Posted on 10/08/2012 7:16:59 PM PDT by the scotsman
'The long campaign to give householders the right to use maximum force against burglars will end in victory today.
Chris Grayling will announce he is changing the law to allow people to use ‘disproportionate’ levels of violence to protect themselves and their families.
The Justice Secretary said it would ‘dispel doubts once and for all’ over the right to fight back against intruders.
The new rules could, in some cases, allow for lethal force.
The move is designed to remove the threat of a burglary victim being arrested – let alone charged – if they use violence to drive the intruder away or stop them from advancing through their home.
Currently, householders are entitled to use only ‘reasonable’ force.
The change satisfies the demands of MPs and campaigners since Norfolk farmer Tony Martin was jailed for shooting dead a burglar in 1999.
The call for action gathered momentum after the murder of financier John Monckton, who died from stab wounds in his Chelsea home in 2004.
Last month a judge warned that burglars who break into country homes can expect to be shot at by their victims if they are licensed gun holders.
There have been a string of changes to the law in recent years – including one made by Kenneth Clarke last year.
But ministers have always stopped short of delivering on the right to use ‘disproportionate force’.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Only force which is ‘grossly’ disproportionate will not be permitted.Well there's a nice loophole in the new law. All they have to start doing is calling any act of self-defense "grossly disproportionate"... and they get to go back to locking up the home-owners.
You can get a permit to own a rifle, but it is much harder. In the case of a shotgun license, the police have to give a good reason why they shouldn’t grant one, in the case of a rifle, the would-be owner has to demonstrate why they should have one, so the burden of justification is shifted from the police to the owner...
Incorrect.
The British ALWAYS HAD the right to use lethal force on burglars.
This article merely reports that the authorities will no longer violate that right.
Maybe it's a bit better than I thought if that goes for urban areas as well. Can you buy a pump shotgun? Can you keep the shotgun loaded? (In Canada they will charge you with improper storage - at least it used be that way). Do you know if you can you buy 00 shotshells and shotgun slugs and also can you buy ammo without a permit?
As Winnie has pointed out, we have always had that right, all this is doing is strengthening and clarifying the law, which has been interpreted differently by different judges and police forces and the CPS.
The headline(s) are misleading.
We have always had the right to defend ourselves and even to kill an intruder if there’s been no alternative, what this law will do is strengthen and clarify the law. The laws have been wrongly played about with and have been subject to the interpretation of different judges and police forces.
So this dosent GIVE us any rights we didnt already have, it just strengthens and clarifies them.
The former.
The headlines are actually somewhat misleading.
We have always had the right to kill an intruder if there’s been no alternative, what this law will do is strengthen and clarify the law. The laws have been wrongly played about with and have been subject to the interpretation of different judges and police forces.
So this dosent GIVE us any rights we didnt already have, it just strengthens and clarifies them.
True.
There was a case where a family chased a burglar for a mile, held him down and ran over him. That wasnt deemed reasonable force. And I suppose if I had a burglar under control, then preceded to pick up a lamp and bash his brains in and almost kill him, then that wouldnt be reasonable either.
The cases where UK householders have been prosecuted has actually been tiny. Tiny. Despite the belief on here.
Yes, we are citizens, not subjects.
No viable self defense option exists for me but ready access to a gun. In the U.K. I would have no options at all.
As for having a burglar "under control", no way, he will go back out of my door feet first and belly up.
This case was in the UK, not here. I do not think they recognize the same God given rights we do.
Great job, Brits, and we know there's more to come!
There is nothing to stop you buying a gun in an urban area. You must have a gun safe though and they may refuse you a permit if they think that there is high chance it might be stolen, so ironically, its more difficult to own a gun if you live in a high crime area. If you want to own a gun, especially a rifle, you’d better first secure your house before applying for a license, especially if you live in a rough area.
Pump shotguns require a firearms certificate, which has a higher standard than a shotgun certificate, and unlike a shotgun certificate, you have to justify why you should have it rather than the police justifying why you should not have it. certain types of shogun ammo, including slugs, also require a firearms certificate.
You need a relevant license to purchase ammo and you are not allowed to store the gun loaded.
Basically, you are not allowed to keep the gun loaded and ready beside your bed, so if a burglar robbed your house, you would have to grab some shells, make your way to the gun cabinet, unlock it, remove the shotgun, load it, and then hunt down the intruder. Thanks to a recent judges ruling, it is clear you can shoot burglars without fear of prosecution. It wasn’t very clear before.
Thanks, So basically the firearms laws suck.
Yeah, pretty much. Although at least we now now we can shoot intruders without fear of prosecution... If we manage to actually get hold of a gun that is...
When I lived in Canada quite a long time ago, laws came into effect that required handguns to be kept unloaded and in a safe, and long guns unloaded but not necessarily in a safe.
Probably now long guns have to be kept in a safe also, but leaving that aside, I always had my Colt 1911 .45 loaded, cocked, locked, and close to hand.
Let the prosecutor prove to a jury (we could choose judge or jury) in Alberta (very pro gun) that I could not have opened the safe, retrieved and loaded the weapon in the timeline of the shooting, should there be one. Good luck with that - that never worried me. Not when there was a case there of a pharmacist shooting a fleeing junkie in the back and the jury called it self defense.
Anyway, having a weapon loaded and not stored legally was then, and I expect in the UK also, a fairly minor infraction. Might be a tradeoff worth considering!
Maybe that would be true in a couple of the most compromised US States, like, say, Massachusetts or New York, where, in addition to other considerations, your gun's "papers" must be in order. In general, no.
I thought all of this was already settled with the Magna Carta!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.