If that were the case then wouldn't those that chose this path be criminals or risk the chance of detainment? Unless of course one were to 'hide' those weapons that the gubment didn't know / couldn't prove you owned? ( like a family hand-me-down or having a receipt showing a weapon that you owned was sold )
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Will we be like the UK?
- Thread starter lordhedgwich
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
If that were the case then wouldn't those that chose this path be criminals or risk the chance of detainment? Unless of course one were to 'hide' those weapons that the gubment didn't know / couldn't prove you owned? ( like a family hand-me-down or having a receipt showing a weapon that you owned was sold )
gdvan, with registration not being universally compulsory, it is possible that guns could be hidden. and yes, given the time and resources, I'd say it possible to hide just about anything from anyone.
Unfortunately, it would make you a criminal, but some people may be willing to take the chance.
Unfortunately, it would make you a criminal, but some people may be willing to take the chance.
Plus, do you want to be the police officer or federal forces guy that is at the front of the line doing 80 million raids across the nation?
...and wondering what's going on in the neighborhood where your family lives and everyone knows what you do?
The question of "what do you think the local cops would do if confiscation is ordered" has been posed on many boards and I really never thought about it until I read Paul Howe's blog post:
http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/2nd-amendment-and-the-kool-aid-drinkers-by-paul-howe/
I can honestly say I am glad I am no longer in law enforcement as I feel many are starting to see the police with a dim aura of 'enemy'.
Mr. Scott, I watched an episode of "Police Women of Maricopa County" recently where officers went after a "drug house" in force.
The high school age son of a middle class family was apparently growing weed in his closet, and selling some to his peers.
The raid team took his father to the ground (though there was no evidence the father knew about this), and his twelve year old brother to the ground. One of the officers felt kind of sorry for the twelve year old...
Back around 1919, police departments around Boston were mobilized as goon squads to break clubs over the heads of labor organizers and immigrant leaders. My grandfather and his brothers (Sicilian immigrants in a mill town) had more than a few fights with such teams.
I think those who think the military or LE will give such things a lot of thought, and opt out of enforcing such laws, have not paid any attention to the last century.
Are there personnel who would support and defend the Constitution? Assuredly. A friend of mine was one such - he lost his job as a deputy in NC when he blew the whistle on two detectives who were railroading a suspect. The detectives still had their jobs, last I knew...
The high school age son of a middle class family was apparently growing weed in his closet, and selling some to his peers.
The raid team took his father to the ground (though there was no evidence the father knew about this), and his twelve year old brother to the ground. One of the officers felt kind of sorry for the twelve year old...
Back around 1919, police departments around Boston were mobilized as goon squads to break clubs over the heads of labor organizers and immigrant leaders. My grandfather and his brothers (Sicilian immigrants in a mill town) had more than a few fights with such teams.
I think those who think the military or LE will give such things a lot of thought, and opt out of enforcing such laws, have not paid any attention to the last century.
Are there personnel who would support and defend the Constitution? Assuredly. A friend of mine was one such - he lost his job as a deputy in NC when he blew the whistle on two detectives who were railroading a suspect. The detectives still had their jobs, last I knew...
gdvan, with registration not being universally compulsory, it is possible that guns could be hidden. and yes, given the time and resources, I'd say it possible to hide just about anything from anyone.
Unfortunately, it would make you a criminal, but some people may be willing to take the chance.
Fully agree, Dre. Wasn't going so much for the registration aspect but more along the lines of our ever efficient gubment combing through firearms sales records and such. Yea, I know it has a Red Dawn ring to it with the 'bad guys' going to the local gun shop and checking sales records but that's the idea I was trying to convey.
I have not been following all the gun control debate stuff to closely as i try not to get to involved shooting and gun owning for me is a hobby and me and my gf have guns for self defense too. what im asking is will the US ever become like the UK were they arnt allowed to have firearms for defense
I am always pointing out to people in the UK when they talk about gun control in America. That there are different states in America with different gun laws. So talking about American gun laws as if they are all the same is incorrect.
Talking about UK gun laws is also incorrect. As the different regions in the UK have broadly similar laws but with important differences. In one region of the UK you can have handguns and carry them for self defence.
No, we are not like the British.
They are subjects, we are citizens.
To answer the question i don't think the gun laws in different stares in America will be as restrictive as some regions in the UK.
The last time i looked at my passport i was a citizen not a subject.
Last edited:
Funny thing, manta49... I was talking with a middle-aged couple at the airport a couple days back. They were Brits, but he was wearing an NRA life member jacket. Turns out they spend several months every year in the US. She was a former Royal Navy nurse, and he was a retired, former commanding officer of a Royal Navy submarine.
Anyway, they were commenting on how, first, defensive guns were registered; then confiscated; then, hunting was demonized; then knives; and now, should one even use fists to deter an intruder in one's home, one will be arrested. One must retreat, retreat, retreat, and call for the bobbies.
That does not meet my standard for the rights a citizen should have.
Anyway, they were commenting on how, first, defensive guns were registered; then confiscated; then, hunting was demonized; then knives; and now, should one even use fists to deter an intruder in one's home, one will be arrested. One must retreat, retreat, retreat, and call for the bobbies.
That does not meet my standard for the rights a citizen should have.
Mleake - while the characterisation of legislative change sounds about right, the picture painted there about the state of self defence laws in the UK is not accurate. One does not have to retreat retreat retreat - merely act proportionately to the threat as you truthfully perceive it.
Whoever said the UK does not have a constitution is incorrect. It is a thousand years and more of precedent and custom. This system has advantages and disadvantages compared to a codified constitution, but it is no less a constitution. A constitution is not a piece of paper.
I don't reckon the UK and US will have similar gun laws any time soon, cultures are too different.
Whoever said the UK does not have a constitution is incorrect. It is a thousand years and more of precedent and custom. This system has advantages and disadvantages compared to a codified constitution, but it is no less a constitution. A constitution is not a piece of paper.
I don't reckon the UK and US will have similar gun laws any time soon, cultures are too different.
Scouse, you are allowed to use basic force to defend possessions?
That was not this couple's perception.
Italian police in Naples told our personnel that acceptable level of force to defend property was open handed slap, no more, and that use of a fist would result in an arrest.
Are you maintining the UK is different?
That was not this couple's perception.
Italian police in Naples told our personnel that acceptable level of force to defend property was open handed slap, no more, and that use of a fist would result in an arrest.
Are you maintining the UK is different?
should one even use fists to deter an intruder in one's home, one will be arrested. One must retreat, retreat, retreat, and call for the bobbies.
That's not correct as well. You can use proportional force that can include lethal force.
Quote GOV.UK.
Householders and the use of force against intruders
Joint Public Statement from the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers.
You can use reasonable force to protect yourself or others if a crime is taking place inside your home.
This means you can:
protect yourself ‘in the heat of the moment’ - this includes using an object as a weapon
stop an intruder running off - eg tackle them to the ground
There’s no specific definition of ‘reasonable force’ - it depends on the circumstances. If you only did what you honestly thought was necessary at the time, this would provide strong evidence that you acted within the law.
Do I have to wait to be attacked?
No, not if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others. In those circumstances the law does not require you to wait to be attacked before using defensive force yourself.
If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted. However, if, for example:
having knocked someone unconscious, you then decided to further hurt or kill them to punish them; or
you knew of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or to kill them rather than involve the police,
you would be acting with very excessive and gratuitous force and could be prosecuted.
guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service.
manta49, you are talking now about defense of self, not of property.
Are you allowed to defend property at all? If so, to what extent?
Quote. The law is already clear - under the existing law people can rightly defend themselves and their (property) with reasonable force," said shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan.
Of Course you can use reasonable force to protect your property.
Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, (or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime). You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in selfdefence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.
Last edited:
It is fully lawful in the UK to use force to protect ones property, not just ones person. The crux is proportionality, this is based on precedent in the courts.
Manta49's gives direct quotes from legal guidance.
It gets difficult when people disagree what is proportional, but the reality is if you are a law abiding person who is victimised in some way (particularly in your own home, the duty to retreat from force in ones home has never even been a concept in UK law as far as I am aware) unless you really go overboard, the courts are there to protect you and sling the criminal in prison once he gets out of hospital.
Most recently the farmer who shot two burglars in Lincolnshire who was quite rightly not charged - no one suggested he should have tried to hide or flee.
This idea that self defence/defence of property is illegal in the UK is not correct. Our laws do essentially deny the right of effective self defence to vast swathes of the population by denying them the tools to use against bigger, stronger, more violent people. That, in my book, is the unfortunate part.
EDIT - And just to be clear, yes I am maintaining the UK is different in that regard. You would definitely never find a policeman telling someone they may slap but not punch.
Manta49's gives direct quotes from legal guidance.
It gets difficult when people disagree what is proportional, but the reality is if you are a law abiding person who is victimised in some way (particularly in your own home, the duty to retreat from force in ones home has never even been a concept in UK law as far as I am aware) unless you really go overboard, the courts are there to protect you and sling the criminal in prison once he gets out of hospital.
Most recently the farmer who shot two burglars in Lincolnshire who was quite rightly not charged - no one suggested he should have tried to hide or flee.
This idea that self defence/defence of property is illegal in the UK is not correct. Our laws do essentially deny the right of effective self defence to vast swathes of the population by denying them the tools to use against bigger, stronger, more violent people. That, in my book, is the unfortunate part.
EDIT - And just to be clear, yes I am maintaining the UK is different in that regard. You would definitely never find a policeman telling someone they may slap but not punch.
Last edited:
The last time i looked at my passport i was a citizen not a subject.
Manta49,
I have no doubt that your passport may say citizen, in fact you probably can in good faith say that you are. Be that as it may, you are a subject of the Crown as well.
Ben Towe - Actually your average UK citizen is not technically a subject.
If you are bothered about the legal intricacies:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/britishsubjects/
We are not subjects in a technical sense, and really we are not in any other sense either. The monarch has been functionally irrelevant to UK politics for centuries and has essentially no power. What power the monarch does have is exercised strictly at the direction of the elected government.
You may disagree and say that if there is a monarch there are subjects, and that is a fair enough position, but that is how I see it anyway.
Beautiful part of the world you are from by the way, I love Middle Tennessee, it is where I learned to shoot.
If you are bothered about the legal intricacies:
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/britishsubjects/
We are not subjects in a technical sense, and really we are not in any other sense either. The monarch has been functionally irrelevant to UK politics for centuries and has essentially no power. What power the monarch does have is exercised strictly at the direction of the elected government.
You may disagree and say that if there is a monarch there are subjects, and that is a fair enough position, but that is how I see it anyway.
Beautiful part of the world you are from by the way, I love Middle Tennessee, it is where I learned to shoot.
Manta49,
I have no doubt that your passport may say citizen, in fact you probably can in good faith say that you are. Be that as it may, you are a subject of the Crown as well.
Technically, the Queen would call her people "subjects". However, the Queen is only the head of state in the UK, not the head of government--she doesn't have any real power over her "subjects". This is sometimes misunderstood by us Yanks, because our head of State and our head of Government are the same person. The Brits are citizens, because they elect their representatives, just like we do.
Dr Big Bird PhD
New member
Italian police in Naples told our personnel that acceptable level of force to defend property was open handed slap, no more, and that use of a fist would result in an arrest.
Anyway, they were commenting on how, first, defensive guns were registered; then confiscated; then, hunting was demonized; then knives; and now, should one even use fists to deter an intruder in one's home, one will be arrested. One must retreat, retreat, retreat, and call for the bobbies.
My response:
"I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society. To my country, I wish to give the... years which I will spend in jail if my country exists no longer. I will spend them in memory and in gratitude for what my country has been. It will be my act of loyalty, my refusal to live or work in what has taken its place."
However, the Queen is only the head of state in the UK, not the head of government--she doesn't have any real power over her "subjects".
Horsefeathers.
She has armed guards and an armored motorcade that stops traffic (meaning everybody else) THAT is REAL POWER.
She has armed guards and an armored motorcade that stops traffic (meaning everybody else) THAT is REAL POWER.
We were talking about political power.
this includes using an object as a weapon
How very...scary. You're ALLOWED to use an object. Just not a gun, to save yourself.
If we go down that road, will the Tactics & Training porting of TFL have threads like "Best Snowglobe Defense Tactics", and "Proper Wielding Techniques For Frying Pans"?
Ugh.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.