CS: Legal-pre-1920
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >I think it is erroneous to argue that no controls existed prior >to 1920, because people ignore the Defence of the Realm regulations >in force during the Great War. The prospect of those controls >being lifted is what led to the Firearms Act 1920. Steve, It could be argued that the Firearms Act 1920 was merely an ammendment to the Unlawfull Drilling Act 1819. The principle effect of the 1920 Act was to transfer responsibility for the authorisation of "training and drilling" with arms to a Secretary of State instead of local justices. The subjects right to arms and the provisions of the Bill of Rights were raised in the debates in Parliament in 1819 and were accepted by the sponsors of that Bill. They therefore continue in force. That is why members of rifle clubs continue to exercise their RKBA to the present day. IIRC Home Office club approval certificates confirm this. Has anyone got one to hand? Re DORA, the judgement in the case of Chester v. Bateson in 1920 showed that provisions of the 1915 Act which contravened the Bill of Rights were invalid. This case concered the requisitioning of a house for defence industry workers but the principle is confirmed and is still quoted in the textbooks (with other examples). And Commander Kendricks shrewd questioning of the Home Secretary in the debates in 1920 confirm that the 1920 Act recognised the RKBA too. Regards, John Hurst. -- Cmdr Kenworthy, no relation! One other thing I think is worth pointing out is that back in the days when we had a gun trade the Proof Acts were enforced with much more gusto than they are today, one of the Guardians of the Birmingham Proof House related to me various antique court cases where people were really hammered for violating the proving requirements. One thing they used to use it for was to stop transhipments of arms through the UK. Steve. 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
CS: Legal-pre-1920
From: "Peter Webb", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I find it interesting to read some of David Kopel's earlier work in which he notes that effective crime control, or at least low rates of violent crime, had very little to do with the levels of gun-control legislation or the level of gun-ownership in the country under examination... The deciding factor in each case was found to be social controls. Thus it is fair to say that while neither of our countries had much in the way of legislative controls a century ago, both had a fairly high degree of control in other forms. Interesting implications .. Peter WebbAus 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
CS: Legal-pre-1920
From: "Richard Loweth", [EMAIL PROTECTED] It was argued that returning to the pre-1920 situation of no firearms controls would be, from what I read, of benefit to criminals. The author forgets two things: first firearms were controlled prior to 1920...that control was by price. Like the quote about the Ritz Hotel (it) they were available to everybody; secondly as America has shown the potential criminal, armed or otherwise, would have to also gamble of his potential victim being armed. I can, just, remember pre-1967 and no shot gun controls. Where was the problem? -- I think it is erroneous to argue that no controls existed prior to 1920, because people ignore the Defence of the Realm regulations in force during the Great War. The prospect of those controls being lifted is what led to the Firearms Act 1920. Steve. 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
