English Bill of Rights?

[Bulldog]

I recently read an article discussing the gun bans in England and Australia. The article indicated that the English Bill of Rights originally guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.

If this is correct, so much for the theory of those that say "It can't happen here in America."

Does anyone have any information disproving what the article I read refers to?

 

[Huntman]

WE have the right to keep and bear arms in canada also.The thread leads back to england through the British North America act and beyond perhaps to the magna carta.My history was learned long ago so this may not be precise.However during our recent and ongoing debate on gun control here it has been brought up by some scholars.My opinion on the subject is "use it or loose it"We began to loose it with registration of handguns in the thirties and through full auto in 70's,then assault weapons,etc.I feel the big sell out came in the 70's.Various shooting organizations gave in to further controls in order to save their own small world.Of course now in 99 they finally realize much to late that it s their turn to loose.BTW people can still own full auto,assault and other bad guns but only if owned before a certain date .So the doors are closed if you aren't in.

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Bulldog, yes, there was an English Bill of Rights. Get a copy of 'That Every Man be Armed' by Stephen Halbrook. This book traces the history of the RKBA all the way back to Greek and Roman times, and includes a very long discussion of the English Bill of Rights.

The English Bill of Rights was the foundation for our own Bill of Rights, including the RKBA. Some English monarchs tried to restrict the RKBA, and occasionally they would get cute with game (hunting) laws that were transparent attempts to limit this right. Anyway, read Halbrook's book. IMHO, everyone who believes in the RKBA has an obligation to learn the long history of this philosophy.

Clearly, it is up to us to remind our fellow citizens that this is not just some cute, anachronistic invention of our American forefathers. It is not some obsolete artifact, as some fools (include here comedians and entertainers) would like us to believe. Rather, it is a critical philosophy of freedom, and those who have ignored it have often suffered grievously throughout history.

Regards from AZ.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited July 26, 1999).]

 

[Bruce from West Oz]

I don't know about USA or Canada, but I do know about Australia ....

Constitutional lawyers agree that the Bill of Rights is invalid, because it can be superseded by a other legislation.

This is exactly what has happened here. Laws made later take precedence over the BOR .... according to the lawyers.

Personally, I feel it's a crock of sh ..... shinola ----- but no one is prepared to take on the enormous cost that would, under our corrupt system, inevitably fail.

B

 

[BTR]

I've read this English Bill of Rights section about arms, and it's not nearly as persuasive as our Second. It more or less just states that Protestants should not be disarmed, presumably by the Catholics.

I think the way the UK government works is, any new legislation can replace old ones, so they can throw about laws such as this. However, they may think a total disarmament would not violate this in the first place