OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits?

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...

No, no, there is no trade. The British have never had handguns
in the home or concealed on their person for protection. Never.

My grandfather did. So did most of his friends. As I remember,
the restrictions started shortly after the "Red letter scare" in the
20's when the government became worried about communists.


Tony Martin was a farmer and had a shotgun. Farmers (and
anyone else who has a locked gun cabinet) could own a shotgun
before. And they still can. I think Mr Martin should have been
acquitted. In my opinion he was fearful of his safety. However
I think the conviction had something to do with the fact that he
shot the burglar in the back while he was running away. When
he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
support for him.

The other burglar was going to sue him, but dropped the case
because of a huge public outcry.

The other burglar was going to sue because Martin allegedly
disabled him. He dropped the case only because a some tabloid
newspaper reporter caught him doing press-ups in the gym.
His 'case' was financed by legal aid (free for the poor). Martin
had to pay his own costs for defense.

Given that american constitutional law has it's roots in British common law
there are far more similarities than differences... A major difference is
that the Bill Of Rights of our Constitution specifically prohibits the
government from banning our firearms... That the federal government, and
many state governments, have almost from the moment of the signing of the
Constitution denied that such a guarantee exists, and given that our
Supreme Court chooses to persue it's own social agenda and make gun rulings
that are nothing less than a slap in the face of the framers of the
constitution, this is an issue that is not going to go away...

denny


"Tony Cox" wrote in message

Dennis O'Connor wrote:

A major difference is
that the Bill Of Rights of our Constitution specifically prohibits the
government from banning our firearms...

A major difference is the Bill of Rights, period. None of those rights existed
under British law at the time, and some still do not.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Dennis O'Connor wrote:

A major difference is
that the Bill Of Rights of our Constitution specifically prohibits the
government from banning our firearms...

A major difference is the Bill of Rights, period. None of those rights
existed
under British law at the time, and some still do not.


Actually, the major difference is that Britain doesn't have
any written constitution at all. Parliament can do anything it
damn well pleases (except make it decisions binding on
future parliaments).

This is both a blessing and a curse. The blessing is that
it imposes rather more discipline on the legislature than is
present in the US -- less grandstanding over laws that are
clearly unconstitutional (although popular) and likely to be
tossed out later (Homeland security comes to mind). The
curse is obvious, although the monarch occasionally steps
in to provide the 'brakes' that the SC does in the US.

Whether the right to bear arms exists in 50 years time I
rather doubt. The SC could interpret the clause any way
it cares to. If that happens, remember that the UK only
needs an act of parliament to reverse it. In the US, it needs
a new act + 80% of the states too.

As I say. A blessing and a curse, that bill of rights thing.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 at 18:44:35 in message
. net, Tony Cox
wrote:

Actually, the major difference is that Britain doesn't have
any written constitution at all. Parliament can do anything it
damn well pleases (except make it decisions binding on
future parliaments).

Only in more and more restricted areas. The signing up to several
European treaties since the 1970s has affected many aspects of British
life, and unless something dramatic happens these areas will continue to
shrink. Signing up to Laws on Human rights has led to all sorts of
changes.

There are still a few parts of the law not too badly affected by
European laws but they are slowly being whittled away.


--
David CL Francis

"David CL Francis" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 at 18:44:35 in message
. net, Tony Cox
wrote:

Actually, the major difference is that Britain doesn't have
any written constitution at all. Parliament can do anything it
damn well pleases (except make it decisions binding on
future parliaments).

Only in more and more restricted areas. The signing up to several
European treaties since the 1970s has affected many aspects of British
life, and unless something dramatic happens these areas will continue to
shrink. Signing up to Laws on Human rights has led to all sorts of
changes.

So what is to stop a future Parliament un-signing?

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...


Dennis O'Connor wrote:

A major difference is
that the Bill Of Rights of our Constitution specifically prohibits the
government from banning our firearms...


A major difference is the Bill of Rights, period. None of those rights existed
under British law at the time, and some still do not.


Sorry George, that's just not true. While some of the Bill of Rights were specifically
to make sure that some issues that the ex-colonials had with the British were not repeated
in the new government, some of it was just codification of principles long established
in British law. Even the notion and term "Bill of Rights" is right out of British Law.

The British 1689 Bill of Rights included freedom to bear arms for self-defense (US 2nd Amd.),
freedom to petition the government (US 1st Amd.), freedom from cruel and unusual punishment
(US 8th Amd.), freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial (US 5th and 7th amds.)
Much of the fifth and sixth amendment are specifically a US declaration of principles of British
common law dating back to the Magna Carta.

-Ron