doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Interesting article about firearm controls in Brit

I always enjoy reading about British shooting in various British shooting and field sport mags. It has struck me that level of discourse is somewhat higher on your side than on ours. I recall that members of the commission looking into gun laws following the last shooting were invited to a range and they came away with new insight - it the first time some of them had ever held a firearm.

I try to introduce as many people as possible to shooting - even if it's only for a one-time afternoon at the range. Invariably, first-timers get a new perspective that stays with them even if they don't continue shooting.

Now what strikes me as bizarre in Britain is the attempt to raise the shooting age even though there are no crimes committed by youngsters with their shotguns.

Salopian, I didn't know that you were close to that particular incident. I recall being sent as a one man road block in the middle of the night to try to stop Williams who was making his way north. And in the true traditions of British Policing; I was unarmed. I wasn't too disappointed when he turned off!

Blair was to blame for a lot of our recent silly laws concerning, hunting, guns and knives. Actually we do have a right to bear arms enshrined in our constitution; unfortunately the politicians don't seem to pay much notice to it. But surely the American right to bear arms doesn't extend to everyone. I would bet that ex-cons and the mentally insane aren't allowed to excercise their 'right'. Lagopus.....

The sad thing is Gnomon that trying to get people energised to feedback their feelings and passion for shooting can sometimes be very challengeing. In the most recent round of submissions to the ongoing Home Office Commission on firearms, something like 930 people wrote to stress their point of view - and this from a BASC membership of 125,000+ with countless tens of thousands more clay shooting/non-members. I spent ages on my letter and why further controls just are not needed, but personally, would have hoped it would have been amongst thousands of submissions.

Lagopus,

The USA Constitution's 2nd Amendment states:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It is often debated here that this does not apply to individuals although that is the spirit in which it was written.

U.S. Code (of laws) forbids convicted felons and those found guilty of Domestic Violence (1st Class Misdemeanor) are not allowed to have firearms or ammunition. There are also laws concerning those with serious mental problems.

Interesting though in the US drunk driving is a misdemeanor but in Canada it is a felony. Plenty of American (US) hunters have been turned back at the Canadian border for having DUI decades past.

CBL1, it was my understanding however that these letters were taken seriously. I think what the commission hadn't realized was just how important the shooting and field sports are to the economy of the British countryside.

Indeed - perhaps I was being too negative, but as one of the 927 who wrote, I must admit it frustrated the hell out of me that more did not actively participate, especially when the threats could be grave, especially to potential new entrants. To your point though, the average level of feedback on other comparable Home Affairs Committee topics is 40 letters/e-mails so the firearms control debate has certainly heightened the attention of the committee.

The debate is over R.E. The 2nd Amendment is an individual right. The Supreme Court has ruled it's an INDIVIDUAL right just like the rest of the Bill of rights. It least the 5 Supreme Courts Justices that can read and don't have a left wing socialist agenda have do so.
Jim

Interesting in that we have a constitution which pre dates yours by a few years. The right to bear arms was further stated in in later legislation. Our politicians choose to ignore those rights.

'And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty and of private property..... 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 the redress of grievances; and lastly,to THE RIGHT OF HAVING AND USING ARMS FOR SELF PRESERVATION AND DEFENCE'.

What a pity politicians don't study history! Lagopus.....

They actually do study it-which, is why laws pertaining to being armed and defending oneself are the first to go.

Historically speaking, anyway.


Best,
Ted

Actually, no one has any rights that they aren't willing to defend, either at law or by more extreme measures when those are needed. The U.S Constitution has been ignored in many places for long periods of it's history. Just because a right is enshrined means nothing if people aren't ready to exercise and protect it.
nial