A useful link to the evolution of UK Gun Law

Yes! I have read it through. All one hundred and twenty pages.



I did it in the spare time I had after reading through the EU Firearms Directive proposed changes.


Tim 243...you are a bad man! :stir:
 
Last edited:
Thanks for this - I have a couple of long flights coming up where I'll get a chance to read the detail.

From the first cursory glance it looks to focus on Firearms as defined in law, rather than overall Firearms Law, so it doesn't cover areas such as storage, ammunition, etc. Interesting nonetheless.
 
Yes certainly looks like an interesting article that I will read in full later.

Interestingly on a cursory skim I see no mention of the allegedly still valid 1689 Bill of Rights that gives (protestant) citizens the right to bear arms.......
 
Thank you, enfieldspares.

... and mr slider,

I have some law books on the modern right to keep and bear arms under the English Constitution, by professors of law at Oxford and Cambridge, if you care to read further. They are 30 years old, but since they were relevant when written 300 years after that Constitution, I think they are still relevant today.

.... and a lot of articles by American legal scholars on the basis for American rights in the English Common Law and in the laws of the German states, which comprised over 80% of the settlers of America, many of them online, or short enough for me to post excerpts here.
 
Last edited:
Hiya

Thank you for the link - will make for interesting reading over Christmas.

L
 
Interestingly on a cursory skim I see no mention of the allegedly still valid 1689 Bill of Rights that gives (protestant) citizens the right to bear arms......

Oh dear! He must have left it out accidentally.....:-|

It's the "elephant in the room"...they can't mention it.

Because if they do they have to acknowledge that it strikes down all the rest.

And I guess therefore that his brief was to avoid any mention of it for that very reason.
 
Last edited:
Moreover, the Second Amendment is based on the British 1688 Bill of Rights and is related to right-to-bear-arms provisions in Framing-era state constitutions. The British right must have been individual; there were no states in England. Same for the state constitutional rights; a right mentioned in a state Bill of Rights, which protects citizens against the state government, can't belong to the state itself. So in the Framing era, the "right to bear arms" meant an individual right.
- Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School, article April 1999
 
Oh dear! He must have left it out accidentally.....:-|

It's the "elephant in the room"...they can't mention it.

Because if they do they have to acknowledge that it strikes down all the rest.

And I guess therefore that his brief was to avoid any mention of it for that very reason.

My understanding is that the reason that the Firearms Acts introduced Firearm and Shotgun Certificates, rather than licences, is because of the Bill of Rights.
The Certificate certifies the holders as being fit to exercise the right already extant because of the Bill of Rights: compared, for example, to a driving licence, which permits an activity otherwise forbidden - namely the diving of a motor vehicle on the public highway.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that the reason that the 1920 Firearms Act introduced Firearm and Shotgun Certificates, rather than licences, is because of the Bill of Rights.
The Certificate certifies the holders as being fit to exercise the right already extant because of the Bill of Rights: compared, for example, to a driving licence, which permits an activity otherwise forbidden - namely the diving of a motor vehicle on the public highway.


My understanding also.
 
Back
Top