From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Yes but as you say the statute law has been differently
>interpreted in recent years. With reference cases by
>way of 'stated cases' taking preference over the Bill
>of Rights, etc.
>Unless there can be a well documented case where it is
>demonstrated that the right to carry 'arms' is only
>modified by the Prevention of Crime Act and not removed
>by it then what we have is as the Prevention of Crime
>Act states it - lawful authority or legal excuse.
Jerry,
As far as Mike Burke and I have bee able to determine, the Bill of
Rights has not been raised by a person charged with an offence under the
"Prevention of Crimes" Act. A point of law which has not been argued is not
decided and the presumption should be in favour of the liberty of the
subject
to carry on doing something which he has always done before.
Note that reasonable restrictions on the exercise of common law rights are
allowed, as Blackstone acknowledged;
"And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire;
unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary
restraints - restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear
upon further enquiry, that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them
slackened".
We don't want IG putting up a straw man argument do we.
In any case statute law is superior to case law and it's interpretation is
the issue here. And this is were an error has been made. The proof of this
is the following extract from Hansard. Lord Soulton quoting from Lord
Halsbury's Laws of England on a private person's common law power of arrest
said;
"I have always held that the preservation of the Queen's peace was the duty
of everyone of her subjects, and the police were only citizens with special
responsibilities"... "In fact, the idea that a person could not defend
himself was, in Lord Halsbury's time, unthinkable. This was not the first
time that it had been sought to make the police into a privileged class, but
the attempt had always been rejected, and I hope that it will be rejected
again"... "If the citizen was not allowed to defend himself, the Government
would have to accept responsibility for his defence, at least in public
places."
"The Government will have the sole responsibility. Are they prepared to
accept a benefit from their failure to discharge the duty they have
undertaken? If no-one is allowed to carry any sort of weapon to defend
himself or herself against the strong and armed, and defence becomes a
peculiar function of the policeman, will the relatives of the killed or
injured have a right to compensation if the Government fail in the
discharging of the duty they are undertaking? If I am wrong, then it must
be that the theory is that the Government are the shepherds of Her Majesty's
subjects, with the right to shear, kill or let die as best please
themselves."
The Lord Chancellor said "this was not a Bill tipped against the poor
person. It was designed to protect all people alike and it would give a
wrong balance to suggest that it favoured one section of the community".
Regards, John Hurst.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
