Self Defence UK.

Quote.Webleymkv. Now, I don't know how heavily regulated less lethal weapons such as chemical sprays, stun guns, and tasers are in your country, but if legal they would certainly be good things to have. However, these less lethal weapons can and have failed before and they're not really a good replacement for a firearm (there is a very good reason why police have not given up firearms for less lethal weapons). Instead, these weapons are best used when one also has a firearm to transition to should the less lethal weapon fail to have the desired effect.

No all the above are illegal in the UK.


It is covered by s5 Firearms Act 1968 - "a person commits an offence if, without the authority of the Secretary of State...he has in his possession...a prohibited weapon or ammunition".

s5 1 (b) adds "any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid gas or other thing". As the stun gun discharges electrical current, it is covered by this. It is an offence to possess one even if the stun gun is incapable of discharge (i.e. no battery or is unpowered).

The definition of possession is quite wide and covers having and carrying one.

You can get up to 10 years
 
The vulnerable, the weak, infirm or old in the UK have a right to self defense, just not one that in general equals the disparity in physical force of a young thug....

Im off my soap box but it is a nation that I love and yet find condemable for its groupthink... not that were any better.... You need a pub every block to deal with the guilt.... enough said....
 
The element of British laws that I find difficult to understand, is that it is illegal to keep any item for the specific purpose of self defence. As I understand it, that forethought means it is not in the eyes of the law a defensive weapon, but an offensive one, rendering it illegal and its use enough to send you to prison.

That is how I understand it anyway, I would dearly like to be corrected if I have got it wrong. Obviously that makes the PSNI permitting people to legally hold firearms for defence slightly anomalous, but I guess that is a product of local realities.

As for rights to self defence, in theory we have them as much as anyone anywhere in the States, what with the shared origins of the legal systems and principles and all. When in reasonable fear of attack one can use reasonable force to repel it - all the subjectivity of reasonableness aside, it is pretty simple. Problem for us is, we do not have the legal means to effective and ready self defence. The points made about the elderly and infirm are good ones I feel.

As for WebleyMKV's very reasonable comment about ''reasonableness'': I think this is a product of our system and it's differences to your own. The law knows very well what it means by reasonable, and has for centuries because it is a product of precedent e.g. that couple in the farmhouse shooting the two burglars was reasonable, another infamous case about a decade ago when a burglar was killed (with an illegally held shotgun this time) and another maimed (in a way that would send shivers down the spine of every man who has ever lived, if you catch my drift, though that is entirely beside the point) with evidence of concerted attempts to kill as they retreated was not reasonable. In practice, that it is not written down is not a problem, though I can see why in theory it would be. Obviously this can change and it is not as strong a protection as rights enumerated in a codified constitution but the way things work here produces moderation in politics and law, sometimes that is good, sometimes bad, but it is how it is.

When it comes to pubs on every corner, not sure that is anything to do with guilt.
 
Some information regards personal protection weapons in N Ireland.

Possession of a firearm for personal protection purposes places a great
responsibility on the holder. Any person who has been granted an FAC to possess a PPW will be expected to conduct their daily affairs in such a way that their own personal security and the security of the firearm is not jeopardised.
(b) Good Reason
(i) In the context of an application for a firearm for personal protection purposes the applicant is required by the Firearms (NI) Order 2004 to have ‘good reason’ for such possession. Whilst in most applications a verifiable real and immediate risk may be established by specialised police reports it may not be as obvious in others. In cases where a real and immediate risk is not verifiable by a specialised police report or is otherwise obvious, consideration must be given to all the known circumstances, bearing in mind the general duty of police to protect life by taking appropriate measures to address the risk. [Section 32(1) of the Police (NI) Act 2000 and article 1 of the PSNI Code of Ethics 2008.]
(ii) For the purposes of this Policy an applicant for a PPW will be deemed to have ‘good reason’ if it is established that:
(aa) there is a specific threat against the individual which creates a real and immediate risk verified by a specialised police report; or
(bb) in exceptional circumstances, a verifiable level of risk is established by other information; and
(cc) the possession of a firearm is a reasonable, proportionate and necessary measure to protect the life of the applicant.
(c) Specific Threat
(i) A specific threat is defined as:
(aa) A recent verifiable life threatening attack has been made on the applicant’s life and this level of threat remains; or
(bb) A verifiable personal threat to the life of the applicant has been made, which can be substantiated by a specialised police report or, in exceptional circumstances, in the absence of a specialised police report, other verifiable information or circumstances.
(ii) In establishing that a real and immediate risk exists FEB must consider all circumstances and all the information available to them. In exceptional circumstances the grant of an FAC for a PPW may be appropriate even though a real and immediate risk cannot be confirmed by specialised police reports but it can be verified by other means.
3. INTRODUCTION
(1) Summary
(a) This Policy explains the criteria under which Firearms and Explosives Branch will, on behalf of the Chief Constable, consider applications to possess a firearm for personal protection purposes, in accordance with the Firearms (NI) Order 2004 and the NIO Guidance on Firearms Controls in Northern Ireland.


PS The PSNI allow protection weapons for those people under real that not imagery.
 
Last edited:
Weres the law requiring the thugs to notify people of the attack in advance? The law itself makes it clear that the government is deciding what is a good enough reason... that makes it not a right to self defense... rights exist with or without government... A right doesnt require permission even if there are some limits on its exercise..
 
Not sure the situation in NI is that relevant anyway, to the debate regarding self defence law in the UK. I mean that in the sense that it only exists because of the war, otherwise the rules would likely be in line with the rest Of the country. Well, that's what I assume anyway. Makes it not really equivalent to ownership of firearms for defence in places like the US.

Nice one for posting that stuff though Manta49, interesting insight. Do you know if they issue many licenses for handguns these days, given the situation not being quite what it once was, riots notwithstanding?
 
Quote.Webleymkv. Now, I don't know how heavily regulated less lethal weapons such as chemical sprays, stun guns, and tasers are in your country, but if legal they would certainly be good things to have. However, these less lethal weapons can and have failed before and they're not really a good replacement for a firearm (there is a very good reason why police have not given up firearms for less lethal weapons). Instead, these weapons are best used when one also has a firearm to transition to should the less lethal weapon fail to have the desired effect.

No all the above are illegal in the UK.
Click to expand...

So then, British citizen not willing/able to jump through the bureaucratic hoops necessary to own a firearm are pretty much limited to contact weapons like blades and blunt instruments. This means, as I said before, that unless British citizens is willing and able to jump through the government's hoops, they are at a disadvantage if forced to defend themselves from people who are physically larger and stronger than them. That is truly an unfortunate state of affairs as it would seem to me that the physically small and weak would be the ones most likely to have to defend themselves from violent assault.

Even if one does own a firearm, it would seem that throughout most of the U.K. it is illegal to keep said firearm in a state of readiness so that, in the event of an attack, it could be quickly and easily brought to bear. This makes sense though as throughout most of the U.K. self-defense is not considered a valid reason to own a firearm. Given the above information, it would seem that the popular train of though in the U.K. is that one should simply rely upon the police for protection and safety. While very politically correct, that line of thinking is fallacious because it ignores the fact that the police are not omniscient, omnipotent, or most importantly omnipresent and thus simply cannot protect 100% of the population 100% of the time. You could have the best police force in the world, but chances are there isn't going to be an officer sitting next to your bed in the wee hours of the morning when a burglar decides to pay you a visit.
 
It would be interesting to see on some kind of per capitia basis of law enformcement officers how many UK officers are semi disabled and totally disabled a year vs that of the US... My assumption is that officers who generally do not have firearms are probably disabled at a much higher rate... It would be interesting to see what the numbers infer.
 
Recently in London (not N. Ire) a man noted that somebody had dropped a sawed off double barrel .12ga. in the alley behind his house. Concerned that some kid might get their hands on it he moved it to his locked shed or maybe it was just behind his fence...anyway he called the police and reported the find immediatley and was arrested and convicted of Illegal Possession of a firearm. The conviction was upheld on appeal and he is doing time. Court said he illegally possesed it when he picked it up and moved it, why he handled it was not a factor. Also recently in London somebody dropped a .22LR round on the side walk. The police fenced off the block and called the BOMB SQUAD to pick it up. The London police used this as a "teaching tool" to "educate" the public about how dangerous firearms ammo are! The UK is a lost cause. :(
 
@Sulaco2,

Would you please provide a link to a reputable news outlet that reports the incidents you mention.

Thanks.
 
Quote.Scouse. Nice one for posting that stuff though Manta49, interesting insight. Do you know if they issue many licenses for handguns these days, given the situation not being quite what it once was, riots notwithstanding.

A total of 2,924 licences have ‘Personal Protection Weapon’ among the conditions of use. These holders include ex-PSNI, civilians and prison officers.

That does not include police firearms that officers take home with them.
 
Manta49 - thanks man, interesting stuff. I had assumed most people permitted to own handguns for defence would be employees/ex employees of the state in some way that might make them targets for the paramilitaries.

WebleyMkV - yup, that is pretty much the size of it.

Sulaco2 - so you are not willing to offer any source for these stories? I think it is fair to ask given the impression they are being used to give of the UK legal system.

BGutzman - All I have are anecdotes here, but I believe police officers don't actually get seriously hurt in the line of duty all that often. The reality is, officers here do not patrol alone, they patrol in at the very minimum twos. The time when there is most threat to officers is in town centres of a friday and saturday evening - in those circumstances the police do everything mob handed and if you mess with them you get your face on the pavement in short order. Another reality is the chances of violence during traffic stops - as much as you point to having seen videos of British coppers having been battered online, I have seen plenty of videos of US LEOs being shot during traffic stops. That is something that happens so infrequently here it is barely worth accounting for, yet it is something a US LEO potentially faces every time he stops a vehicle.

The circumstances under which an officer would be forced to fire in self defence defo still happen, but are much lessened by police tactics and realities like we do not have officers who are required to police huge tracts of rural but still quite well populated areas, miles from support, often alone, amongst a population in which violent crime might be common. Here, the reality is violent crime is almost always taking place in town centres, where the police plan for it.

I am sure plenty of policemen get injured in the line of duty, and you might be right that proportionately more are maimed than in the US, but I would respectfully suggest that the situation is not nearly as bad in that sense as you would seem to imply.

Personally, I would suggest that an officer has a much higher chance of being maimed by a criminal's gunfire than by any other method, even if he/she can shoot back.
 
@Sulaco2,

I did do my own research. The only references I found were on websites that, in my opinion, wouldn't be reliable sources of information. I thought you might have a better source.
 
Interesting, good find. Neither of those cases are how they were previously described though, to be fair.

No bomb squad or other massive overreaction (apart from some absolute rubbish the newspaper thought it would throw in - but the press likes to do that) in the case of the .22 short.

Your man with the shotgun did not hand it in immediately and technically speaking did break the law, though perfectly understandably. Good job the judge had a bit of common sense, though it reads like he should have had an absolute discharge. Decidedly not ''doing time'' after handing it in ''immediately''.
 
Thank you for the references.

As pointed out above, there was no bomb squad for the .22, and perhaps hanging on to the shotgun for four days was a factor in the conviction.

The firearms community appears to be susceptable to believing rumors which are spun in a certain direction. It's better to to find out the truth and react to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top