The Road to British-Style Regulation

[Colt]

I'm upset about 1022, like many here, and have written and called my reps, also like many here (thankfully).

I believe if 2A rights eventually disappear altogether, it will be through a death of a thousand cuts. But I'm wondering if we in the US are as vulnerable as those in the UK were before they lost their gun rights.

Whether it's respected or not, the BOR explicitly defines RKBA rights as self-evident and endowed in every citizen. My question is, did the UK have any equivalent text in any of its national laws at some point?

I hear that they can still hunt, but only under tight regulations. Is this hunting provision the final impotent version of a UK RKBA law, or is it just a bone they threw to the subjects to keep the from revolting when they took away their rights to carry a gun for protection?

I'm genuinely curious as to how we would end up in the same state as the UK, and whether or not they ever had rights as "strong" as our 2A.

 

[Kaylee]

The absolutely worst road would be like they did with the NFA or a revised AWB with teeth. Grandfather existing stock so everyone that has one won't get too up in arms, but ban future production or sale. (or future production and sale without prohibitive checks, fees, red tape, permissions, so forth and so on). Within a generation or two, they'd have us where they want us.

Arguably the best thing for our side would be an outright ban on possession, with required confiscation. That takes us immediately to either the court (and best case, a landscape changing "Roe vs Wade" level decision for the better) or (God help us) the Henry Bowman solution.

By forcing the issue all at once, there's no possibility of the slow bleed that happened with select-fire weapons and their gradual decline into their present status as basically "Rich Man's toys."*

Regardless, I think AWBII has to be our line in the sand. There's too much built up frustration left over from AWB I to let it go gently. Whether it letters and calls like in '04, individual civil disobedience, or an actual march like the lefties do... I think that has to be our Rubicon.

We can't let effective arms slide into the "but no one has those" status select fire arms have now. The consequences two or three generations down the line are horrible, as painless as it would be for those of us that are stocking up to just let it slide in the short run.

If it does pass (not that I think it will this time around) - what say our resident lawyers to our options?

-K


* no offense intended to those of you that have ponied up the bucks for 'em, or got 'em early on before or after '86.

 

[thexrayboy]

As distasteful as the subject of violence is, and even though the official policy at THR is eschew political change through violence we must all think hard and deep about just how far we can allow the government to go in violating the Bill of Rights. If we sit back and wait long enough it is entirely possible that enough anti 2A legislation gets passed and enough guns get banned, registered and confiscated that we may reach a day when we wake up to realize that we were talking about resisting the feds when we should have been acting. Then it will be too late. The cogent question is just when is the correct time to take a page from Claire Wolfe. Have we waited to long?
Is there still enough time to make meaninful changes through political actions?
Lots of people here espouse the "from my cold dead hands" mentality and I can agree with it. I just want to be sure that if that sacrifice is required it is not made too late. Our founding fathers did not wish to fight a war with their English bretheren but they realized that it was inevitable. We do not wish to fight with other Americans but it may come to that also.

 

[Tokugawa]

If you want to know what a violent resistance would be like, Read Mark Bowdens book "Killing Pablo", the first few chapters about "La Violencia" in Columbia in the 40's and 50's. Short version, murder, rape, torture. Your family, your neighbors, your friends. God help us all should this ever occur.

 

[agricola]

Colt,

My question is, did the UK have any equivalent text in any of its national laws at some point?

We did, but the differences between your Second Amendment and our Bill of Rights should be enough explanation (as, of course, should be the fact that the Framers did not copy ours):

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

from http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm (emphasis added by myself)

Of course, the last five words are the ones that Parliament has deemed important down the years - indeed, that was its intention - as the 1689 Bill of Rights was not about "the people" but rather the interests of a narrow political class and the protection of its rights against the Papists / Jacobeans / underclass.

As for how firearms legislation in the UK became more stringent, then the simple answer is that various tragedies - the murders of three unarmed policemen in 1966, the Hungerford massacre, and the Dunblane massacre (followed by a spat during the General Election of 1997), caused the Governments at the time to respond to the calls that "something must be done" by increasing the number of firearms that required special permission - in effect a permit from the Home Secretary under Section Five of the Firearms Act 1968 - to own.

This has effectively banned many categories of firearms, though it should be noted that the way the legislation is written leaves open the possibility that a Home Secretary could issue permits (without any input from Parliament) for these weapons, even along the lines of a shall-issue CCW type system (though of course the chances of that happening are minimal).

Admittedly my knowledge of the development of anti-gun legislation in the US is no doubt inferior to some of the other posters here, but it does seem to me as if the similar pattern exists in the US - a tragedy occurs (or a series of shootings, or a media hype), and the politicians "demonstrate their effectiveness" by increasing the scope of legislation to try and prevent future incidents of the same kind (which is, of course, both unlikely, and ineffective). This is probably how future legislation will come into force, especially if (God forbid) you throw terrorists into the mix as well.

 

[thexrayboy]

agricola. Can you perhaps point to a pivotal time period where if the citizens of Great Britain had decided to take decisive action to remain free they could have had a chance to succeed. By all accounts it appears that for Britain, the time for change is too late. The ruling powers have so effectually disarmed all but the criminal class as to make effective resistance other than
verbal complaint impossible. Have we as America come to that point in time with the recent Patriot Act, the suspension of Posse Comitatus, the intent of the government to invalidate Habeus Corpus. Do these recent actions along with the general trampling of 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment rights mean we have waited to long to act or are they indicators that now is the time to take action.

God only knows I am aware of the consequences of violence, I have witnessed it in many forms over the last 3 decades. I certainly don't find it appealing but if violence is to come to this country I would rather it come in the form of a renewal of our freedom rather than the form of Big Brother extinguishing our future.

 

[Oleg Volk]

The problem with Henry Bowman solution is the persistence of institutions and the ability of the other side to spin PR. Large portions of entire organizations would have to be wiped out fast, and even that wouldn't solve the problem, as no government would grant amnesty to people engaging in political violence. We have to win this by winning hearts and minds and making gun banning as disreputable as holding Klan rallies.

 

[Nightcrawler]

the similar pattern exists in the US - a tragedy occurs (or a series of shootings, or a media hype), and the politicians "demonstrate their effectiveness" by increasing the scope of legislation to try and prevent future incidents of the same kind (which is, of course, both unlikely, and ineffective).

Yeah, that's prettymuch how it goes. Politicians aren't so different anywhere in the world, I suspect.

 

[SomeKid]

the Henry Bowman solution.

Kaylee, I know HB is a mod, but what is the HB solution?

As to the concept of violence, I would wager the effort is doomed on the outset w/o some state support. Rebels need a safe haven to rest after all. As is, it would be all too easy to hunt down various bands. We need to put a heavy focus on state legislatures, so that we can have some serious support.

Unless of course some lone dog went and started knocking off the enemy heads. Odds are, the second option would be more successful. But pity the guy who does it, as I would wager he would never be safe again from his enemies.

 

[thexrayboy]

As is, it would be all too easy to hunt down various bands. We need to put a heavy focus on state legislatures, so that we can have some serious support.

Given the tone of some of the recent legislation activity in Helena, Mt. it would seem that Big Sky country may be a viable choice in the effort to take back our country.

 

[EyebrowZing]

Kaylee, I know HB is a mod, but what is the HB solution?

I believe the Henry Bowman they are referring to is the main character in the novel Unintended Consequences by John Ross, and is about this very thing we are discussing here. I haven't read the book, nor do I know what the HB solution is, but I just ordered it on Amazon and am looking forward to some fun reading.

 

[HiroProX]

I guess the difference between means, morally, is entirely dependent on one's view of politics and government as human activities.

Robert Heinlein I do believe said it best. He's an interesting author in that his primary interest was philosophy. Frequently, his philosophical questions were presented as works of fiction, much as John Ross did with Unintended Consequences and Ayn Rand did with The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

In his most, notorious book, Starship Troopers he puts forth a remarkably candid view of the democratic process...

"When you are voting you are exercising political authority; and political authority is force; and force is violence."

The "antis" are perfectly willing to use force to infringe our rights as put forth in the 2nd Amendment. This means, they are willing to kill you, your family, and all your friends to insure compliance. Regardless of the specifics, be it a slow-death new sales ban, or a full frontal assault ala confiscation, the goal is the same, and the use of violence on their part is the same.

There are the spectacular cases of their uses of violence, Kenyon Ballew, etc. So the germane question is, how much more until gun owners refuse to take any more? The political process is still useful, but the legendary fellows who founded this country did so by pledging their lives, fortunes, and their sacred honor to do so.

This cannot be won unless we today make that same pledge. Anything less, is not being in it to win it.

 

[Lucky]

aricola. Can you perhaps point to a pivotal time period where if the citizens of Great Britain had decided to take decisive action to remain free they could have had a chance to succeed.

Ever heard of Cromwell?

"Cromwell himself, after ordering his soldiers to dismiss Parliament, foresaw the possibility of nine men out of ten turning against him. "But what," he said, "if I put a sword in the hand of the tenth man?"

It's not the first time the English have rolled over, for a pat on the head and a dog biscuit. There were some that resisted the Romans, Welsh and Scots and such, but those that resist became less every year. I rather feel that the Royal Family may be Britain's last hope, if they still have common sense. It's clear that those people's experiment with democracy is reaching it's end, so if they've to make a choice between another Cromwell or another Victoria, I hope they think it over.


And listen to what the thread starter is saying, it's that type of gun control you should fear. You have to organize now, and get everyone committed to resist it BEFORE they offer it. Otherwise half your folks will acquiesce and be happy to just keep their guns, everyone else for the future of the country be hanged.

 

[NukemJim]

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

Claire Wolfe

My best hope is that a complete restructuring/minmilizing of the .gov occurs for whatever reason.

My best guess is that their is so much inertia and control in the system that it continues for another 50-100 years as it is now, incrementally worse eacy year with peaks of new "security measures" after each major terror hit.

My worst nightmare is violent resistance, revolution, civil war.

If you want to know what a violent resistance would be like, Read Mark Bowdens book "Killing Pablo", the first few chapters about "La Violencia" in Columbia in the 40's and 50's. Short version, murder, rape, torture. Your family, your neighbors, your friends. God help us all should this ever occur.

+1

It ain't going to be pretty. The .gov would be fighting for their life and have a large amount of data on gunowners through datamining and what not. Do not forget the local .gov would be working with the feds to find out who's who in the gunworld. The vast majority of gunowners have spouses/parents/children who could be " a person of interest" who needs to be "held in protective custody" until "we understand what is going on". That and make a few examples with pleanty of media coverage of their wins agianst "militia members" and silence on any losses not occuring within sight of the media.

Realisticly we must fight as hard as we can at the "ballot box" for as long as we can if for no other reason to slow down the rate even if I'm not sure we can stop it.

NukemJim

 

[Travis McGee]

Kaylee: Great post above, the "worst road" one. Totally agree.

My fear is that Pres. Hillary and AG Elliot Spitzer will be too arrogant and stupid to realize that a ban of semi auto centerfires (that's what I see coming if they are elected, right after a new Colombine or DC Sniper) will lead into some type of dirty civil war.

 

[HiroProX]

It's basically a line in the sand. Unless gun owners say as one "NO MORE! TURN THIS BACK!" and are ready to if need be, do unto the state as it has done unto them, it is game over. Liberty is not won by being "reasonable" or "open to a deal/compromise". Our freedom was won by men and women who decided to do unreasonable things, like standing up the most powerful empire of the 18th and 19th centuries.

The antis are convinced that there will be no resistance to any measure they push through. Unless there is a, for lack of a better term, "hint of catastrophic consequences" for pushing their agenda, they will act with impunity.

It may now indeed be more imperative that the 2nd be restored, not just for the sake of liberty, but to avert civil war.

 

[mec360]

Near the end of the 20th century, citizens in several countries (Australia and England come to mind, there are likely others) were stripped of their right to own and use many firearms of their choosing. Indeed, the government ordered citizens to surrender many firearms, including handguns, to the state for destruction.

I am personally unaware of any forcible resistance by citizens of those countries to the government's orders. Was there even a single incident where someone even attempted violent resistance? (I don't mean evidence of a surge in PVC pipe sales...) In America, the "gun culture" is strong, probably stronger than in any other country, and in America, our gun rights are, in theory if not in practice, protected from infringement by our Constitution. However, my belief has always been that the "nuclear option" of forcible resistance by gun owners to gun confiscation in America is simply a paper (or keyboard) tiger. This is why it is so important to fight tooth, nail and claw by legal / political means against the slippery slope.

Oleg has it right - if we can turn the tide of politics to make supporting gun control like supporting the Klan (a fine analogy given the roots of most of our gun control laws) then we can turn the tide. On other fora (not much here) I read posts from people who are too lazy to write letters / support the NRA / GOA / SAF / whoever but shout with their keyboard "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!" If they persist in that behavior, they may get their wish. They will be make the newspaper with this headline: "Area Man Barricades Self In Home, Shot And Killed By Police, Arsenal Of Weapons And Ammunition Found."

Following that story will be one titled "Local Gun Owners Participate In Mandatory Buy-Back Amid Grumbling." That story goes:

December 18, 2011: Local hunter Zum Jimbo looks distressed. "My grandpa used this shotgun when he took me duck hunting in the 1950's, and he passed it down to me. I don't understand why I have to give it to the government. I never committed a crime." But the shotgun, capable of holding five rounds of deadly 12 gauge ammunition, has a barrel that is nearly an inch wide and because of its semi-automatic action, the weapon can fire those rounds just as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Yesterday, at a press conference, President Clinton said: "Finally we have made real progress in preventing criminals from having access to these deadly weapons. The cooperation of sportsmen with the new law shows that Americans understand that the government is looking out for their best interest."

And Jimbo isn't entirely unhappy with the process. He explained: "At least they are giving me $600.00 for this old Model 11, and the money really comes in handy here at Christmas." Other local sportsmen expressed similar sentiments. Area shooter Dave Pretzel said: "Before this new law, I could only have gotten about $100 for this Ruger 10/22. The government is giving me $175, so it's not a bad deal, really."

The government's generous valuation of the semi-automatic assault firearms to be surrendered has angered some gun control advocates, although most see what some have called excessive compensation as a necessary evil to ensure widespread compliance by hunters. Sarah Brady, co-founder of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said that the expensive program was "the first step in ridding our society of these weapons of mass destruction" and the government would likely recoup the costs over time because of fewer incidents of gun crime. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, reelected last year on the coattails of a sweeping nationwide Democratic victory after the shocking Times Square mass shooting that killed 41 persons, agreed: "Although the 'Safe Streets - Safe Children Act of 2011' is projected to cost the government $21.4 billion dollars over the next three to five years, we estimate that the savings to the government in other areas including law enforcement, medical care and crime prevention will actually exceed the cost of the cash payments. This is a 'win-win' for America."

In line at the police station waiting for his check, Pretzel summed it up: "My kids are pestering me for a PlayStation 4, and there's really nowhere around here we can use these guns anyway, so this couldn't have come at a better time."​

I don't want to read either one of those stories. I want to keep reading the hand-wringing stories in the N. Y. Times titled "Whither the Assault Weapons Ban?" and "NRA Blockage of Reasonable Gun Measures Angers Mayor." Relying on the final option is not the way to get there.

 

[sterling180]

believe if 2A rights eventually disappear altogether, it will be through a death of a thousand cuts. But I'm wondering if we in the US are as vulnerable as those in the UK were before they lost their gun rights.

WHOA,WHOA,hold on there.Are you talking about all of our rights to guns or do you mean,the types that were outlawed,over the course of the last 20 years?

Understand please,that we haven't lost all rights to guns over here.Examine our firearm laws,before you write your posts PLEASE.

All those guns classed as 'good stuff',yes,long since been sent to the smelter and turned into recycled metal,used to make various goods.