The right to own and carry weapons in England

The desire to  restrict the possession of weapons has always come from those who wished to not  only monopolise power but to do so on their own terms. When the crossbow was
invented, the medieval nobility attempted to ban it because it reduced the  effectiveness of the armoured and mounted knight. Failing in that, they  attempted to restrict, with some success, its ownership to people they could  control. The Samurai in Japan enforced ruthlessly their rule that only Samurai should  carry swords. When the demobbed conscripts of British Army returned to Britain after  the First World War, the British government passed the first serious laws  regulating gun ownership not because they feared that the British would begin  to murder one another in great numbers but because they feared Red revolution.

As things stand in  Britain, legal gun ownership has become so onerous, that many long-time licence  holders have given up. The effort in obtaining a licence and in maintaining it is  considerable, because of both the draconian storage conditions required by the police
and their eagerness to engineer the revocation and denial of licences. Even if  you legally own a gun, woe betide you if you are spotted openly carrying it in  a public place. Assuming you are not gunned down by over-excited policemen, you will not merely have your licence revoked but probably end up in court as well. As for other  weapons, if the police want to pick you up for possessing an offensive weapon  there is a fair chance they can do so even if you do not mean to carry one.

Forget about knives or coshes, which are complete no, nos, you are conceivably
committing an offence if you have an aerosol of hairspray about your person or
a hammer, for the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act creates a general offence of
possessing an offensive weapon in a public place, an offensive weapon being
anything from a gun to a piece of wood or stone or a kitchen knife which is made,
adapted or intended to cause physical injury to a person.

Is there an historical basis for private weapon ownership in England?

This is an impossible  question to answer categorically. It is undeniably true that weapons were held  widely by private individuals. Feudal military obligation was in fact built on  the private provision not merely of men but of arms and equipment. In late  medieval times statutes were enacted to encourage long bow practice. The Spanish  Armada which attempted to invade England in 1588 was repulsed by a mixed  English fleet of private and Royal ships. Yet although  weapons were commonly held by private individuals for many centuries, the right  of the individual to hold weapons, especially guns, was far from being absolute  or accepted by authority. The Bill of Rights passed after William of Orange
came to the throne in 1689 stated:

By causing  several good subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time when  papists were both armed and employed, contrary to law. (Clause 6 of the Bill of
Rights 1690)

That the subjects  which are Protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their
conditions, and as allowed by law. (Clause 7 of the Bill of Rights 1690)

There are four points  to note. First, Catholics were not thought to have the right to have arms.  Second, the clear implication is that Protestants were to be armed to defend themselves Catholics. Third, the very fact  that such a clause was included means that the right to weapons was not so much  of English life that it was taken for granted. Fourth, it uses the phrase  “suitable to their conditions”. This must mean that the right to  weapons was limited and not limited merely in the sense that a private  individual might not have a cannon but might have a musket. It is also  illuminating that when the US Bill of Rights was created a century later it  ran:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  (American Constitution Second Amendment)

The American Bill  of Rights was based on firmly on English tradition, the founding fathers of the  USA considering themselves to be preserving English liberty after  it had fallen  into corruption in England. Yet they did not say that a man has the right to bear
and keep arms full stop. They say he has it because of the need to maintain a  militia.

Nonetheless the 1690  Bill of Rights does grant a right to bear arms of some sort. Leaving aside the  question of what arms are permitted, does the Bill of Rights have any force
today? The problem for those who would say it has is that the Bill of Rights is  simply an Act of Parliament. It has no special constitutional status, any more  than does any other British law with constitutional implications. As such it is  difficult to see how it can not have been amended by the subsequent passing of  laws restricting the ownership of weapons. It is true that none of those laws  specifically nullifies the Bill of Rights, but it is a long established practice in English law that the passing of a new Act which contradicts a
previous law is treated as automatically nullifying the earlier law (the concept of implied repeal).  Whether  this practice is entirely sound in law is perhaps debatable, but I cannot
imagine any English court overturning the de facto principle retrospectively simply
because of the immense implications of doing so.

It is also argued  by some people that a Common Law right to bear and own weapons exists because  in the past men were permitted to own and bear arms and a Common Law right developed  accordingly. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. A Common Law right can
be removed by statute and indeed the vast majority of our law today is Statute law.  Our present gun laws are all statute based.

What the position should be in a free society

In my perfect world  a man would be able to purchase a gun and ammunition in England as easily as he  might buy a pound of potatoes. Similarly, a man should be able to carry any
other weapon or implement he chooses. He should have the right to keep and carry weapons not merely for self-defence, but because otherwise arms are left in the  hands of governments and criminals and denied to the ordinarily law-abiding  citizen. Not only should a man be able to own a gun (or any other weapon) he should be able to do so without accounting for it to the police. What, you say, anyone  able to own a gun and no licences to boot? Would not that result in Britain  being turned into the Wild West? The answer is no. Consider this, at present  there are plenty of guns in private hands in Britain, whether held illegally or  legally, yet gun crime remains  rare  in – 39 in England and Wales in 2009 (  Much more of a problem were knife and other sharp instrument (for example, broken bottle) murders which totalled 255 for the same year.

Even if all guns  were made illegal, there would still be a large and by all accounts increasing  number of illegally held guns in private hands. Now comes the clincher. The
vast majority of gun crime is committed with illegally held guns. In other words
the present wearisome system of licensing and the penal conditions of security under
which guns must be stored on private premises have next to no effect on solving
gun crime.

If guns were  allowed to everyone without restriction, the situation would be essentially the
same as it is today. Gun crime would be committed with weapons which were registered. But would not more guns mean more gun crime? That presumes there  would be a massive increase in gun ownership. This is far from being certain. Before  serious legal restrictions on gun ownership in Britain were enacted, gun ownership  was not the norm. Nor does the ownership of a gun mean the owner will habitually  carry it any more than the near universal ownership of lethal knives has meant  that most people carry such knives. It is also worth reflecting on the fact  that even criminals in Britain rarely use guns, despite their widespread  availability in our larger cities. If criminals do not routinely use them to  kill and wound, why should we believe the law abiding citizen will?

Generally, it  does not matter if people are not policed because, Man being a social animal, will  not normally act in a fatally harmful way to others. Moreover, in a very law  abiding society such as ours, there is less chance of seriously socially  disruptive behaviour than in most, perhaps all, other societies. The English have  a remarkably low murder rate generally (about 800 a year in a population of 60  million) and always have done. Some  years ago, the Canadian  criminologist Elliott Leyton published a study of murder in England entitled Men  of Blood. This analysed English murders from mediaeval times to the present. Leyton  found that the murder rate at any time was abnormally low. The paucity of English  murder is not the result of a careful control of weapons through the ages, especially  guns, for as mentioned above for much of our history weapons were available. The only rational explanation for it is that there is something in the English
character and society, that has made extreme personal violence rare. If any people
can be trusted to own weapons the English can.

That guns do not  equal mass homicide can also be seen from the example of Canada where seven  million guns are owned legally in a population of 30 million. They have a   higher rate of gun killing than England, but it is still very low. Switzerland  with its citizen army with all males of military age having a gun at home is  another example of widespread ownership with a low gun crime rate. If you want a  lethal weapon you can always get one quite legitimately because there are so  many things which will do. The Government bans commando style knives? No  problem, you just go to your local hardware store and buy a decent 6″ blade  cook’s knife. Or why not make yourself an old-fashioned cheese cutter out of  cheesewire with a couple of pieces of wood to act as grips and Bob’s your uncle  once you have the wire wound around someone’s neck. The state trying to outlaw lethal   weapons is like the state trying to outlaw pornography in the age of the  internet.

This entry was posted in Nationhood, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The right to own and carry weapons in England

  1. Barry says:

    how can i contact the owner of this site?

  2. colin brummitt says:

    I am a shotgun and firearms certificate holder, and totally agree with this writers opinion, I recently applied to have a perfectly legal, blackpowder revolver added to my fac, but was refused, because of it’s diminutive size, so the inference being that as it was easily concealable I might be liable to carry it up my sleeve, which I regarded as being a slur against my character, If they trust me to own a .44 cap and ball revolver, which believe me, packs a mighty thump, what would there to be to stop me carrying it under my raincoat?
    Stopping people owning firearms, is purely a matter of the government controlling the mass populace, the police absolutely loathe the idea that anyone should be allowed to have firearms but them, and how many people have they shot accidentely and on purpose, I certainly trust myself over any policeman in the safe handling and storage of my firearms, or weapons as the police prefer to call them.

  3. JV says:

    An interesting article.
    Mistrust and inaccurate propaganda leads certain people to believe that inert objects are to be feared. The reality is much more simplistic. There is a very small minority of criminals who will use any tool they desire (knife, stick, axe, car, bus, bomb, poison, petrol, etc) to inflict harm on others – and this is the problem.
    Use the justice system to focus on the problem; remove these criminal subjects from circulation permanently instead of wasting resources trying to control law abiding people’s freedoms. If the justice system were effective there would be no need to cary any weapon and sport and recreational shooting can carry on unmolested. Guns do not kill people, bad people do.

  4. Jack Cade says:

    “First, Catholics were not thought to have the right to have arms. Second, the clear implication is that Protestants were to be armed to defend themselves Catholics.”

    No. It does not mean that at all.
    The reference is to something which had just occurred – it was Catholics who had recently banned Protestants from owning arms.
    Only much later [1745?] did the government try to ban arms specifically from Catholics – then once again two years later because the original prohibition was not being upheld!

    In each case they failed because the right to bear arms was considered too important to be outlawed even for Catholics [who at that time were thought to pose a potential threat to the Protestant succession.]

  5. kalliste23 says:

    You should read my comments on Henderson’s other post
    …where I point out what he writes about BoR and the British constitution is blatantly wrong.
    I commented “Johnny September 28, 2012 at 8:57 am” “Johnny September 28, 2012 at 9:06 am”
    The distinction between the “reasonable force” doctrine and what a reasonable man would do in the circumstances needs to be drawn sharply, also.

  6. Your argument for legal guns is nonsense.
    Gun crime is low in the UK because there are very few guns and strict laws meaning people can’t easily get a gun.
    Because guns are highly restricted, illegal firearms are extremely expensive.
    If there is legal guns then there will be massive amounts of guns out there and they will be used. Look at America and their rates of gun crime.
    Less guns means less gun crime.

  7. Nick says:

    A common law cannot be removed by statues, the writer is wrong on this point

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s