From the Countryside Alliance, "The government are coming for your shotguns"

[Newbie to this]

4 minutes ago, Scully said:

Politicians should go and interfere in the lives of those who do harm and leave the law abiding alone. 

Amen to that, but sadly that is too difficult. It's easier to legislate those that will comply.

[JohnfromUK]

9 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Amen to that, but sadly that is too difficult. It's easier to legislate those that will comply.

/\. This

[mossy835]

we are a easy target.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Konor]

My cousin who lives in America and was born there ,now in his mid sixties ,has quite a collection of firearms and enjoys days at the range with everything from his single action Vaquero revolver and period leather holster through .45 and 9mm semi automatic pistols to shotguns for clays and semi auto rifles with barely any restrictions. He once said to me I didn’t really own my own shotguns or rifles merely permitted to hold them as long as government allowed me to. I was quite offended but in light of these new proposals his point is becoming clearer.

42 minutes ago, Scully said:

Politicians should go and interfere in the lives of those who do harm and leave the law abiding alone. 

Too much risk of a blue on blue for that to happen unfortunately 😂

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Konor said:

My cousin who lives in America and was born there ,now in his mid sixties ,has quite a collection of firearms and enjoys days at the range with everything from his single action Vaquero revolver and period leather holster through .45 and 9mm semi automatic pistols to shotguns for clays and semi auto rifles with barely any restrictions. He once said to me I didn’t really own my own shotguns or rifles merely permitted to hold them as long as government allowed me to. I was quite offended but in light of these new proposals his point is becoming clearer.

Too much risk of a blue on blue for that to happen unfortunately 😂

He’s quite right. As far back as Queen Elizabeth I we were allowed to arm ourselves ( if you were a Protestant! ) but even then only ‘as law allowed’. 
I recall Michael Howard as HS stating that he saw no legitimate reason for anyone to be armed with a semi automatic rifle, shortly before issuing them to the rozzers, and here we are 30 years or so further down the line in an increasingly dangerous world prohibited from owning ANYTHING with which to defend ourselves, enforced by people with guns! How ironic is that! You couldn’t make it up! 🙂

Anyhow, that’s for another thread. 

Edited February 15 by Scully

[Gas seal]

In the USA citizens have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from the government and any threat to to their well-being or personal freedom. 

[enfieldspares]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

He’s quite right. As far back as Queen Elizabeth I we were allowed to arm ourselves ( if you were a Protestant! ) but even then only ‘as law allowed’. 

I agree. Although there is a common misunderstanding of the stated "right" about "arms" and "Protestants" and "as the law allows" in the Bill of Rights. It is because it gets quoted without the important context that the BOR sets out in its preamble. Thus needed to be noted is this:

Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome.

Disarming Protestants, &c.

By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.

It wasn't creating any new rights but reconfirming and restoring what had been lost under the Stuart Kings. Therefore "the Protestant part" was to restore to those of that religion the rights that had been taken from them yet still allowed to those who were Roman Catholic.

The phrase about "as the law allows" was about saying that the weapons people could not be restricted by statute law or crooked judges or by Royal Decree but that the people could possess any weapons as was their right under the Common Law. Which as Common Law could not be abridged or limited by the Parliament or the Courts or the Crown.

Now what is also important is that the BOR specifically only applies to arms "for defence".

Why?

Because it was not intended to give protection from punishment for those possessing "arms" for any other purpose. So to recall the idea of a wrongdoer "going equipped" it specifically used the words "for defence" so that a poacher or highwayman couldn't claim protection under the BOR if caught with "arms" out poaching or laying in wait for a passing traveller to rob.

But just as with the US 2nd Amendment those that wrote these things used a correct English, but almost a a different English to that which we might use today. Especially how we now interpret the word "may". We wrongly confuse "may" with "might" whereas it actually means "have the ability to".

Today we might have written instead of "Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law" this "Protestants Everyone regardless of their religion may has the ability to have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law without restriction by statute law or by the Crown".

Note that also the argument "as allowed by law" is not (as some claim then a carte blanche for a Firearms Act to overrule the BOR) as the Bill of Rights is one of those laws such as the Statute of Westminster 1931 (elsewise we could by a few lines in a Act of Parliament cancel Canada's Parliament and turn Canada back into a colony) and, yes, the European Communities Act 1972 that can only be expressly repealed.

Thus (as when we completed Brexit) any law that conflicted with the Bill of Rights would be held by UK Courts (De Keyser's Royal Hotel) could not be enforced  (unless it specifically addressed the matter and said "such and such and such in the Bill of Rights, or and Act staing that XXX in "the European Communities Act is repealed").

Other examples involving the Bill of Rights are why private parking "fines" are illegal and have to be set out as contractual charges. And why the libel laws fail under the Bill of Rights if an allegation is made in Parliament. However the state of affairs that we have with the Firearms Acts in the UK is what it is and nobody has actually ever challenged these through the courts using the Bill of Rights.

So we are where we are. But I hope the read above is taken in good faith and with the good nature with which it is intended.

Edited February 15 by enfieldspares

[Scully]

1 hour ago, enfieldspares said:

I agree. Although there is a common misunderstanding of the stated "right" about "arms" and "Protestants" and "as the law allows" in the Bill of Rights. It is because it gets quoted without the important context that the BOR sets out in its preamble. Thus needed to be noted is this:

Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome.

Disarming Protestants, &c.

By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.

It wasn't creating any new rights but reconfirming and restoring what had been lost under the Stuart Kings. Therefore "the Protestant part" was to restore to those of that religion the rights that had been taken from them yet still allowed to those who were Roman Catholic.

The phrase about "as the law allows" was about saying that the weapons people could not be restricted by statute law or crooked judges or by Royal Decree but that the people could possess any weapons as was their right under the Common Law. Which as Common Law could not be abridged or limited by the Parliament or the Courts or the Crown.

Now what is also important is that the BOR specifically only applies to arms "for defence".

Why?

Because it was not intended to give protection from punishment for those possessing "arms" for any other purpose. So to recall the idea of a wrongdoer "going equipped" it specifically used the words "for defence" so that a poacher or highwayman couldn't claim protection under the BOR if caught with "arms" out poaching or laying in wait for a passing traveller to rob.

But just as with the US 2nd Amendment those that wrote these things used a correct English, but almost a a different English to that which we might use today. Especially how we now interpret the word "may". We wrongly confuse "may" with "might" whereas it actually means "have the ability to".

Today we might have written instead of "Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law" this "Protestants Everyone regardless of their religion may has the ability to have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law without restriction by statute law or by the Crown".

Note that also the argument "as allowed by law" is not (as some claim then a carte blanche for a Firearms Act to overrule the BOR) as the Bill of Rights is one of those laws such as the Statute of Westminster 1931 (elsewise we could by a few lines in a Act of Parliament cancel Canada's Parliament and turn Canada back into a colony) and, yes, the European Communities Act 1972 that can only be expressly repealed.

Thus (as when we completed Brexit) any law that conflicted with the Bill of Rights would be held by UK Courts (De Keyser's Royal Hotel) could not be enforced  (unless it specifically addressed the matter and said "such and such and such in the Bill of Rights, or and Act staing that XXX in "the European Communities Act is repealed").

Other examples involving the Bill of Rights are why private parking "fines" are illegal and have to be set out as contractual charges. And why the libel laws fail under the Bill of Rights if an allegation is made in Parliament. However the state of affairs that we have with the Firearms Acts in the UK is what it is and nobody has actually ever challenged these through the courts using the Bill of Rights.

So we are where we are. But I hope the read above is taken in good faith and with the good nature with which it is intended.

 

 

Edited February 15 by Scully

[Scully]

Nope, second book wont load. It is titled: Firearms Control: A study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales by Colin Greenwood. 

 

Edited February 15 by Scully

[Konor]

Just now, Scully said:

Nope, second book wont load. It is titled: Firearms Control: A study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales. 👍

Was that written by Colin Greenwood by any chance ?

[Scully]

1 minute ago, Konor said:

Was that written by Colin Greenwood by any chance ?

🙂Yes. Have just edited as I forgot to include the author! 
Weird, post to accompany first image has disappeared! Anyhow, what I said was that these two books are well worth a read for anyone who is seriously interested in how we lost what we had, and how we got to where we are today. Colin Greenwood was a former Chief Inspector and a keen handgunner and advocate of public ownership of firearms, and a regular contributor to Guns Review and other contemporary magazines of its day. 

Edited February 15 by Scully

[Konor]

2 minutes ago, Scully said:

🙂Yes. Have just edited as I forgot to include the author! 

I remember him writing in magazines way back. Ex police inspector perhaps ,might have been in the Guns Review or Handgunner magazines

Edited February 15 by Konor
Apostrophe added

[Konor]

8 minutes ago, Scully said:

🙂Yes. Have just edited as I forgot to include the author! 
Weird, post to accompany first image has disappeared! Anyhow, what I said was that these two books are well worth a read for anyone who is seriously interested in how we lost what we had, and how we got to where we are today. Colin Greenwood was a former Chief Inspector and a keen handgunner and advocate of public ownership of firearms, and a regular contributor to Guns Review and other contemporary magazines of its day. 

Nice reminder of the past. I ran a clay shooting club at college and used to allow two young brothers to come out with us to enjoy the subsidised sporting clay shooting. In return their mother offered me membership of a pistol club and the use of her husbands pistols. I enjoyed it for three years and preferring the revolver bought a Smith and Wesson Model 17 .22 which as was normal then arrived through the regular Royal Mail post.I wish I’d appreciated the freedom more at the time. 1982 until 1985 .

[enfieldspares]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

Nope, second book wont load. It is titled: Firearms Control: A study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales by Colin Greenwood. 

 

Yes. I used to have it. Colin gave me a copy. I also had, which I bought, his lesser known "Police Tactics in Armed Operations". I think I wrote a couple of weapon reviews for Guns Review at one time. Certainly he also gave kindly reviews to some of the various of the products that I used to import, retail or manufacture. 

 

Edited February 15 by enfieldspares

[enfieldspares]

Now by one of those strange coincidences of life I am writing as I watch on Freesat 306 "Talking Pictures TV" the 1960 film "The Siege of Sidney Street". Which I last saw now maybe fifty years ago. It doesn't get an outing often! And I didn't know when I did that Peter Wyngarde was in it. 

Odd twice times as it starred as Peter the Painter the late (and then very much younger) Peter Wyngarde who I first met and knew in the mid 1980s through pistol shooting (Peter was a UKPSA member as was I and we often shot the same competitions) and of course it was the 1909 rubber factory wages robbery at the start of it all that led to calls for gun controls.

The film however has this also take place in 1911. Artistic licence! Lots of it!

What the film didn't show is that in 1909 in the original pursuit the police had to resort to using revolvers handed to them by members of the public who had joined the hue and cry. So as others have said on the thread people did indeed exercise a right to carry arms for defence before the 1920 Firearms Act.

https://londonist.com/london/tottenham-outrage-1909

https://www.andrewwhitehead.net/blog/pc-tyler-and-the-1909-tottenham-outrage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sidney_Street

My late grandfather on my mother's side had his Webley pistol too pre-WWI. That pistol was in my mother's house until the early 1960s and never on an FAC either. My father's schoolmate and later our family GP also pre-WWII carried a Webley pistol in his car and did once have to use it driving at night from Stoke on Trent to Leicester in the 1930s.

It is yet to get to the bit when Churchill arrives (who was a proposer of some of the UK's first gun control measures) but it is 0003 hrs and another fifty minutes to run.

Edited February 16 by enfieldspares

[Scully]

Interesting stuff @enfieldspares

This is another one worthy of reading. It looks at gun control from the American perspective and much like the Joyce Lee Malcolm book, its author states that it isn’t guns which are the problem, and in many documented cases are indeed the answer. 
He argues that gun control is more about state control of the population; the arming of those tasked with the job of policing us being a good example of proof. 

[enfieldspares]

Thanks SCULLY. 

Now. Who is this. A Home Secretary who is 1) part of a Government that despite much public, and political opposition in Parliament, against entry into the UK of supposed refugees and 2) who when three are then murdered by such refugees diverts attention from that by i2) ,<proposing gun (or further knife) ontrols in Parliament?

Answer? Winston Churchill in 1911. Not 2025 and refugees and knife controls your first guess?

When he attended the Sidney Street siege he was even heckled by some in the crowd with shouts of "It was him that let them in!" As he had led the then Government acceptance of political refugees into the UK. Then later in April of 1911 introduced legislation, as Home Secretary, to place controls on handguns.

Hmm. Winston Churchill friend to political refugees and gun rights denier doesn't fit with the image we have of him now. But is in fact true. 

[Shadowchaser]

19 hours ago, Gas seal said:

In the USA citizens have the right to bear arms to protect themselves from the government and any threat to to their well-being or personal freedom. 

The trouble with this is that it was brought in during the age of the musket.  If the US government wanted to oppress the population it could be easily done. I mean does the average American have access to fighter jets or aircraft carriers or cruise missiles or nuclear missiles?  

[yickdaz]

On 14/02/2025 at 08:59, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I think we have been sold down the river and within 10 years, private ownership of firearms will be a thing of the past.

Labour won't be in power in 10 years they won't be in power come the next election and  if I'm not wrong farage  shoots from tiime to time

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Just now, yickdaz said:

Labour won't be in power in 10 years they won't be in power come the next election and  if I'm not wrong farage  shoots from tiime to time

I REALLY hope you are correct.

[Bigbob]

39 minutes ago, yickdaz said:

Labour won't be in power in 10 years they won't be in power come the next election and  if I'm not wrong farage  shoots from tiime to time

+1 they have been in power what 6 months and there's a lot of unrest already 

[yickdaz]

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I REALLY hope you are correct.

Me to