Knife Law (Rant)
- Thread starter Pandabean
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
- Status
If it makes the original poster happier on the airport front, I got stopped in a foreign airport a few months ago, totally forgot that I had my spare set of handcuffs in my day sack I use for work, quite embarrassing to say the least but mistakes do happen, and I am ever sympathetic to peoples 'oversights'. 
Were they pink and fluffytotally forgot that I had my spare set of handcuffs in my day sack I use for work, quite embarrassing to say the least but mistakes do happen, and I am ever sympathetic to peoples 'oversights'.
Were they pink and fluffy
I thought thats what I was about to get along with the rubber glove treatment, twitchy bum to say the least.
I would point out Florida's Murder rate has dropped since they changed their laws. It was worse before.
I would actual argue that a person carrying is safer, people who do not when they can are actualy at more risk.
At least 1.5million crimes are stopped yearly in the US by armed citzens. As a criminal you have an almost 3-1 chance of being shot and killed by a cilvilian. With an error rate of 2%, compared to the Police's 11%.
Actual carry laws drop a states crimes by 10%. The more people who carry the better it gets.
If you want an expert in crime ask a criminal, and they avoid gun owners.
Carrying works like an alarm, so they pick someone else. They think they have the drop on you, street crime is not about smart criminals.
The problem here is the victim of this crime has less rights than the criminal. I know someone who actual got convicted for attacking his muggers.
But no one could stop that, and I would rather that my murdering mugger was shot by someone else than gets away to do it again.
The difference is a Police Officer goes looking for criminals, were as a criminal comes looking for us.
My arguement is actually that if you ban something it makes criminals money, and they have no problems getting the item.
The self defense arguement is actual different, life is the most expensive thing anyone has, and they should be allowed to protect it. If you break the law why should it protect you.
Does it not go "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
But they do not or the death penatly would work. Criminals will commit crimes, and the law does not stop them because the job is to break the law.
The only thing I would do to our current law, is make locking multi-tools under the any carry. The samarai sword bit is also stupid and pointless. The big problem with UK law is we need a bill of rights, and constitution.
What we actual need is laws that work, that tackle the problem. The defense arguement is different. Police officers go looking for criminals, so increase their chances of having to defend themselves. Criminals come looking for us, because they know we cannot.
I agree.
Cite your source for that please...
If you're referring to the 1987 change in right to carry in Florida, please be aware that the dip in certain specific crimes afterwards is a matter of a lot of contention in pro- and anti-gun circles. It's pretty dangerous to use the 1987 change to make your case.
Florida has been one of the most crime ridden states in America for decades -- here's a 1989 story about it having the highest violent crime rate in the country (two years after right-to-carry passed).
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...M8PAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9owDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5561,5429695
There's tons of material out here like this on Florida. The pro-carry crowd likes to cherry pick stats from a few years in the early 1990s to defend right-to-carry. The true picture isn't so cut-and-dried (And remember I'm not saying that from an anti-gun perspective, I'm extremely pro-gun -- I just feel we need to frank.)
FYI, Florida's crime rate (and murder rate) is on the rise again and is getting back to 1980s levels. Here's a quick article from the Florida Criminal Attorney's blog with some stats:
http://www.floridacriminalattorneysblog.com/2009/03/florida-criminal-attorneys-tre.html
And here from 2007 on Florida's massive growth in crime:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-31-fla-crime-rate_x.htm
Also remember that during the intervening years from 1987 there has been a significant increase in law enforcement resources in Florida too and that resulted in a drop in crime.
Further, in the economic boom of the 1990s Florida benefited enormously, also driving down crime rates since crime is tied to the economy. Once the economy softened after Sept. 11, crime started a nearly decade long increase in Florida.
The anti-gun crowd likes to say that EDC creates a wild west atmosphere. They're lying and there's not evidence to support that. The pro-gun lobby likes to say EDC makes the streets safer -- it's lying too, there's no strong evidence to support that position.
EDC simply doesn't have an impact on street crime, one way or the other.
I'll return to this important fact: California, Texas and Florida are quite similar in terms of demographic makeup and the first two have nearly identical crime rates even though Texas has liberal gun laws and California doesn't. Florida has vastly higher crime rates by a large margin even though it has extremely liberal gun laws.
Look, I love guns. But you simply cannot craft a compelling case that open carry for guns or knives has any material impact on crime rates (pro or con).
I would really like to see a definitive source for this statement.
If you're using the self-reported survey the NRA likes to brandish, you're got to be really careful because self-reported defensive use can be massively overstated.
The statistical challenge to the self-reported defensive use is familiar and pretty compelling: for years in self reported surveys the number of reports of successful defense tracks to a stable percentage (if I recall correctly it's a little less than 20 percent -- but I can't find my source on that at the moment...) of total gun owners.
And this percentage remains unchanged irrespective of changes in the underlying crime rate. In other words, about 20 percent of gun owners like to say they've used guns in protective circumstances whether they have or not. And FYI, if you hear a bump in the night outside and you grab your gun it qualifies as a protective use in these surveys...
Plus, I've yet to see such a survey which breaks out street crime vs home defense, and the issue at hand is EDC's effect on street crime.
If you've got some source not tied to the NRA, I'd love to see it. (Both the NRA and the anti-gun lobby can't be trusted with these stats -- they've got too much at stake in the argument and both tend to get pretty irrational and engage in nutty hyperbole...)
In any event, the problem with numbers like those above are obvious: no one that I'm aware of keeps a database of aborted crimes. So you're forced to rely on self reporting from people who have a vested interest in inflating the number.
Leaving aside the heavily disputed Florida numbers, where are you coming up with that stat? And are we talking street crime or all crime? And is that 10% drop in violent crime or all crime? I'd like that backed up, in other words.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of non-restrictive gun laws. I worry about it some, yes, because I've been very heavily trained in firearm usage and the notion of lots of untrained people out there carrying weapons make my pupils dilate. However it's hard to back that worry of mine up with stats because there's honestly no statistical support for it.
What I DO think is wrong is rallying support for loosening gun or knife laws based on deeply flawed data advanced by people with a position to defend. There are better arguments to make.
And I DO worry about people walking around thinking that EDC is going to make any difference in street crime. It won't. EDC neither increases nor decreases crime -- all it delivers is a false sense of security.
This is especially true when it comes to EDC knives for defensive purposes -- if anyone actually thinks they're going to get into a knife fight, they're better off staying home rather than going out.
I find all defensive EDC to be a silly fantasy, but defensive knife EDC = sheer madness in my book!
Think it NRA, but cannot find it to check.
The two safest places to live in the US, are the highest gun carry places. The safest place to live in the UK is a Car Park. Criminals avoid gun owners. Think about it, the more people with guns the more chance a criminal is going to die, so they go somewhere else.
Actually this is from the Clinton report, the NRA report adds another million.
In any event, the problem with numbers like those above are obvious: no one that I'm aware of keeps a database of aborted crimes. So you're forced to rely on self reporting from people who have a vested interest in inflating the number.
Leaving aside the heavily disputed Florida numbers, where are you coming up with that stat? And are we talking street crime or all crime? And is that 10% drop in violent crime or all crime? I'd like that backed up, in other words.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of non-restrictive gun laws. I worry about it some, yes, because I've been very heavily trained in firearm usage and the notion of lots of untrained people out there carrying weapons make my pupils dilate. However it's hard to back that worry of mine up with stats because there's honestly no statistical support for it.
What I DO think is wrong is rallying support for loosening gun or knife laws based on deeply flawed data advanced by people with a position to defend. There are better arguments to make.
And I DO worry about people walking around thinking that EDC is going to make any difference in street crime. It won't. EDC neither increases nor decreases crime -- all it delivers is a false sense of security.
This is especially true when it comes to EDC knives for defensive purposes -- if anyone actually thinks they're going to get into a knife fight, they're better off staying home rather than going out.
I find all defensive EDC to be a silly fantasy, but defensive knife EDC = sheer madness in my book!
I agree. A knife is not defensive. A gun is. There is a diffrence.
I can actual prove EDC carry saves lives, if you look at everyone of the mass shootings in the US, someone will have said this 'If they let us carry they would not have killed so many because I would have shot them.'
My problem is, when the drugged up idiot is trying to kill me, I start unarmed. The phrase here is now, and has always been, it is better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6. So as I said before, what are my choices when the 14 year old theatens me with a knife? When the mental patient is running round playing pin the kitchen knife on the innocent passerby? Under UK law I cannot carry for defense, but a criminal can carry for offense. That makes no sense!
Last edited:
Er no, nobody 'can carry' fact is violent situations usually flair up with little or no warning so it would be unlikely you would get to use any concealed weapon as a defensive implement.
Your statement makes no sense!
People mistake a weapon with being a defence when in truth the first and most effective line of defence is awareness, after that verbal intervention, then physical contact and far far last a weapon/tool. The Police don't straight away club you with a weapon nope they talk then its hands not weapons.
If your that concerned DO A SELF DEFENCE COURSE!
Hope you were ok William.
What two places in the US are you referring to? I'd be interested in looking at their crime stats.
I don't dispute that guns can have a deterrent effect -- especially when it comes to home crime.
However, to state the above as if it's an absolute is wrong. Here's why: a huge amount of gun violence in the US is committed on bad guy vs. bad guy and their assumption is that everyone is armed.
For example, gang bangers in South Central LA shoot more of each other than anyone else -- and they're all armed. No deterrent effect there, eh?
More guns on the street doesn't equal safer streets. And the converse is true too -- there's no compelling evidence that fewer guns on the streets means less crime.
This is the argument I see posed all over in these discussions, but it's based on imaginary circumstances that almost never happen.
How do we this is a fantasy? Simple: if an armed citizen pulling out a weapon and saving the day against the "fill-in-the-blanks" street maniac happened often, the gun lobby would be crowing about it constantly as proof that carry laws work. Heck, NRA would be making TV shows about these everyday heroes and there their guns.
And in fact, the gun lobby can't deliver these poster boys (and girls) for armed defense because they can't find them.
I'm not saying it *never* happens, just almost never. The circumstances you describe above are vanishingly small in reality.
You're more likely to get hit by lightning than to encounter "the mental patient running round playing pin the kitchen knife on the innocent passerby" that you imagine above.
So you'd be wiser -- for defensive purposes -- to carry a lightening rod
Of course then again, maybe you do live in a neighborhood with mental patients -- or Gordon Ramsey -- running around with kitchen knives....
What two places in the US are you referring to? I'd be interested in looking at their crime stats.
I don't dispute that guns can have a deterrent effect -- especially when it comes to home crime.
However, to state the above as if it's an absolute is wrong. Here's why: a huge amount of gun violence in the US is committed on bad guy vs. bad guy and their assumption is that everyone is armed.
For example, gang bangers in South Central LA shoot more of each other than anyone else -- and they're all armed. No deterrent effect there, eh?
More guns on the street doesn't equal safer streets. And the converse is true too -- there's no compelling evidence that fewer guns on the streets means less crime.
This is the argument I see posed all over in these discussions, but it's based on imaginary circumstances that almost never happen.
How do we this is a fantasy? Simple: if an armed citizen pulling out a weapon and saving the day against the "fill-in-the-blanks" street maniac happened often, the gun lobby would be crowing about it constantly as proof that carry laws work. Heck, NRA would be making TV shows about these everyday heroes and there their guns.
And in fact, the gun lobby can't deliver these poster boys (and girls) for armed defense because they can't find them.
I'm not saying it *never* happens, just almost never. The circumstances you describe above are vanishingly small in reality.
You're more likely to get hit by lightning than to encounter "the mental patient running round playing pin the kitchen knife on the innocent passerby" that you imagine above.
So you'd be wiser -- for defensive purposes -- to carry a lightening rod
Of course then again, maybe you do live in a neighborhood with mental patients -- or Gordon Ramsey -- running around with kitchen knives....
So very true, that along with the fact that I hate the idea of untrained
civillians walking with the streets with guns/knives, there is more chance of misuse than actually accurate, correct usage.
I your delusional enougt to think weapon ownership/carriage then you are exactly the sort of person who should not be allowed to carry such an item.
a broken nose scar on face whiplash in neck and a severe concussion,+the loss of any last bit of tolerance towards anyone taking or involved in "recreational drugs.
you are right a defencive weapon is only any good if you know your going into a situation where you know you need one in which case it then becomes an offencive weapon.
awareness is your best defence though that wont always work - in my case here it was completely unprevoked and out of the blue.
anyway going a bit off topic.
its a terrible shame that we all get tarred with the same brush when it comes to knives and as most of us dont own woodland we can only legaly carry our knives in "organised events",in our homes or in our gardens .
last year at the wilderness gathering i was surounded with a lot of people and pretty much everyone was openly carrying a knife and i didnt feel in the slightest intimerdated or worried about that at all. infact probably felt safer there than i do in a town.
you are right a defencive weapon is only any good if you know your going into a situation where you know you need one in which case it then becomes an offencive weapon.
awareness is your best defence though that wont always work - in my case here it was completely unprevoked and out of the blue.
anyway going a bit off topic.
its a terrible shame that we all get tarred with the same brush when it comes to knives and as most of us dont own woodland we can only legaly carry our knives in "organised events",in our homes or in our gardens .
last year at the wilderness gathering i was surounded with a lot of people and pretty much everyone was openly carrying a knife and i didnt feel in the slightest intimerdated or worried about that at all. infact probably felt safer there than i do in a town.
First of all, I should say I carry a locking folder with a blade over 3" every day, for most uses I could get away with using a sub 3" blade with no lock, and have done so for years but I like having the right to carry this knife if I want to.
Making laws is hard, you're trying to (or at least we hope they are) make everyone happy. So you don't take away knives altogether because they're tools and in responsible, law abiding hands they're no threat, but try to limit peoples access to knives that can be used as weapons so you don't have a bunch of criminals running around with knives, and police officers not being able to do anything about it.
The problem is, we don't know who's a criminal until they commit a crime so the laws have to be a compromise to both let law abiding citizens keep some of their freedoms while at the same time trying to take away enough of the freedoms of criminals so they can't commit crimes anymore. The thing is, it doesn't work, so certain people think that if limiting criminals access to weapons doesn't work, the answer must be to cut them off altogether, and the people who obey the law will just have to suffer. You see in their minds, they've taken care of the problem, no more knives must mean no more knife crime, but of course you can never take away all the knives so trying to is really doing more harm then good.
If you take away all the weapons from the people who obey the law, then only the criminals will be left with weapons.
I don't carry a knife just for self defence but if I had to, it would be nice if my knife could be used for that. It would obviously be the last resort, I wouldn't pull a knife in a fight unless they pulled out a weapon first and there was no other way for me to stop that fight (me backing off for example), or if there were multiple attackers or basically unless I fealt my life was in immediate danger.
I have no delusions that I'll somehow end up in a knife fight like in a movie and be able to take out the bad guy without a scratch. I know knife on knife fighting is rare and that getting out of one without a scratch is rarer still. If I was attacked with a knife, chances are I wouldn't be able to react fast enough to defend myself, before I know it I'm on the ground bleeding, just like william#'s story shows.
For those situations, it doesn't matter whether you had a knife or not, there was nothing you could do to prevent the outcome. However, I disagree with the idea that "a defencive weapon is only any good if you know your going into a situation where you know you need one in which case it then becomes an offencive weapon", because there's a chance that the initial attack will fail, maybe I noticed them just in time and was able to avoid getting hit, at that point if I can't defend myself I might as well have let them stab me the first time, and having a knife to hand could very well save my life (it would however be pure luck if I was able to get my knife out in time not to mention win the fight).
So basically there will always be crime, even if you took away every single knife, the criminals would either find a source for them (and they don't care if they're illegal, they were already using them illegally to begin with) or just start using something else! What's next, no more baseball because the bat could be used to beat someone to death? Restricting weapons doesn't work, there will always be people who are willing to hurt other people, you take their weapons away, they use a different weapon, you take those away, they use their fists, there's always a way to hurt others, so we might as well accept that and focus our attention on the criminals themselves rather than which weapon they choose to use.
Making laws is hard, you're trying to (or at least we hope they are) make everyone happy. So you don't take away knives altogether because they're tools and in responsible, law abiding hands they're no threat, but try to limit peoples access to knives that can be used as weapons so you don't have a bunch of criminals running around with knives, and police officers not being able to do anything about it.
The problem is, we don't know who's a criminal until they commit a crime so the laws have to be a compromise to both let law abiding citizens keep some of their freedoms while at the same time trying to take away enough of the freedoms of criminals so they can't commit crimes anymore. The thing is, it doesn't work, so certain people think that if limiting criminals access to weapons doesn't work, the answer must be to cut them off altogether, and the people who obey the law will just have to suffer. You see in their minds, they've taken care of the problem, no more knives must mean no more knife crime, but of course you can never take away all the knives so trying to is really doing more harm then good.
If you take away all the weapons from the people who obey the law, then only the criminals will be left with weapons.
I don't carry a knife just for self defence but if I had to, it would be nice if my knife could be used for that. It would obviously be the last resort, I wouldn't pull a knife in a fight unless they pulled out a weapon first and there was no other way for me to stop that fight (me backing off for example), or if there were multiple attackers or basically unless I fealt my life was in immediate danger.
I have no delusions that I'll somehow end up in a knife fight like in a movie and be able to take out the bad guy without a scratch. I know knife on knife fighting is rare and that getting out of one without a scratch is rarer still. If I was attacked with a knife, chances are I wouldn't be able to react fast enough to defend myself, before I know it I'm on the ground bleeding, just like william#'s story shows.
For those situations, it doesn't matter whether you had a knife or not, there was nothing you could do to prevent the outcome. However, I disagree with the idea that "a defencive weapon is only any good if you know your going into a situation where you know you need one in which case it then becomes an offencive weapon", because there's a chance that the initial attack will fail, maybe I noticed them just in time and was able to avoid getting hit, at that point if I can't defend myself I might as well have let them stab me the first time, and having a knife to hand could very well save my life (it would however be pure luck if I was able to get my knife out in time not to mention win the fight).
So basically there will always be crime, even if you took away every single knife, the criminals would either find a source for them (and they don't care if they're illegal, they were already using them illegally to begin with) or just start using something else! What's next, no more baseball because the bat could be used to beat someone to death? Restricting weapons doesn't work, there will always be people who are willing to hurt other people, you take their weapons away, they use a different weapon, you take those away, they use their fists, there's always a way to hurt others, so we might as well accept that and focus our attention on the criminals themselves rather than which weapon they choose to use.
Very well said. Your point about escalating laws being the result of escalating frustration with crime is right on the mark. And so is your point about how futile the escalating laws are...
Again, I agree completely. Irrespective of which side of the weapons control issue one stands, it's time to acknowledge that focusing on the weapons question (pro or con) is pointless.
The dynamics of crime don't start with the weapon and in fact, the weapon only appears at the end of things, after all the forces that lead to crime have been in play for a long time.
If we focus on the things that *start* crime -- lack of education, dysfunctional families, lack of economic opportunity, etc. -- we'll be doing something much more effective.
Er no, nobody 'can carry' fact is violent situations usually flair up with little or no warning so it would be unlikely you would get to use any concealed weapon as a defensive implement.
Your statement makes no sense!
How does a mugging, rape, or other violent assault just flair up? A criminal has gone out looking for a victim, and is prepared to get that victim to do what they want.
Completly agree. Spent over 6 months wondering around with a lot of money in some real bad areas, my awareness is off the scale. It really makes you listen to the hairs on the back your neck.
No way, keep moving do not stop, and have a chat. Apart from anything else, what you say can feed a group's dynamic.
The person asking for a light, or the time. Being stopped by a group, so one can come up behind you. The last one was a favorite on a high street by us. No crime other than assault. They did not want money, just to give someone a kicking.
Contact is assault, end of story, and should be treated as such. The big problem with defense is give someone else the first shot, and you can be in real trouble. Lots of mind stuff involved.
Treating contact, and weapons seperatly is a good way to get killed.
They also wear protective gear, work in at least pairs, and have back up a radio call away. The last time I saw a copper on foot, was at a Police event.
I know a copper who has gone back to Oz, he thinks UK coppers are mad. They do a really dangerous job, with very little thanks, or back up from the law makers.
No, find a Martial art that works, and practice it for the rest of your life.
Ditto.
One of the shops I used to use, was round the corner from a Mental hospital. Two people died from knife attacks in the shop. Separte incidents for the lightning analagy, the assults were at least once a week, was a fun area to work in.
I would agree with you except that the Clinton report, had to admit that cilvlian gun owners were actual safer than the police. That 1.5 million crimes were stopped by gun owners.
The UK banned guns, and gun crime is going up. Our own Olympic pistol team cannot practice here, and Gun crime is going up.
How many Cuban cigars do you think are in the US? Ban an item, and you create a market for it.
The problem with the current sort of law making is that it does not effect criminals because why would they care about a new law?
What we need is a just society, with law that applies to everyone equally. Crime is not a poor thing, it just effects the poor more, because they cannot buy themselves out of it.
I think this is a big political dead end. There is no way you are going to change my view of the world, because I live in that poor world. I see on an almost daily basis crimes being commited, or people who have no options trying to decide what to do. Anyone who has been to a court, and seen criminals using the law, while ordinary people get screwed, knows this system has to change.
Damn forgot to add this. Know what the most dangerous item in the world is? Duck Tape, found at more crimes than anything else.
Actually, despite politicians promising to create a 'bill of rights', no doubt loaded with their own ideas, we here in the UK have had a Bill Of Rights for over 300 years, since 1688 in fact.
From here: http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1518621
Apologies for the length, but a good read, if you're interested. Incidentally, as of 1995, Halsbury's Statutes (4th edition) lists all parts of this act as still being in force in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Apologies, it is a bit text-heavy, but it's a historical document.
"
Bill of Rights
1688 c.2 1_Will_and_Mar_Sess_2
An Act declareing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Setleing the Succession of the Crowne.
Whereas the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Comons assembled at Westminster lawfully fully and freely representing all the Estates of the People of this Realme did upon the thirteenth day of February in the yeare of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty eight present unto their Majesties then called and known by the Names and Stile of William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange being present in their proper Persons a certaine Declaration in Writeing made by the said Lords and Comons in the Words following viz
The Heads of Declaration of Lords and Commons, recited.
Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome.
Dispensing and Suspending Power.
By Assumeing and Exerciseing a Power of Dispensing with and Suspending of Lawes and the Execution of Lawes without Consent of Parlyament.
Committing Prelates.
By Committing and Prosecuting diverse Worthy Prelates for humbly Petitioning to be excused from Concurring to the said Assumed Power.
Ecclesiastical Commission.
By issueing and causeing to be executed a Commission under the Great Seale for Erecting a Court called The Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes.
Levying Money.
By Levying Money for and to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative for other time and in other manner then the same was granted by Parlyament.
Standing Army.
By raising and keeping a Standing Army within this Kingdome in time of Peace without Consent of Parlyament and Quartering Soldiers contrary to Law.
Disarming Protestants, &c.
By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.
Violating Elections.
By Violating the Freedome of Election of Members to serve in Parlyament.
Illegal Prosecutions.
By Prosecutions in the Court of Kings Bench for Matters and Causes cognizable onely in Parlyament and by diverse other Arbitrary and Illegall Courses.
Juries.
And whereas of late yeares Partiall Corrupt and Unqualifyed Persons have beene returned and served on Juryes in Tryalls and particularly diverse Jurors in Tryalls for High Treason which were not Freeholders,
Excessive Bail.
And excessive Baile hath beene required of Persons committed in Criminall Cases to elude the Benefitt of the Lawes made for the Liberty of the Subjects.
Fines.
And excessive Fines have beene imposed.
Punishments.
And illegall and cruell Punishments inflicted.
Grants of Fines, &c. before Conviction, &c.
And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed.All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme.
Recital that the late King James II. had abdicated the Government, and that the Throne was vacant, and that the Prince of Orange had written Letters to the Lords and Commons for the choosing Representatives in Parliament.
And whereas the said late King James the Second haveing Abdicated the Government and the Throne being thereby Vacant His [ X1 Hignesse] the Prince of Orange (whome it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious Instrument of Delivering this Kingdome from Popery and Arbitrary Power) did (by the Advice of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and diverse principall Persons of the Commons) cause Letters to be written to the Lords Spirituall and Temporall being Protestants and other Letters to the severall Countyes Cityes Universities Burroughs and Cinque Ports for the Choosing of such Persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parlyament to meete and sitt at Westminster upon the two and twentyeth day of January in this Yeare one thousand six hundred eighty and eight in order to such an Establishment as that their Religion Lawes and Liberties might not againe be in danger of being Subverted, Upon which Letters Elections haveing beene accordingly made.
The Subjects Rights.
And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties, Declare
Dispensing Power.
That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.
Late dispensing Power.
That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.
Ecclesiastical Courts illegal.
That the Commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes and all other Commissions and Courts of like nature are Illegall and Pernicious.
Levying Money.
That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner then the same is or shall be granted is Illegall.
Right to petition.
That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall.
Standing Army.
That the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law.
Subjects Arms.
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
Freedom of Election.
That Election of Members of Parlyament ought to be free.
Freedom of Speech.
That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.
Excessive Bail.
That excessive Baile ought not to be required nor excessive Fines imposed nor cruell and unusuall Punishments inflicted.
Juries.
That Jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned . . . F1
Grants of Forfeitures.
That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void.
Frequent Parliaments.
And that for Redresse of all Grievances and for the amending strengthening and preserveing of the Lawes Parlyaments ought to be held frequently.
The said Rights claimed. Tender of the Crown. Regal Power exercised. Limitation of the Crown.
And they doe Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular the Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People in any of the said Premisses ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter into Consequence or Example. To which Demand of their Rights they are particularly encouraged by the Declaration of this Highnesse the Prince of Orange as being the onely meanes for obtaining a full Redresse and Remedy therein. Haveing therefore an intire Confidence That his said Highnesse the Prince of Orange will perfect the Deliverance soe farr advanced by him and will still preserve them from the Violation of their Rights which they have here asserted and from all other Attempts upon their Religion Rights and Liberties. The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons assembled at Westminster doe Resolve That William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange be and be declared King and Queene of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging to hold the Crowne and Royall Dignity of the said Kingdomes and Dominions to them the said Prince and Princesse dureing their Lives and the Life of the Survivour of them And that the sole and full Exercise of the Regall Power be onely in and executed by the said Prince of Orange in the Names of the said Prince and Princesse dureing their joynt Lives And after their Deceases the said Crowne and Royall Dignitie of the said Kingdoms and Dominions to be to the Heires of the Body of the said Princesse And for default of such Issue to the Princesse Anne of Denmarke and the Heires of her Body And for default of such Issue to the Heires of the Body of the said Prince of Orange. And the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe pray the said Prince and ( X2 ) Princesse to accept the same accordingly.
New Oaths of Allegiance, &c.
And that the Oathes hereafter mentioned be taken by all Persons of whome the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy might be required by Law instead of them And that the said Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy be abrogated.
Allegiance.
I A B doe sincerely promise and sweare That I will be faithfull and beare true Allegiance to their Majestyes King William and Queene Mary Soe helpe me God.
Supremacy.
I A B doe sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhorr, Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever. And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.
Acceptance of the Crown. The Two Houses to sit. Subjects Liberties to be allowed, and Ministers hereafter to serve according to the same. William and Mary declared King and Queen. Limitation of the Crown. Papists debarred the Crown. Every King, &c. shall make the Declaration of 30 Car. II. If under 12 Years old, to be done after Attainment thereof. Kings and Queens Assent
Upon which their said Majestyes did accept the Crowne and Royall Dignitie of the Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging according to the Resolution and Desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said Declaration. And thereupon their Majestyes were pleased That the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons being the two Houses of Parlyament should continue to sitt and with their Majesties Royall Concurrence make effectuall Provision for the Setlement of the Religion Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome soe that the same for the future might not be in danger againe of being subverted, To which the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons did agree and proceede to act accordingly. Now in pursuance of the Premisses the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parlyament assembled for the ratifying confirming and establishing the said Declaration and the Articles Clauses Matters and Things therein contained by the Force of a Law made in due Forme by Authority of Parlyament doe pray that it may be declared and enacted That all and singular the Rights and Liberties asserted and claimed in the said Declaration are the true auntient and indubitable Rights and Liberties of the People of this Kingdome and soe shall be esteemed allowed adjudged deemed and taken to be and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said Declaration And all Officers and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majestyes and their Successors according to the same in all times to come. And the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous Providence and mercifull Goodness to this Nation to provide and preserve their said Majestyes Royall Persons most happily to Raigne over us upon the Throne of their Auncestors for which they render unto him from the bottome of their Hearts their humblest Thanks and Praises doe truely firmely assuredly and in the Sincerity of their Hearts thinke and doe hereby recognize acknowledge and declare That King James the Second haveing abdicated the Government and their Majestyes haveing accepted the Crowne and Royall Dignity [ X3 as] aforesaid Their said Majestyes did become were are and of right ought to be by the Lawes of this Realme our Soveraigne Liege Lord and Lady King and Queene of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging in and to whose Princely Persons the Royall State Crowne and Dignity of the said Realmes with all Honours Stiles Titles Regalities Prerogatives Powers Jurisdictions and Authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully rightfully and intirely invested and incorporated united and annexed And for preventing all Questions and Divisions in this Realme by reason of any pretended Titles to the Crowne and for preserveing a Certainty in the Succession thereof in and upon which the Unity Peace Tranquillity and Safety of this Nation doth under God wholly consist and depend The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe beseech their Majestyes That it may be enacted established and declared That the Crowne and Regall Government of the said Kingdoms and Dominions with all and singular the Premisses thereunto belonging and appertaining shall bee and continue to their said Majestyes and the Survivour of them dureing their Lives and the Life of the Survivour of them And that the entire perfect and full Exercise of the Regall Power and Government be onely in and executed by his Majestie in the Names of both their Majestyes dureing their joynt Lives And after their deceases the said Crowne and Premisses shall be and remaine to the Heires of the Body of her Majestie and for default of such Issue to her Royall Highnesse the Princess Anne of Denmarke and the Heires of her Body and for default of such Issue to the Heires of the Body of his said Majestie And thereunto the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe in the Name of all the People aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submitt themselves their Heires and Posterities for ever and doe faithfully promise That they will stand to maintaine and defend their said Majesties and alsoe the Limitation and Succession of the Crowne herein specified and contained to the utmost of their Powers with their Lives and Estates against all Persons whatsoever that shall attempt any thing to the contrary. And whereas it hath beene found by Experience that it is inconsistent with the Safety and Welfaire of this Protestant Kingdome to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queene marrying a Papist the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe further pray that it may be enacted That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any Regall Power Authoritie or Jurisdiction within the same [ X4 And in all and every such Case or Cases the People of these Realmes shall be and are hereby absolved of their Allegiance] And the said Crowne and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons soe reconciled holding Communion or Professing or Marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead [ X5 And that every King and Queene of this Realme who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeede in the Imperiall Crowne of this Kingdome shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parlyament next after his or her comeing to the Crowne sitting in his or her Throne in the House of Peeres in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled or at his or her Coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the Coronation Oath to him or her at the time of his or her takeing the said Oath (which shall first happen) make subscribe and audibly repeate the Declaration mentioned in the Statute made in the thirtyeth yeare of the Raigne of King Charles the Second Entituled An Act for the more effectuall Preserveing the Kings Person and Government by disableing Papists from sitting in either House of Parlyament But if it shall happen that such King or Queene upon his or her Succession to the Crowne of this Realme shall be under the Age of twelve yeares then every such King or Queene shall make subscribe and audibly repeate the said Declaration at his or her Coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parlyament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such King or Queene shall have attained the said Age of twelve yeares.] All which Their Majestyes are contented and pleased shall be declared enacted and established by authoritie of this present Parliament and shall stand remaine and be the Law of this Realme for ever And the same are by their said Majesties by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parlyament assembled and by the authoritie of the same declared enacted and established accordingly"
Minataur,
I disagree on your view, I don't want to get into a slanging match over it but dealing with offensive weapons is part of my job and I do so regularly, I deal with unpredictable, unstable and general idiots daily, I can assure you no good can ever come of arming the public, It worries me that some of the Police are allowed to actually turn up and carry these items, let alone Mr/Miss/Mrs lunatic who looses his/her temper with someone.
I think despite your links to the USA, you fail to convince me and I fail to see the similarities between the UK/US. I have carried weapons in my work both in a uniform and in normal clothes and I can honestly say there is always a worry of loosing it in a scuffle or confrontation.
Do I think our Police should be armed? YES I do I fail to see a problem with it, in-fact I think thy should be allowed to be armed 24/7 as a deterrent, do I think civilians and private security companies should be allowed to be HELL NO!!!
I disagree on your view, I don't want to get into a slanging match over it but dealing with offensive weapons is part of my job and I do so regularly, I deal with unpredictable, unstable and general idiots daily, I can assure you no good can ever come of arming the public, It worries me that some of the Police are allowed to actually turn up and carry these items, let alone Mr/Miss/Mrs lunatic who looses his/her temper with someone.
I think despite your links to the USA, you fail to convince me and I fail to see the similarities between the UK/US. I have carried weapons in my work both in a uniform and in normal clothes and I can honestly say there is always a worry of loosing it in a scuffle or confrontation.
Do I think our Police should be armed? YES I do I fail to see a problem with it, in-fact I think thy should be allowed to be armed 24/7 as a deterrent, do I think civilians and private security companies should be allowed to be HELL NO!!!
Nige, there is an extensive thread on the UKPoliceOnline regarding BoR, Magna Carta and the freeman movement.
http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=41026
A number of the posters have carried out extensive research into the subject and it isn't as clear-cut as it appears. The thread, while quite long, is worth browsing.
- Status
