Good Reason in 1688

[308rws]

According to Google AI:

The English Bill of Rights of 1689 established a right for Protestant subjects to possess arms for their defence, suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law. However, this right was not unlimited, as Parliament could regulate it with new laws. The right was effectively restricted by later legislation and is not considered a current individual right to bear arms under English law, which has some of the world's most restrictive gun laws.

Context of the Right:

The Glorious Revolution:
The Bill of Rights was enacted after the Glorious Revolution, which overthrew King James II and led to a constitutional monarchy.

Purpose:
It aimed to limit the power of the monarch and establish parliamentary supremacy.

Targeted at Protestants:
The right to bear arms was primarily intended for Protestant subjects, in contrast to the Catholic King James II, who had disarmed Protestants.

Key Provisions:

The relevant provision states, "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law".

The phrase "as allowed by law" is crucial, indicating that Parliament retained the authority to regulate this right through legislation.

Evolution of the Right:

Later Restrictions:
The right was not absolute and was subject to Parliament's authority to legislate on the matter.

Disarming Acts:
Disarming Acts were passed in 1716 and 1725, further modifying and restricting the right.

Firearms Act of 1920:
This Act and its subsequent re-enactments have significantly strengthened gun control, making modern gun laws in the UK among the most restrictive globally.

Hypothetically whilst Parliament may not consider this a current right, is being a Protestant suitable to their conditions and allowed by law good reason to bear arms for personal defence in 2025?

Whilst heavily legislated for and restricted by Parliament, it appears that this is a (caveated) right. Parliament would argue that the Police now bear arms for the defence of Protestants.

For the sake of discussion, does a right equate to a good reason?

 

[tarponhead]

My view- Not in and of itself. The “right” means you can ask for firearms, but the good reason is the legal caveat

 

[Tim.243]

According to Google AI:

The English Bill of Rights of 1689 established a right for Protestant subjects to possess arms for their defence, suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law. However, this right was not unlimited, as Parliament could regulate it with new laws. The right was effectively restricted by later legislation and is not considered a current individual right to bear arms under English law, which has some of the world's most restrictive gun laws.

Context of the Right:

The Glorious Revolution:
The Bill of Rights was enacted after the Glorious Revolution, which overthrew King James II and led to a constitutional monarchy.

Purpose:
It aimed to limit the power of the monarch and establish parliamentary supremacy.

Targeted at Protestants:
The right to bear arms was primarily intended for Protestant subjects, in contrast to the Catholic King James II, who had disarmed Protestants.

Key Provisions:

The relevant provision states, "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law".

The phrase "as allowed by law" is crucial, indicating that Parliament retained the authority to regulate this right through legislation.

Evolution of the Right:

Later Restrictions:
The right was not absolute and was subject to Parliament's authority to legislate on the matter.

Disarming Acts:
Disarming Acts were passed in 1716 and 1725, further modifying and restricting the right.

Firearms Act of 1920:
This Act and its subsequent re-enactments have significantly strengthened gun control, making modern gun laws in the UK among the most restrictive globally.

Hypothetically whilst Parliament may not consider this a current right, is being a Protestant suitable to their conditions and allowed by law good reason to bear arms for personal defence in 2025?

Whilst heavily legislated for and restricted by Parliament, it appears that this is a (caveated) right. Parliament would argue that the Police now bear arms for the defence of Protestants.

For the sake of discussion, does a right equate to a good reason?

Most members have to make up a story so their wives give the nod to buy a copy of what the all ready have.

 

[308rws]

I’m also wondering whether the right is defacto inalienable because it’s in the same act that governs Parliament.

 

[Greenmist]

The key phrase being, allowed by law,

 

[Greenmist]

My view- Not in and of itself. The “right” means you can ask for firearms, but the good reason is the legal caveat

I've always saw it as, shotguns are a right as the police must give a reason not to have one, firearms are a privilege as we have to provide a reason to own one

 

[Greenmist]

Wasn't this also how a few gangsta rapper types got off with firearm possession, something to do with common law and statute law

 

[Bavarianbrit]

Just to protect the monarchy from stroppy subjects?

 

[andyk]

I’m also wondering whether the right is defacto inalienable because it’s in the same act that governs Parliament.

No, the underlying principle of our ‘constitution’ (such as it is) is that Parliament exercises the Monarch’s authority and that no earlier Parliament (or Monarch) can restrict the power of the current Parliament (or Monarch).

That’s the inherent problem with any attempt to bring in a US style constitution in the U.K.

The doctrine of implied repeal says that where two pieces of legislation appear to conflict, it’s assumed the later legislation was intended to repeal the earlier, even where that isn’t stated.

That can be limited, such as where the earlier legislation makes clear it’s not intended to be subject to implied repeal (e.g the Human Rights Act), or certain ‘key’ rights that the Courts will assume are not subject to implied repeal, but either will be set aside where the later legislation is sufficiently clear.

As to arguing that the Bill of Rights gives a right to a firearm that hasn’t been subject to implied repeal, the legislation we have is clear enough.

If you want to use it as a good reason, let me know how you get on.

 

[enfieldspares]

The BoR is badly interpreted by amateur lawyers who don't understand the actual meaning of the words. That includes Google!

The bit about protestants came about as James II tried to remove from non-catholucs the right to arms...for their defence...that before he did such everybody had had. So the BoR restores that right unlawfully removed by James II and re-states that right "as allowed by law".

But note, most importantly that "as allowed by law" means as allowed by the Common Law not by Act of Parliament. Common Law still exists today at the highest and most serious of acts of criminality.

Former and current SD members who are police officers will confirm this. There is no "Murder Act". Murder was once upon a time charged with the words...I will stand corrected...of "on XX date did murder so and so under the Queen's Peace and contrary to the Common Law" or similar. Not "contrary to the Murder Act" as, as said, there is no Murder Act.

Now it is just "on XX date did murder so and so"

Can the BoR be overruled by Act of Parliament. No unless there is express (not merely implied) repeal. This is evidenced by cases where when a later Act of Parliament that contradicts the BoR that the BoR has been held to be supreme.

Why is this? The BoR and certain other Acts of Parliament or treaties are held to be immutable. This grants of independence to the USA or matters granting self government to Canada cannot be "undone" by implied repeal.

The BoR is why parking charges are called charges and are not fines, why what is said in Parliament cannot be subject to libel or slander laws, why every year Parliament has to pass an Army Act and

Indeed just pre WW1 the House of Lords threatened to refuse the Army Act so as to thwart attempts to enforce proposed Irish Home Rule.

But as others say what is de jure (legally written down) law and de facto (what in actual fact is the reality of the matter) law are in terms of the BoR and firearms two different animals.

In simple terms as another has, alas, correctly stated "good luck with that". And last note that the BoR is concerned with rights to posses defence "arms" not "arms" for hunting or target shooting.

 

[enfieldspares]

Why is this? The BoR and certain other Acts of Parliament or treaties are held to be immutable. This grants of independence to the USA or matters granting self government to Canada cannot be "undone" by implied repeal.

So from memory of when I did my law any Act of Parliament negating the "arms" part of the Bill of Rights would have to have on the face (as in the front page) of it the express words informing that "Article XXX of the Bill of Rights" is repealed.

Most recent?

Possibly this below:. See s1 from within the link.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022​

2022 CHAPTER 11​

An Act to make provision about the dissolution and calling of Parliament, including provision for the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011; and for connected purposes.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022

www.legislation.gov.uk