Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Britons Regain Self-Defense Rights in Wake of Heller Ruling!

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Heller - will this shot be heard 'round the world?

    ----

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hemselves.html

    Homeowners and 'have-a-go-heroes' finally get right to defend themselves

    By Ian Drury
    Last updated at 2:19 AM on 16th July 2008






    Jack Straw: New guidelines for homeowners

    Homeowners and 'have-a go-heroes' will be handed more legal protection to defend themselves against burglars and muggers without the fear of prosecution, the Government claimed last night.


    Under new laws that came into effect yesterday, police and prosecutors must give greater weight to whether people were acting 'in the heat of the moment' to defend themselves or their property.


    Minsiters said new guidelines by Jack Straw would give the public more confidence they would not end up in court if they hurt an offender while using 'reasonable' force to protect themselves.


    But the Justice Secretary's announcement was immediately condemned as a 'hollow gesture' that effectively restated existing laws - word-for-word.


    Opposition leaders said it offered nothing new and was merely the Government's latest attempt to woo core Tory voters in Middle England.


    They pointed out that even the right, in certain circumstances, to shoot dead a burglar already exists in current law.
    Nick Herbert, the Shadow Justice Secretary, said: 'This is a typical Labour con – it will give no greater protection to householders confronted by burglars because it’s nothing more than a re-statement of the existing case law.'


    He said key points were simply copied word-for-word from case law on self-defence and reasonable force. Mr Straw first came under fire for ransacking existing laws when he announced greater protection for 'have-a-go heroes' at Labour's annual party conference last September.


    Mr Straw issued guidance effectively reminding police and prosecutors to take greater account of the circumstances in which they acted in self-defence before sending a case to court.


    He said people would be protected legally if they defend themselves 'instinctively', they feared for their own safety or that of others, and the level of force used is not excessive or disproportionate.


    He added the changes in law were designed to ensure the criminal justice system was weighted in favour of the victim.


    It meant, he said, that homeowners would be able stab or shoot a burglar if confronted or tackle them and use force to detain them until police arrive.


    But they would not be allowed to attack a fleeing criminal with a weapon - as in the case of Norfolk farmer tony Martin - nor lie in wait to ambush them.


    Mr Straw said: 'The justice system must not only work on the side of people who do the right thing as good citizens, but also be seen to work on their side.


    'The Government strongly supports the right of law abiding people to defend themselves, their families and their property with reasonable force. This law will help to make sure that that right is upheld and that the criminal justice system is firmly weighted in favour of the victim.


    'Dealing with crime is not just the responsibility of the police, courts and prisons; it’s the responsibility of all of us.


    'Communities with the lowest crime and the greatest safety are the ones with the most active citizens with a greater sense of shared values, inspired by a sense of belonging and duty to others, who are empowered by the state and are also supported by it – in other words, making a reality of justice.


    'These changes in the law will make clear – victims of crime, and those who intervene to prevent crime, should be treated with respect by the justice system. We do not want to encourage vigilantism, but there can be no justice in a system which makes the victim the criminal.'


    He issued the guidelines, which were placed on the Statute Book in may as amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, as crime becomes a huge topic with voters.


    Self-defence has been a highly-charged political issue for years, particularly after Tony Martin was jailed for shooting dead an intruder at his remote Norfolk home in 1999 following burglaries.


    Public anger has been fired by a string of cases where law-abiding citizens have confronted thugs and hooligans only to find themselves arrested and charged with assault.


    Ministers have repeatedly promised to review or toughen the law, but each time have opted not to take any action.


    The Tories said Mr Straw - who claims he has himself helped tackle criminals on several occasions - neglected the issue during his four years as Home Secretary.


  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Well, now!

    And look, the law even has critics, and not sheeple critics, neither.

    There is HOPE for the English!!
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Custodian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Capital City of Oaks - Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    They need to pull ALL of the people out of prison who did nothing but defend their right to live from the criminal element.Pay these people a substancial amount, return their weapon or give them a new weapon on the country dime. Until then, its just a bunch of talk. And so far, talking is what the English do best.
    Subsisto tutus. Subsisto secundus emendatio.

    Tyrants come in all shapes and sizes, as do those who do their bidding. Anyone who tells you that the threat of tyranny is long over, is either a fool, an enemy, or BOTH.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    "He added the changes in law were designed to ensure the criminal justice system was weighted in favour of the victim."

    That's all well and good, but one has to wonder who they would consider the "victim" in such a situation, especially given these later admissions:

    "Self-defence has been a highly-charged political issue for years, particularly after Tony Martin was jailed for shooting dead an intruder at his remote Norfolk home in 1999 following burglaries.

    Public anger has been fired by a string of cases where law-abiding citizens have confronted thugs and hooligans only to find themselves arrested and charged with assault.

    Ministers have repeatedly promised to review or toughen the law, but each time have opted not to take any action."


    I wish them luck, with the caveat that it shouldn't have had to come to this state of affairs in the first place.

    -ljp

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    Well, I USED to want to visit England, but with people defending themselves going to prison, maybe not such a good idear

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Buffalo Valley, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Well, now!

    And look, the law even has critics, and not sheeple critics, neither.

    There is HOPE for the English!!
    The English gave us the Magna Carta and the King James Bible. You gotta think there's hope for them!

  7. #7
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    'The Government strongly supports the right of law abiding people to defend themselves, their families and their property with reasonable force. This law will help to make sure that that right is upheld and that the criminal justice system is firmly weighted in favour of the victim.
    Hahahahahahaha!!! Oh, man, I nearly split my side on that one. Do those LIES come with fries, too?

    Then why are you putting citizens in prison for defending themselves in their own home from armed intruders? Your grandstanding is not fooling the people for a second.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    DenWin wrote:
    Well, I USED to want to visit England, but with people defending themselves going to prison, maybe not such a good idear
    I agree. It's not a good idea to visit a country that has lawmakers without a round in their chamber.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    Well now, as crappy as alot of our gun laws are, I guess unfortuantly I can't complain to much on this area of OpenCarry.org now can I. **** they have no gun rights, knife and gun videos are banned as well from the UK region of the world and they can't even defend themselves without there suckas* gov. sending to prison, wtf kinda country is this. Everyone in the UK that wants there rights back to hunt, protect themselves family and friends needs to move away from that crappy Great Brit country. I don't know where there lawmakers were hatched out of , other than a big steamy pile of crap. Good grief, I actually had thoughts at one time of taking a vaction there, sh*t that country is seconds class all thanks to there wonderful gov. They should of never handed over there guns to start with, they should of went with the famous saying from Charleston Heston, when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. Yeah Baby Yeah:celebrate

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Minsiters said new guidelines by Jack Straw would give the public more confidence they would not end up in court if they hurt an offender while using 'reasonable' force to protect themselves.
    This is all well and good, but I still take issue with "more confidence" in the event that they "hurt an offender" within "reason".

    The way I see it, if someone breaks into my home and tries to hurt and/or rob me, I should be able to serve him at dinner as meatloaf.

    I shouldn't have "more" confidence in such a situation, I should have "full" confidence. If you force your way in to my home, I'll be the one to make the decision whether or not you get shot in the process, not some failure of conception in Congress/Parliament/whatever. Make all the laws you want that ensures the criminals the right to my property and daughter, I'm going to shoot him just the same.

    I always say that while my life is full of infringement, at least I'm not French. I have a new one now: 'Least I'm not British.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    Can't arrest felons? The Brits seem to want to let them go.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    646

    Post imported post

    It wasn't always this bad, when I was smaller my grandfather had shotguns and went rabbit hunting and such. My first firearm I ever fired was his 410 and he gave me my first pellet gun which I still cherish to this day.

    All firearms had to be registered in those days, handguns I believe had to be kept in a locked magazine (they called them) at the range. Nobody carried pistols as far as I knew, not even the coppers although they do now especially in places like London. I lived in the country so you would see people out walking with shotguns, broken, over their arm where they could close the action and take a shot fairly quickly if needed to catch their pheasant but safe enough to carry like that. Nobody said anything.

    After we left there things started going downhill for the legal gun owners (I don't presume to suggest that my family leaving had anything to do with it though - haha)

    First the requirement was that all firearms had to be locked away in a secured magazine which was subject to random inspection as a requirement of having the gun license in the first place. Then the pistols got outlawed (but not for the outlaws) and eventually the ownership of shotguns and rifles became cumbersome and then outright draconian.

    What every good democracy needs once in a while is a rebellion, put all the politicians heads up on spikes down the main thoroughfare of the capital as a reminder to aspiring politicians what happens when the needs and wants of the populace are run roughshod over. I'd say the UK was past due for one, that V for Vendetta movie is about right. Something will happen before long, it has to, you don't get that many pissed off countrymen without it bubbling over or exploding.

    I hope England gets returned to it's former free self, it's a microcosm of what happens in this country but a few years ahead. If you want to see where Obama's plans for this country will take you in a few years, look at the UK.

    I'm wondering how a rebellion would look over there, pitch forks and molotovs I'd expect since gun ownership is tough for the law abiding folks.

    GC

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Heller - will this shot be heard 'round the world?

    ----

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hemselves.html

    Homeowners and 'have-a-go-heroes' finally get right to defend themselves
    Hi Mike, I came across your site from a link posted by grapeshot on an English pro gun website. (Thanks grapeshot)



    I would like to add an Englishman’s perspective on this thread as the right to carry suitable weapons for defensive purposes is something which I have been involved in research with for many years.



    Some of this research covers the issue raised in this thread about Britons regaining self defence rights.



    As a brief introduction, it is now about 13 years since my colleagues and I started our research, due solely as a result of purported banning of handguns following the Dunblane tragedy in 1996.



    The result was that by 1998, I took an action against the Government in the High Court over their refusal to issue me with the necessary documentation in order that I may obtain a handgun from a dealer.



    Confirmation that we were allowed to carry weapons from the Bill of Rights was acknowledged by the Judge who then went on to claim that this right had been impliedly repealed by the 1968 Firearms Act.



    The following forms part of that judgment:



    MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: This is an application by the applicant in person to challenge the decision of the Chief Constable of Thames Valley and the Home Office refusing him a certificate or permit to hold a firearm for self-defence.



    The applicant seeks Judicial review on two grounds.

    Firstly, he says that the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968 are contrary to the rights conferred on citizens by the Bill of Rights and that the Firearms Act has not repealed the Bill of Rights: secondly, that from the correspondence, it appears to suggest that the secretary of State has a policy that on no account will a permit be granted for personal protection purposes…………….It is not in dispute that the Bill of Rights gave the citizen a right to hold arms. The Question which is posed is whether the Firearms Act, which does not expressly repeal the Bill of Rights, should be taken implicitly so to have repealed. The general position in law is this. Where a later enactment does not expressly repeal an earlier enactment which it has power to override, but the provisions of the later enactment are contrary to those of the earlier, the latter by implication repeals the earlier.




    A judgment from the Court of Appeal in 2002 subsequently confirmed that the Bill of rights is not susceptible to implied repeal and that right still stands.



    Going back now to the reason for my posting, if you follow the links below they will take you to two articles I did covering the issue of reasonable force.



    As you can see, we never lost this right in the first place!!



    http://dvc.org.uk/dunblane/force.html



    http://dvc.org.uk/dunblane/force2.html



    I hope that this will be of interest to you all.



    Regards,



    Mike Burke.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    646

    Post imported post

    Very interesting Mike and I wish you and the other MEN of England the best of luck getting the liberal excuse-mongers out of parliament and get the rights of the people restored.

    I'm an ex-pat Brit living in the US and I can't see myself ever going back to live until there's some semblance of rights restored to the good and decent man and the defenses allowed so that indeed an Englishmans house is his castle.

    Keep up the good fight!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Newbald, , United Kingdom
    Posts
    69

    Post imported post

    I'm trying to formulate a challenge, in the European Court, to the UK' firearms legislation.

    I present the bones of my challenge here, so that you guys can criticise it.









    It is my belief that a cornerstone of any Democracy is the right of its Citizens to keep and to bear arms. In the UK, there is legislation which outlaws the carrying of any and all weapons.



    It may be possible to challenge this legislation in the European Court of Human Rights. I have formulated a simple argument, which I wouldlike to present to the Court. However, I need technical support. I need a specialist lawyer to consider my argument and help me to make it stronger.



    That's why I am writing to you; to see whether any of you might "know the right people".



    I have written to various organisations, but, I figure that the more people with whom I have contact, the better my chances of success.



    Here is my argument. It is based upon Article 2 of the convention.















    Here is Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.



    Article 2



    1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.



    2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:



    a in defence of any person from unlawful violence;



    b in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;



    c in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.





    My argument



    Now, I would argue that the British Government has removed, by law, my rights to effective self-defence. It has done this by prohibiting me from carrying batons, knives, firerarms and all other offensive weapons.



    However, in the UK, offensive weapons are commonly carried by criminals. Further, there are an estimated 300,000 to 4 million firearms which are in the hands of criminals.



    The Government has stated, via its agents (I have legal judgements to show this) that the Law and the Police must be looked to as defenders of my person.



    I claim that it is impossible for the Law and the Police to defend my person. The Police are too few in number and there is overwhelming evidence of their failure (rape, murder, assault etc). The Law, whilst being effective in disarming me, bears little relevance to those criminals who are prepared to acquire and use weapons.



    Further, I claim that it is my inalienable right to defend my self… and that this right is inhibited by the prohibition against my going armed in an effective manner.

    Because of these factors, I claim that my Human Rights are being infringed by my Government.











    tia for any help you may offer. Even if it is only encouragement.


    David Turner

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Post imported post

    David Turner wrote:
    I claim that it is impossible for the Law and the Police to defend my person. The Police are too few in number and there is overwhelming evidence of their failure (rape, murder, assault etc). The Law, whilst being effective in disarming me, bears little relevance to those criminals who are prepared to acquire and use weapons.



    Further, I claim that it is my inalienable right to defend my self… and that this right is inhibited by the prohibition against my going armed in an effective manner.

    Because of these factors, I claim that my Human Rights are being infringed by my Government.
    I agree with you on all counts, David! Particularly the part about defending oneself being an inalienable right. I would further content that being able to defend oneself without fear of prosecution is just as inalienable.

    If someone breaks into my home in a threatening manner, I don't want to ever have to be thinking about whether or not their actions meet any "reasonable threat" criteria or whether my response is a "reasonable use of force." I, for one, am very glad to live in a state which recognizes that its citizens have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes, and justifies the use of "any degree of physical force, including deadly force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling" and when there's reasonable belief that person is committing or intends to commit a crime with the use of physical force, "no matter how slight."
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •