From: Richard Barrett, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In his recent post IG successfully identifies the fundamental problem
that exists in the relationship between the Police as an institution
and the general public.
The Falmouth incident which sparked of this thread brought out just
one way in which Police Officers are treated differently before the
law in comparison with a member of the public: officers who shot a
man were granted anonymity at the inquest when testifying as to the
circumstances of the shooting. There is no possibility that this
would be allowed for a member of the general public under any, let
alone equivalent circumstances.
In what follows I mean by Police, the various pressure groups, some
of which are supported by tax payers money, that claim to represent
the "Police" view of the world and influence government policy
accordingly. This includes ACPO and the "trades unions' representing
the various levels of rank in the Police Forces in the UK.
IG asks:
>Has anyone ever asked themselves what law gives the police in the UK the
>power to carry firearms?
>S54 of the '68 act gives crown servants exemption from the need to possess a
>firearms certificate. S3 CLA gives ANYONE the right to use reasonable force,
>as does s117 of PACE. Common law also gives the right to ANYONE to use
>reasonable force.
This statement of the law as it stands drives right to the heart of
the problem: the abrogation of the historical constitutional right of
a citizen to own and keep a gun for self defence and practice with
it. The state, enthusiastically supported by the Police, has
progressively usurped the citizens rights to adequate self defence.
As it now stands, the law has two faces; one set of rules for the
state and its apparatchiks, another for the citizens. Guess who is at
a disadvantage?
These apparatchiks can have and use a gun to defend themselves
subject to a set of rules they make up for themselves as to when they
can carry. The ordinary citizen can not, and merely applying for a
license for self defense purposes in mainland Britain [concealed
carry or home defence] is effectively treated as proof of criminal
intent and automatically denied. Use of a firearm or shotgun for self
defense that is licensed (typically for sporting purposes or pest
control) is effectively treated as proof of criminal intent and is
almost certain to lead to prosecution. It a bit like being told that
you may not apply for insurance until after you have proved you need
it, by having an accident, and that applying for it even then, will
be regarded as proof that you plan on having an accident in order to
make a fraudulent claim. Naturally enough your application will be
rejected and you will subject to further investigation.
While individual officers may have shot for sport at civilian clubs,
the Police as an institution has lent enthusiastic support to the
politicians who have corrupted the constitution. And many officers
involved in the licensing process both before and after the 1997 Act
are chosen for and are actively antagonistic to the ownership of
firearms by members of the general public. They allow this to
influence their judgement negatively when dealing with certificate
holders. I see no reason for believing that the Police will stop
trying to stretch the law in order to disarm the general public, with
enthusiastic support from all politicians and much of the judiciary.
That disarming the citizen has done nothing to increase public safety
in the last 80 years, indeed have made it worse for the ordinary
person, is of course ignored by the anti-gun zealots which includes
the Police, the government and the majority of MPs in Parliament.
Obviously - to them - the solution to everything is further
restrictions on citizen gun ownership regardless of the lack of
positive correlation of such policies with firearms abuse and
criminal use. But then they are anti-gun zealots and we all know what
a zealot is: one who redoubles his efforts as he progressively loses
sight of any rational end.
>
>Any ideas and constructiveness will be greatly received.
>IG
>--
The Police as a whole and as individuals officers should stop
behaving as though they were privileged guardians operating the law
on behalf of a ruling elite and treating ordinary people as subjects
of those rulers, whose behavior has to be controlled by the Police.
[I am of course ignoring the reality of the British "constitution" in
making this comment. We do not have government of the people, for the
people by the people in the UK. Which is why politicians claims that
we live in the one true democracy are so laughable]
The Police should:
1. Simply enforce the law and stop trying to be part of an elite
that believes it is especially entitled to try and change it.
2. Stop interpreting the law to achieve an unpublished agenda that is
at odds with such constitutional rights as the citizenry does have.
3. Stop seeking privilege in the way they are treated under the law.
4. Rigorously obey the law.
5. Train armed Police Officers in the basics. If you load it, point
it, and pull the trigger, it goes bang and you may kill someone if
your aim is good. You may, if you are unfortunate, even shoot someone
you know or you may know a relative of that person or you may live in
the same community as them. Do not feel the need to apologize or
feel guilt for doing your duty well. If you do not understand this
and have not mentally prepared yourself to live with the consequences
then do not volunteer for the task.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
