04-22-2018, 05:16 AM
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
"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