From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Allow me this: My perception from the past
>discussions is that IG understands that the current law
>is indeed in violation of the top law, but because he
>has sworn an oath to uphold 'the' law, that he is not
>at liberty to either ignore or condemn 'the' law.
E.J.
I take your point in general but I disagree in this specific case for
the following reasons. The Constables Oath of Office includes " I will to
the best of my skill and knowledge prevent all offences against the persons
and property of Her Majesties subjects...". This is based on the Magna Carta
requirement for "true men who know the law and mean to keep it" and
acknowledges that policemen are civilians. Soldiers can be ordered to do
things which result in their death but police are like boy scouts, they only
do their best.
The second principle a good reason not to rely exclusively on the police to
protect you and the first requires individual Policemen to take steps to
ascertain what the law is.
In relation to British firearms legislation, none that I am aware of
infringes the common law RBA. There is a Home Office "policy" which does but
policy is not law. If IG is still with us and has any concerns about this
please let us know. Until recently I was unsure about these things myself,
but not now. And I have a duty to put him right <g>.
The power of the Internet is that forums such as this are "expert systems"
which pool knowledge and allow it to be shared.
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
