Home deliveries of knives bought online to be banned in UK

[brian y]

Can you link to any authoritative source(s) which confirm that actually is what "within the law" means in English law?

Because it sure doesn't sound like it to me. Phrases like "within the law" and "as allowed by law" do not seem synonymous with "applies to everyone."

Instead they sound conditional, depending upon circumstances. Like how some States have constitutional provisions that protect the right to keep and bear arms for self defense, but also have laws which require a permit for concealed carry, or restrict where a firearm may legally be carried.

You need to read the history of the bill of rights of 1689 to understand why it was worded that way, I will give you a hint; "William III and Mary II would not have been invited to become joint sovereigns of England if they had not agreed to the bill. The Bill of Rights lays down limits on the powers of the monarch", and also remember what "Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" subject to suitability and allowance by law".
I am sorry you do not understand English law but it has been around a lot longer than American law and they did use "proper English" back then and it was not changed until 1903, You can read about that below, And as the first paragraph states even "in 1900 they wanted a rifle in every cottage";

In 1900 the British government trusted the people with firearms and to be their own guardians. Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury said he would "laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England". However in 1903 Britain passed its first ever "gun control" law, a minor one requiring a permit to carry a handgun and restricting the age of purchasers. It was the first toe over a slippery slope towards complete firearms prohibition.

In 1919 the British government, in fear of communist insurgents and domestic and foreign anarchists, passed its first sweeping anti-gun laws (under the smokescreen of crime control) even though gun related crime was almost non existent in the England of the day. British subjects could now only buy a firearm if they could show "a good reason" for having one and the firearm certificate system that we have today (implemented and abused by police) was introduced. The 1920 gun control act was the beginning of the end for private firearms ownership in England. So much for Robert Gascoyne-Cecil's remarks of "a rifle in every cottage in England" being a laudable goal.

[stanc]

You need to read the history of the bill of rights of 1689 to understand why it was worded that way, I will give you a hint; "William III and Mary II would not have been invited to become joint sovereigns of England if they had not agreed to the bill. The Bill of Rights lays down limits on the powers of the monarch", and also remember what "Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" subject to suitability and allowance by law".
I am sorry you do not understand English law but it has been around a lot longer than American law and they did use "proper English" back then and it was not changed until 1903, You can read about that below, And as the first paragraph states even "in 1900 they wanted a rifle in every cottage";

In 1900 the British government trusted the people with firearms and to be their own guardians. Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury said he would "laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England". However in 1903 Britain passed its first ever "gun control" law, a minor one requiring a permit to carry a handgun and restricting the age of purchasers. It was the first toe over a slippery slope towards complete firearms prohibition.

In 1919 the British government, in fear of communist insurgents and domestic and foreign anarchists, passed its first sweeping anti-gun laws (under the smokescreen of crime control) even though gun related crime was almost non existent in the England of the day. British subjects could now only buy a firearm if they could show "a good reason" for having one and the firearm certificate system that we have today (implemented and abused by police) was introduced. The 1920 gun control act was the beginning of the end for private firearms ownership in England. So much for Robert Gascoyne-Cecil's remarks of "a rifle in every cottage in England" being a laudable goal.

So, what you're saying is that, no, you cannot link to any authoritative source(s) which confirm that actually is what "within the law" means in English law.

[CVCOBRA1]

At least a half dozen......

[stanc]

At least a half dozen......

Let's see 'em.

[CVCOBRA1]

Has to be more than that.....

[BjornF16]

:confused: I posted a link to the full article below the quoted excerpts.


Brian, I don't see anything in your post that states what English law allowed/restricted in regard to either travel with arms, or concealed carry.

Links to Soros' Open Society Foundation and other leftist groups:

https://theconversation.com/us/team

Article is a weak attempt in undermining 2A by marxists...the curtain behind the med induced fog starts drawing aside

[brian y]

[quote=stanc]So, what you're saying is that, no, you cannot link to any authoritative source(s) which confirm that actually is what "within the law" means in English law.

stanc, you are now coming across as very stupid, I have provided you the link to why it was written that way and also a link in the last post to a brief history of English gun law which states " However in 1903 Britain passed its first ever "gun control" law," but you still have a hang up on the way it was written in 1689 to try to make your point about English gun law and again you do not know what you are talking about. There was no gun control law until 1903 but just for you here is the meaning of "within the law"; a rule made by a government that states how people may and may not behave in society and in business, and that often orders particular punishments if they do not obey, or a system of such rules: . Again i pointed out there was no gun law in the England until parliament passed the first law in 1903.
I am done with this now and stanc i would advise you to also be done with this to as all you are showing is your stupidity on not understanding law from another country or your inability to use google to find the history of British gun laws.

[stanc]

So, what you're saying is that, no, you cannot link to any authoritative source(s) which confirm that actually is what "within the law" means in English law.

stanc, you are now coming across as very stupid, I have provided you the link to why it was written that way and also a link in the last post to a brief history of English gun law which states " However in 1903 Britain passed its first ever "gun control" law," but you still have a hang up on the way it was written in 1689 to try to make your point about English gun law and again you do not know what you are talking about.

That is ironic and amusing, coming from the guy who made the absurd remark that, "In English law 'within the law' means the law applies to everyone."

...just for you here is the meaning of "within the law"; a rule made by a government that states how people may and may not behave in society and in business, and that often orders particular punishments if they do not obey, or a system of such rules.

Hey, you finally got it right! Congratulations.

Again i pointed out there was no gun law in the England until parliament passed the first law in 1903.

No gun laws until 1903?

Following the assassination of William of Orange in 1584 with a concealed wheellock pistol, Queen Elizabeth I, fearing assassination by Roman Catholics, banned possession of wheellock pistols near a royal palace in 1594. There were growing concerns in the 16th century over the use of guns and crossbows. Four acts were imposed to restrict their use.

After the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745, harsh laws providing, amongst other things, for disarming the Highlands of Scotland, were enacted by the Parliament of Great Britain: the Disarming Acts of 1716 and 1725, and the Act of Proscription 1746.

The first British firearm controls were introduced as part of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which was set up in a reaction against the large number of people roaming the country with weapons brought back from the Napoleonic wars. It allowed the police to arrest "any person with any gun, pistol, hanger [dagger], cutlass, bludgeon or other offensive weapon... with intent to commit a felonious act". It was followed by the Night Poaching Act 1828 and Night Poaching Act 1844, the Game Act 1831, and the Poaching Prevention Act 1862, which made it an offence to shoot game illegally by using a firearm.

The Gun Licence Act 1870 was created to raise revenue. It required a person to obtain a licence to carry a gun outside his own property for any reason.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_p...ed_Kingdom

[98Z]

All this talk about "English Gun Law" doesn't mean a single thing, if anyone - anybody - references ANYTHING that was dated after April 19th, 1775.

You can post that all you want, with dates. If it was after April 19th, 1775, it is completely MEANINGLESS in this country.

[brian y]

I did say i was finished with this thread but i can not let stanc get by with lies and misinformation, From the link you posted above "The Disarming Acts of 1716 and 1725, Great Britain Act applicable explicitly to the Highlands of Scotland" see stanc not England or Wales they were past to disarm Scotland and make live shitty for the Scots.

"That is ironic and amusing, coming from the guy who made the absurd remark that, "In English law 'within the law' means the law applies to everyone."
Again you did not read or it seems understand the link i posted so i will spell it out for you; Up until the bill of rights of 1689 the laws did not apply to Royalty, Parliament wrote the bill and included the term "within the law" and then presented by the Convention Parliament to William III and Mary II in February 1689, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. The Bill of Rights lays down limits on the powers of the monarch and sets out the rights of Parliament, including the requirement for regular parliaments, free elections, and freedom of speech in Parliament. It sets out certain rights of individuals including the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and reestablished the right of Protestants to have arms for their defense within the rule of law." If William III and Mary II had not agreed to sign it and abide by it and be "within the law" it would not have become law in England and they would not have become King and Queen. Which means in layman's terms everybody is within the law,

I will concede that i have used the wrong statements above which may have confused what i was trying to say about English law, What i was trying to say was that until the bills of 1903 and then 1920 there was no law in England restricting people from having guns; From your link above the "The Disarming Acts of 1716 and 1725, Great Britain Act applicable explicitly to the Highlands of Scotland The Act of Proscription 1746, essentially a restatement with harsher penalties of the Disarming Acts for the Highlands" were for Scotland only and to punish the Scots for rising up against the Crown.
The Vagrancy Act 1824 providing power to arrest "... armed with any Gun, Pistol, Hanger, Cutlass, Bludgeon, or other offensive Weapon, or having upon him or her any Instrument, with Intent to commit any felonious Act". Read the last part stanc "upon him or her any Instrument, with Intent to commit any felonious Act" Felonious= criminals not the general public get it stanc?.
It was followed by the Night Poaching Act 1828 and Night Poaching Act 1844, the Game Act 1831, and the Poaching Prevention Act 1862, which made it an offence to shoot game illegally by using a firearm" which would have been hard to do as all the land is privately owned Again illegal acts which mean's what stanc? it means in British law you are not "within the law" full circle stanc.

Now i will address the last one you posted the pic of the gun license law, From your link above; "The Gun Licence Act 1870 was created to raise revenue. It required a person to obtain a licence to carry a gun outside his own property for any reason. A licence was not required to buy a gun. The licences cost 10 shillings (equivalent to about £31 in 2005), lasted one year and could be bought over the counter at Post Offices". So it was a tax anyone could buy one at the Post office with no restrictions. Remember what the Prime Minister said in 1900 "In 1900 the British government trusted the people with firearms and to be their own guardians. Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury said he would "laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England".

So i think i have covered all the false points you use to argue there was gun control in England and as i pointed out 1903 was the first but the real one was 1920 and i quote;
" The Firearms Act 1920 was partly spurred by fears of a possible surge in crime from the large number of firearms available following World War I and also fears of working-class unrest in this period. "An Act to amend the law relating to firearms and other weapons and ammunition", its main stated aim was to enable the government to control the overseas arms trade and so fulfill its commitment to the 1919 Paris Arms Convention.[76] The ongoing Anglo-Irish War may also have been a factor, as Britain and Ireland were at that time still in union with each other at the time, and the Act also applied to Ireland. It required anyone wanting to purchase or possess a firearm or ammunition to obtain a firearm certificate. The certificate, which lasted for three years, specified not only the firearm but also the amount of ammunition the holder could buy or possess. Local chief constables decided who could obtain a certificate and had the power to exclude anyone of "intemperate habits" or "unsound mind", or anyone considered "...for any reason unfitted to be trusted with firearms". Applicants for certificates also had to convince the police that they had a good reason for needing a certificate. The law did not affect smooth-bore guns, which were available for purchase without any form of paperwork. The penalty for violating the Act was a fine of up to £50 or "imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding three months", or both.

I have to say stanc arguing with you is like" mud wrestling with a pig something we should not do as the pig likes it".

98Z, Sorry for taking up all this space arguing about English law but it was stanc who said" The American colonies inherited a variety of restrictions that evolved under English Common Law. In 18th-century England, armed travel was limited to a few well-defined occasions such as assisting justices of the peace and constables. Members of the upper classes also had a limited exception to travel with arms. Concealable weapons such as handguns were subject to even more stringent restrictions."
Which was an out and out lie as i have pointed out any one could have a gun and travel with it until 1870 when they had to buy a license and anyone could buy a license at the Post Office.
I will say that i am tired mud wrestling and i am now done and i am going shooting

[98Z]

98Z, Sorry for taking up all this space arguing about English law but it was stanc who said" The American colonies inherited a variety of restrictions that evolved under English Common Law. In 18th-century England, armed travel was limited to a few well-defined occasions such as assisting justices of the peace and constables. Members of the upper classes also had a limited exception to travel with arms. Concealable weapons such as handguns were subject to even more stringent restrictions."
Which was an out and out lie as i have pointed out any one could have a gun and travel with it until 1870 when they had to buy a license and anyone could buy a license at the Post Office.
I will say that i am tired mud wrestling and i am now done and i am going shooting

No, man - you're good. you're giving back what you're getting - it's Stan that keeps referring to this stuff. You feel free to do exactly what you're doing, because you're right...

Stan keeps injecting this junk into his own argument, and it's a completely invalid argument that he's trying to make.

On April 19th, 1775, nothing that the English said anymore, in reference to ANYTHING in America, mattered anymore. That's the day that we'd had enough of the powder and bullet confiscation (not about "tea" at all), and we proceeded to hand them their ass back. We became a free nation, starting THAT day.

[stanc]

No, man - you're good. you're giving back what you're getting - it's Stan that keeps referring to this stuff.

You have it bass-ackwards. I was just replying to Brian's posts. He somehow got fixated on discussing English/British gun laws. I was only interested in gun laws of the former olonies.

On April 19th, 1775, nothing that the English said anymore, in reference to ANYTHING in America, mattered anymore.

I agree.

[stanc]

98Z, Sorry for taking up all this space arguing about English law but it was stanc who said" The American colonies inherited a variety of restrictions that evolved under English Common Law. In 18th-century England, armed travel was limited to a few well-defined occasions such as assisting justices of the peace and constables. Members of the upper classes also had a limited exception to travel with arms. Concealable weapons such as handguns were subject to even more stringent restrictions."

Actually, stanc did not say that. It was quoted from a linked article.

And it does appear that there is truth behind the claim of such gun laws being in effect in the 18th century American colonies.

Excerpts from: GUN LAW HISTORY IN THE UNITED STATES AND SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

C. Gun Carry Restrictions
Carry restriction laws were widely enacted, spanning the entire historical period under examination. As early as 1686, New Jersey enacted a law against wearing weapons because they induced “great Fear and Quarrels.” Massachusetts followed in 1750. In the late 1700s, North Carolina and Virginia passed similar laws.

Laws in the eighteenth century did not typically identify weapons concealment as criminal per se, but did restrict more general carrying of firearms, usually if done in crowded places, or groups of armed people.

D. Restrictions On Dangerous Or Unusual Weapons
States moved to enact laws restricting or barring certain dangerous or unusual weapons—also a subject that has contemporary reverberations. Such laws in the country’s early decades were aimed in part at pistols and offensive knives, like most concealed carry laws, but also at the practice of rigging firearms to be fired with a string or similar method to discharge a weapon without an actual finger on the firearm trigger. Referred to as “gun traps,” the earliest such law was enacted by New Jersey in 1771.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vie...ontext=lcp

[stanc]

I did say i was finished with this thread but i can not let stanc get by with lies and misinformation, From the link you posted above "The Disarming Acts of 1716 and 1725, Great Britain Act applicable explicitly to the Highlands of Scotland" see stanc not England or Wales they were past to disarm Scotland and make live shitty for the Scots.

Was not Scotland part of Great Britain?

Now i will address the last one you posted the pic of the gun license law, From your link above; "The Gun Licence Act 1870 was created to raise revenue. It required a person to obtain a licence to carry a gun outside his own property for any reason. A licence was not required to buy a gun. The licences cost 10 shillings (equivalent to about £31 in 2005), lasted one year and could be bought over the counter at Post Offices". So it was a tax anyone could buy one at the Post office with no restrictions.

Still had to have one in order to legally carry in public. How, in your mind, is requiring a license to carry not a gun control law?

Remember what the Prime Minister said in 1900 "In 1900 the British government trusted the people with firearms and to be their own guardians. Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury said he would "laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England".

Yeah. Apparently he was in the minority, given the pistol law that was passed a mere three years later...

[JASmith]

Was not Scotland part of Great Britain?...

Not in the minds of the Scots.

The enmity exists even today -- witness the Brexit vote. This helps explain why Scotland was burdened with more restrictive rules.

Dig just a little deeper into English history -- The exercise will help anyone who is not addicted to using specious logic and out of context quotes to further the troll and bait routine.

Remember we are trying to come to a common view that can help people explain facts and history behind the Second Amendment and why it is more important to liberty today than ever.

We have had some excellent posts and links on the second Amendment.

Stupid ad-nauseum arguments only harm the discussion at hand. Make the points and allow polite answers but DO NOT continue to argue points, counter points, counter-counter-points etc. Try to avoid succumbing to one whose apparently single goal is to get attention by baiting and insisting on the last word in the discussion. Yes, the "last word" may hold some weight, but the discussion leading to it is more telling.

[stanc]

Was not Scotland part of Great Britain?

Not in the minds of the Scots.

ROFLMAO. So, the correct answer is, "Yes."

Which means that British law imposed a gun ban on British subjects centuries before what brian y erroneously claimed was their first gun control law.

Remember we are trying to come to a common view that can help people explain facts and history behind the Second Amendment and why it is more important to liberty today than ever.

Not sure how you think that you have the power to decide what "we" are trying to do, especially since most of your participation is limited to innuendo, sarcasm, and whining.

Stupid ad-nauseum arguments only harm the discussion at hand. Make the points and allow polite answers but DO NOT continue to argue points, counter points, counter-counter-points etc.

a. It takes at least two participants for there to be an argument, and I sure was not arguing with myself.

b. Such arrogance. You have no authority to tell anyone what they may or may not post. Get over yourself.

[JASmith]

Stan, you have done an excellent job of ratifying my points by illustrating your own online behavior.

[LR1955]

Guys:

Go away for a couple of days and look what happens.

Totally predictable though.

So, you guys either get this thread back on track or it gets locked.

LR55