Upvotes (6)
Comments (4)
Sorted by:
  • John_Hurst reply SRS Vid.me response 3/9/17 Hello, Thank you for a response. Can you tell me if my comments on your You Tube channel got through please? Rumour has it that the PTB have put filters on controversial subjects. You suggest in your concealed carry video that we should "Press the narrative" on this subject. Do you really mean that or are you a “Gatekeeper”? Regarding case law, with one exception described below, to date it only tests the law concerning offensive weapons. Basing an argument on "What police would do" is a logical fallacy, appeal to authority, and does not take into account the fact that recruiting and training standards of police have been lowered in recent years. The introduction of the Crown Prosecution Service is another factor because it introduces politics, not law. The CPS Manual that you refer to is not an authority on the law. Cases covering possession of defensive weapons will be rare because incidents when police have not made arrests will not be put b...moreefore the Courts and the public will not be aware of them. You say in your response "Pre emptive defence does not fall under good reason....". The quote from Lord Denning is against you. You are aware that the Courts may refer to Hansard to establish the intent of Parliament? There is a Practice Direction to that effect from 1992: " Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1992] UKHL 3, is a landmark decision of the House of Lords on the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation. The court established the principle that when primary legislation is ambiguous then, in certain circumstances, the court may refer to statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords in an attempt to interpret the meaning of the legislation. Before this ruling, such an action would have been seen as a breach of parliamentary privilege. [1]...". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_(Inspector_of_Taxes)_v_Hart Note that Parliamentary privilege is protected by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights and the RKBA by Article 7: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction The Bill of Rights Article 1 and 2 prohibitions on suspending and dispensing with the law was upheld recently by the supreme Court in the Brexit Judgment: "44. In the early 17th century Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74, Sir Edward Coke CJ said that “the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm”. Although this statement may have been controversial at the time, it had become firmly established by the end of that century. In England and Wales, the Bill of Rights 1688 confirmed that “the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall” and 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”. In Scotland, the Claim of Right 1689 was to the same effect, providing that “all Proclamationes asserting ane absolute power to Cass [ie to quash] annull and Dissable lawes … are Contrair to Law”. And article 18 of the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707 provided that (with certain irrelevant exceptions) “all … laws” in Scotland should “remain in the same force as before … but alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain”…”. R (on the application of Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and associated references The case where the subjects right to possess defensive arms was tested occurred following wide spread disorder in 1981. The present UK situation makes it particularly relevant now. Because of its importance, it too resulted in an Attorney Generals Practice Direction on the subject. It tested the proposition that only "instant arming" was lawful " In a parallel series of cases (decided under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953), those Courts decided that the question of reasonableness of excuse for possession of an offensive weapon must be considered in relation to the "immediately prevailing circumstances". It may be a reasonable excuse that the carrier is in anticipation of imminent attack and is carrying the weapon for his own personal defence. Those cases point to a similar conclusion to the conclusion reached by the Court in R. v. Fegan. In our judgment a defendant is not left in the paradoxical position of being able to justify acts carried out in self-defence but not acts immediately preparatory to it. There is no warrant for the submission on behalf of the Attorney General that acts of self-defence will only avail a defendant when they have been done spontaneously. There is no question of a person in danger of attack "writing his own immunity" for violent future acts of his. He is not confined for his remedy to calling in the police or boarding up his premises. He may still arm himself for his own protection, if the exigency arises, although in so doing he may commit other offences. That he may be guilty of other offences will avoid the risk of anarchy contemplated by the Reference. It is also to be noted that although a person may "make" a petrol bomb with a lawful object, nevertheless, if he remains in possession of it after the threat has passed which made his object lawful, it may cease to be so. It will only be very rarely that circumstances will exist where the manufacture or possession of petrol bombs can be for a lawful object. For these reasons the point of law referred by Her Majesty's Attorney General for the consideration of this Court is answered by saying: The defence of lawful object is available to a defendant against whom a charge under section 4 of the Act of 1883 has been preferred, if he can satisfy the jury on balance of probabilities that his object was to protect himself or his family or his property against imminent apprehended attack and to do so by means which he believed were no more than reasonably necessary to meet the force used by the attackers. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1984/1.html Was this an "Asinine" comment not worth a response by the Judges, THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND (Lord Lane), MR. JUSTICE McCOWAN and MR. JUSTICE LEGGATT? Let’s not forget, are you aware of Graham Moors Judicial Review which is intended to restore "concealed carry"? A simple yes or no would cover it. No Gatekeeping required. Over to you. This is a test.
  • [ – ] John_Hurst reply Still no response from this Channel. There was none on YouTube either. I wonder why?
    • srspower parent reply Because your comment is asinine, there is a huge amount of case law on this. Self defense is only a defence if a crime has been committed. Pre emptive defense does not fall under good reason. Go try it for yourself. Go show a weapon to a Policeman in the street and tell him you carry it just in case you are attacked. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#The_Law_and
  • John_Hurst reply Hello. Are you aware that there is an application for Judicial Review of Home Office policy on arms for defense? Incidentally, carrying defensive weapons in the UK is allowed: " “Criminal Justice Bill HL Deb 23 November 1987 vol 490 cc410-527 410 § 7.15 p.m. § Lord Denning My Lords, may I say a word on this? I can well understand the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Paget to say that if a man has a knife with him for self-defence then he is not guilty of any offence. I quite agree with that. He wants to put it in express terms, but it is really covered by the existing terms. The man has to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority. Surely the best of reasons—the "good reason"—is that he had it with him for the purpose of self-defence or with lawful authority, as the case may be. Therefore, the case of self-defence is already provided for by the section; that if he has it for self-defence or with any lawful authority it comes within "good reason"…”. http://han...moresard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1987/nov/23/criminal-justice-bill-hl Regards, John Hurst.
  • [ – ] TacticalToolbox reply Awesome Video man! I'm really glad to see some fellow Gun Nuts on here😍
    • srspower parent reply Thanks mate, I am glad too! I think the gun community will start filling up here at vid.me soon due to youtube censorship.
Load more comments
Download the Vidme app!