic rifles and sub-machine
guns at home and can be mobilised in one hour. In 25 years, only 13
homicides have been attributed to the 60,000 of these Home Guard
weapons. Norway and Sweden also have Home Guards which store military
weapons and ammunition at home: the misuse of these weapons is almost
non-existent. The US government's Directorate of Civilian Marksmanship
has sponsored civilian military arms to rifle clubs and semi-automatic
rifles to individuals. In 1965, the Little Report, sponsored by the US
Department of the Army, "failed to uncover a single incident where DCM
arms have been used in crimes of violence".[49]
Before its present official attitudes to civilian firearms use
developed, Britain used to have a similar system. From 1859 until the
end of the First World War the government kept a quarter of a million
Rifle Volunteers under arms; in 1900 Lord Salisbury, the Prime Minister,
said that he would laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage
in England.[50] Our present system, in which nearly all peaceful
citizens are both disarmed and ignorant about firearms as a result of
government policy, would lead to a disastrous situation if Britain
should ever be faced with invasion. The people would be virtually
incapable of organising effective guerrilla resistance to an invader, or
of providing auxiliary forces to the regular army, because of the
resources and time needed to train people in the use of weapons, quite
apart from the availability of these weapons themselves. Should the
regular military forces be defeated, the people would be completely at
the mercy of an invader.
(One of the most fraudulent aspects of the position of the Campaign for
Nuclear Disarmament is their claim that they support the possibility of
guerrilla warfare as a major aspect of Britain's defence after the
unilateral nuclear disarmament and withdrawal from NATO which they
propose. I have often discussed the issue with CND supporters, and when
I press for details of how this guerrilla force is to be organised,
these are either vague or non-existent. When I ask whether they would
encourage the widespread civilian ownership and use of military
firearms, and the training of individuals in guerrilla warfare by
official and private sponsorship, they react in a hostile manner to the
very proposals they were arguing for - in a vague and offhand way -
only minutes before!)
The private ownership of firearms by civilians can be remarkably
effective in resisting even a modern technological invader. For
centuries the Afghans and Pakistanis have been skilled both with using
firearms and making copies of standard models in primitive workshops
with simple tools and materials. When the Soviet Union invaded
Afghanistan in 1979, the Afghans, despite their enormous technological
inferiority, were able to offer immediate effective resistance and
quickly developed rifles that could fire the same ammunition as the
Soviet AK47. While their eventual success in forcing the Soviet forces
to withdraw was due to the later availability of sophisticated modern
weapons such as the Stinger missile, this would have been impossible
without the early stages of military resistance made possible by the
widespread knowledge and ownership of firearms.
Women And Guns
"Be not afraid of man,
No matter what his size;
When danger threatens, call on me
And I will equalise."
(motto engraved on a 19th century Winchester rifle)[51]
Although capitalism has succeeded in giving women throughout society a
wide degree of independence, for example through labour-saving devices,
it cannot alter the biological fact that the average man is some 50%
physically stronger than the average woman, nor that the average
attacker, burglar or rapist is probably rather stronger than this
average. And there is no doubt that the threat of attack is very real in
Britain today, and poses a major restriction on the effective freedom
which women enjoy.
But women are not permitted to take any measures for their own
protection. In 1981 in Yorkshire, at the height of the murderous rampage
of Peter Sutcliffe through the county (that is, before he had been
caught), one woman who carried a small clasp knife in her handbag as a
protection against the "Yorkshire Ripper" was convicted and fined for
carrying an offensive weapon!
This situation could be transformed by the introduction of the legal
right to own and use firearms and other weapons for self-defence. The
possession of firearms by women would provide a virtual revolution in
introducing real equality between the sexes in this area. In 1966,
following a major increase in rapes in Orlando, Florida, USA, the local
police began a well-publicised training course for 2,500 women in
firearms. The next year rape fell by 88% in Orlando (the only large
American city to experience a decrease that year) and burglary fell by
25%, although none of the trained women actually fired their weapons:
the deterrent effect was enough. Five years later Orlando's rape rate
was still 13% lower than it had been before the training, while the
surrounding standard metropolitan area had undergone a 308%
increase.[52]
If the authorities here are unlikely to take such an enlightened
attitude, at least they can remove the legal impediments for groups of
women, private entrepreneurs, or others to organise such training, and
for the purchase of weapons to supplement it. If they refuse to do so,
at least victims of assault, robbery and rape will know who is partly to
blame through the denial of the legal means of self-defence. Indeed, if
the authorities would hesitate immediately to abolish all laws
restricting the ownership of weapons, a more "Fabian" approach suggests
itself. On a provisional basis, the legal right to possess firearms and
other weapons could be given to one group which even the authorities
must agree is both particularly vulnerable and particularly unlikely to
use weapons for criminal purposes: old age pensioners. If after, say,
two years, this resulted (as the reader will agree it doubtless would)
in a decrease in the number of attacks on pensioners, the same right
could then be extended to all women. A gain, if after a two year
experimental period attacks on women were reduced, the political
atmosphere would surely be improved for the restoration of everyone's
right to provide for their own defence.
The Gun Control Debate Now
British firearms legislation, then, has not been based on either reason
or evidence. So how have such strict controls, which have effectively
removed what was once regarded as a fundamental right of every
individual, achieved the status of law with the almost unanimous
approval of all major political parties, the police, the media and
(taking their cue from them) public opinion? This is not an area which
can be addressed with anything like scientific precision, but I believe
it can be largely summed up, first, by a 20th-century official British
attitude one might describe as "political fetishism". Britain has for
centuries been, on the whole, a "law-abiding" and deferential country in
the sense that the bulk of the population will go along with virtually
anything the authorities demand; many, indeed, will go beyond that. This
therefore creates in the authorities a fallacious assumption that the
act of removing or restricting by law an object, or tool, that is used
for something they disapprove of, will of itself remove the intention of
and ability to perform the unapproved act. Even if only a small minority
are committing the unapproved act, the large majority must be punished
in advance for the actions of the few - must, in short, be punished for
doing something that they as individuals have not done. That this is a
peculiarly British attitude is demonstrated by a comparison with France.
France is by no means a free country - the absence of individual civil
rights against the police and the criminal justice system would rightly
appal any informed Englishman, as would the bureaucratic interference
which, for instance, requires parents to name their children only from a
state list of approved names - but this "fetishistic" attitude is
largely absent. There is a liquid which can be used to remove the ink
stamps on official documents, season tickets, and so on, without
damaging the design of the paper underneath. Freely available at any
stationers' in France, it is banned in Britain. In Britain, the taxation
on alcoholic drink is continually increased to discourage its
consumption, and the hours at which it can be bought still restricted,
yet the incidence of drunken violence continues to rise, a phenomenon
almost unknown in France, where alcoholic drinks are much cheaper (and
which has diminished drastically in Scotland, where licensing hours are
almost unrestricted). Again, France has no film censorship and most
television channels regularly show "pornographic" material that would be
unthinkable on British television, yet the believed link between
pornography and sexual crimes, taken for granted here, hardly exists in
France (which has a much lower rate of sexual crime): at rape trials in
Britain, for instance, the defendant usually attributes partial blame to
having seen a pornographic film; this is a rare defence in French rape
trials. This sharp difference is clearly visible in weapon control. In
any knife shop in France, the visitor can find freely available for sale
all manner of "offensive weapons" that it is a criminal offence to buy
or possess in Britain, from flick-knives (known as switchblades in
America, where they are banned in every state but Oregon) to Mace and
nunchakas and other Kung Fu weapons. Yet France has a rather lower rate
of violent crime than Britain.
Another broad characteristic, specific to British socialism since at
least the First World War, is a belief that the common people whom
socialism was supposed to help were purely an object, not a subject. The
experience of the "working class" under capitalism, as (incorrectly)
interpreted by the early 20th-century socialists, led them to believe
that they were not capable of spontaneously organising themselves, and
had to have their lives completely reorganised for them by bureaucrats
and "experts". The "slums" in which the working class lived could not be
improved and had to be destroyed and replaced by high-rise,
concrete-jungle council estates. The masses were incapable of acting as
informed customers in health, education and welfare, and the "welfare
state" therefore gave very little individual choice or control to the
people who were made dependent on it and whose taxes financed most of
it.
It is this general attitude, now recognised as disastrous in so many
areas (surviving 19th-century "slum" houses in east London are selling
for UKP 200,000 long after high-rise blocks from the 1960s have either
collapsed or been demolished), which has helped to introduce such harsh
firearms control in Britain. In his excellent Libertarian Alliance essay
Gun Control in Britain, (1988), Sean Gabb, after demonstrating the
absurdities of firearms restrictions, concluded on a pessimistic note:
"The Firearms Bill will become law, and after a decent interval will be
followed by another, and then by another, until guns are in theory
outlawed among the civilian population. There is no opposing the general
will on this point. There is no place for fantastical schemes of
deregulation. All that can usefully be done is to observe and record the
progress of folly - and hope that its worst consequences will be felt by
a later generation than our own."[53]
Surely, however, one cannot allow such ill-informed, ill-thought out,
irrational, repressive and unjust laws to continue to oppress the people
without challenge. History provides many examples of repressive state
actions, such as the witch mania of the 16th and 17th centuries, which
commanded general approval in spite of their appalling consequences.
They should always be opposed, however difficult the odds may seem to
be.
Firearms control in Britain is one of those areas where a rigidly
statist regime has been introduced which has become almost universal
orthodoxy without being introduced on behalf of some ideology or other.
As we saw above, firearms legislation was introduced on the basis of
unclear thinking, ignorance about the purposes and results of previous
legislation, political trade-offs and temporary hysteria. It is
precisely for this reason that it is a difficult area to reform. With
other areas of statism, such as the nationalisation of industries, or
the development of council estates in the form they took, the measures
were carried out in accordance with a specific ideology and with
specific ends in mind, such as to make industry more efficient and
accountable, or to create an ideal urban living environment. At least
when the measures fail to produce the ends for which they were
introduced, this can be demonstrated, and the policies altered, as has
happened to some extent in recent years. With firearms control ,
however, no such objective standards by which it can be judged were ever
proposed, yet firearms control commands more general political support
than nationalisation or council estates ever did.
It also encourages the most officious and bloody-minded forms of
policing, which undermine civil liberties. Several years ago a
16-year-old boy who habitually dressed in top hat and tails and carried
a long walking cane with a large spherical handle was, as I remember
reading, arrested by the police and charged with "carrying an offensive
weapon". On 30 June 1989 Robert Manning, aged 31, was lawfully shooting
pigeons with a shotgun in a field near Coventry when he saw a police
helicopter overhead, which contained three policemen, one of them
filming him with a video camera. He put the gun down and made querying
gestures to the policemen, who told him through a loudhailer to walk to
a clearing, remove his jacket and shirt and turn round. He did this, and
found himself facing 20 to 25 policemen with police dogs and two with
Armalite rifles. One of them told him to march towards them and lie
down, whereupon they handcuffed him and removed his boots. The
helicopter landed, and he was taken in it to a police cell despite
explaining what he had been doing. The police contacted the farmer who
owned the field and confirmed that Mr Manning had had permission to
shoot there. The police then allowed Mr Manning to leave the station,
but refused to return his shotgun, even though he was licensed and had
not used it unlawfully. He refused to leave, and returned to the cells
until the police finally agreed to let him take the gun.[54]
It might be objected that if the right of the individual to own weapons
is conceded, where does it stop? Are we to accept the right of
individuals to have private armies, for example? I would reply that it
does indeed follow, while accepting that in tactical political terms the
climate is not yet right to put that forward as an immediate demand.
Those who express horror at the idea of private armies seem unaware that
there already is a legal standing private army, fully equipped and
trained as a fighting force with sophisticated, modern weapons and other
equipment. Comparatively small though it is, it belongs to the Duke of
Argyll, who is the only individual in the United Kingdom legally allowed
to keep a private army (the privilege was granted by the Crown to one of
his ancestors). Yet I have never heard any report of this army creating
any kind of danger to the public peace, or indeed, of anybody making any
political objection to it. Given that His Grace's right to maintain an
army is given such universal acceptance, if only by default, one could
envisage a "Fabian" political process whereby it is extended, over a
period of years, first, to all hereditary peers above the rank of
baronet, then to the lesser aristocracy, and finally to us common folks,
in a process analogous to the progress of the 19th-century Reform Acts
and subsequent legislation extending the franchise.
Let Us Ask The Question
That, I accept, lies in the future. But right now the newspapers are
full of tragedies in which the availability of a firearm would have
saved lives or enabled people to defend themselves. In two cases in 1989
families living on crime-ridden council estates have been burned to
death because they have installed such heavy security, including locked
steel bars at the windows and multiple-locked steel doors, that they
were unable to escape form their own homes when fires broke out. If
they have been allowed to possess firearms for the defence of their home
from burglars and attackers, such precautions would have been less
necessary. Not content with herding people into the violent, inhuman
environments of so many council estates, the state removes even their
right to defend themselves with weapons against the crime it has exposed
them to. Every week, many shocking cases of violent crime are reported,
but I was particularly appalled by a recent case in which three men
broke into the home of a 54-year-old Cypriot woman in south London,
trying to obtain her life savings of UKP 900, which were hidden in her
brassiere. They tortured her for several hours in the most horrifying
ways, one of which was thrusting an air pistol up her nostril and firing
it, as a result of which she lost the sight of one eye. Nonetheless she
never revealed the location of the money, which was all she had in the
world. It was reported that the police had no clue as to the attackers'
identity.
Who could doubt that the outcome would have been different if the
victim herself had been armed - with a firearm? By what right do those
who make our laws deny such people as this woman the natural right to
self-defence? Let us ask this question of our political masters, and put
the onus on them to explain why they are denying us the most fundamental
human right of all, without which any others are not rights at all but
merely temporary privileges granted by the powerful on their sufferance
and removeable at will - the right of the individual to arm against all
aggression.
Notes
1. W. Marina, "Weapons, Technology and Legitimacy", in D. B. Kates,
Firearms and Violence, Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research,
San Francisco, 1984, p. 429.
2. Daily Telegraph, 7 April 1987.
3. See D. B. Kopel, "Trust the People", Cato Institute Policy
Analysis 109, 11 July 1988.
4. Evening Standard, 10 July 1989.
5. C. Greenwood, Firearms Control, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London,
1972, p. 7.
6. Ibid,., p. 9.
7. Ibid,., p. 11.
8. Ibid,., p. 13.
9. Ibid,., p. 14.
10. Ibid., p. 15.
11. Ibid., p. 15.
12. Ibid., p. 16.
13. Daily Telegraph, 5 November 1988.
14. Greenwood, op. cit., p. 23.
15. Ibid., p. 25.
16. Ibid., p. 25-26.
17. Ibid,., p. 38.
18. Times, 15 September 1988.
19. Greenwood, op. cit., p. 46.
20. Ibid,., p. 54.
21. Ibid., p. 72.
22. Ibid., p. 86-87.
23. Ibid., p. 243.
24. Ibid., p. 243-244.
25. Ibid,., p. 244.
26. Extracted from C. Greenwood, "Comparative Statistics", in Don B.
Kates, ed., Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out,
North River Press, np, 1979, p. 54.
[Note: This reference refers to a complex table which is not
reproduced in this version of this text]
27. Greenwood, Firearms Control, op. cit., p. 246.
28. T. Jackson, Legitimate Pursuit, Ashford Press, Southampton,
1988.
29. Times, 26 August 1987.
30. Times, 7 January 1988.
31. Combined from data in Greenwood, Firearms Control, op. cit., p. 235,
236 and Times, 3 November 1988.
32. Greenwood, Firearms Control, op. cit., p. 237.
33. M. Bateman, This England, Penguin, London, 1969, p. 112.
34. Times, 15 September 1988
35. Jackson, op. cit., p. 45.
36. Daily Telegraph, 27 July 1989, p. 1.
37. Greenwood, Firearms Control, op. cit., p. 173.
38. Kopel, op. cit., p. 2-3.
39. Ibid., p. 3.
40. Quoted in Kates, Restricting Handguns, op. cit., p. 185.
41. Ibid., p. 185.
42. R. A. I. Munday, "Civilian Possession of Military Firearms",
Salisbury Review, March 1988, p. 45-49.
43. Times, 26 August 1988, p. 3.
44. Munday, op. cit.
45. Times, 26 August 1988, p. 3.
46. USA Today, 18 Aprilv 1984.
47. Greenwood, "Comparative Statistics", op. cit., p. 37-38.
48. Ibid., p. 35-36.
49. Munday, op. cit., passim.,
50. Ibid.
51. Kopel, op. cit., p. 18.
52. Ibid,., p. 3.
53. S. Gabb, Gun Control in Britain, Political Notes No. 33,
Libertarian Alliance, London, 1988, p. 4.
54. Sunday Telegraph, 30 July 1989, p. 20.
Further Reading
C. Greenwood, Firearms Control, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1972.
The definitive academic study of the problem; a comprehensive
historical, legal, statistical, criminological and practical survey of
firearms control in England and Wales. Written by a former senior police
officer who now edits Guns Review, the leading firearms journal in the
country and is a voice of reason on the subject. Iconoclastic and
indispensable to any understanding of the subject.
Don B. Kates, ed., Firearms and Violence, Pacific Institute for Public
Policy Research, San Fransisco, 1984. An encyclopaedic collection of
studies by 17 academics and lawyers, covering every area of the issue
from a perspective sympathetic to gun ownership. Some of these scholars,
including Professor James D. Wright, former president of the American
Sociological Association, began their studies advocating stricter
firearms control, and became convinced of the opposite case as a result
of their researches. A complete demolition of the case for
totalitarianism in firearms.
Don B. Kates, ed., Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out,
North River Press, np, 1979. Essays by eight experts on the subject of
legal controls on pistols and other firearms. Most of the authors are
American "liberals" in law and academe who dissent here from the
gun-control orthodoxy of US "liberalism", and explain why.
T. Jackson, Legitimate Pursuit, Ashford Press, Southampton, 1988.
Sponsored by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation as a
response to the 1988 Firearms (Amendment) Bill, and covering only
sporting guns, this short book, by one of Britain's leading experts on
the subject, gives useful technical information about different guns and
solid arguments, based on facts, against further firearms restrictions,
while being rather defensive and not challenging the basic principles of
British gun control. The use of guns for sporting purposes has hardly
been mentioned in my essay, which emphasises the use of firearms for
self-defence.
Law and Policy Quarterly, volume 5, number 3, July 1983. An
interdisciplinary American academic journal with contributions by eight
experts from a viewpoint critical of further restrictions. Some of the
essays were later included in Firearms and Violence in extended forms.
D. B. Kopel, "Trust the People", Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 109,
11 July 1988. A short pamphlet by an American lawyer that contains most
of the relevant facts and arguments in an easily digested form.
S. Gabb, Gun Control in Britain, Political Notes No. 33, Libertarian
Alliance, London, 1988. A short and useful critique of gun control from
a libertarian perspective.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion.
To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
For archives
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
