Posted on 10/26/2002 7:12:48 AM PDT by Cpt Sir Richard Burton
If an individual imports a firearm and/or ammunition after becoming a resident of the UK, he will need to apply for a firearms or shotgun certificate. Application must be made to the Chief Officer of the Police for the area in which he is resident. The Metropolitan Police Service Firearms Enquiry Team provides specific information on firearms certificates and shotgun certificates.
(Excerpt) Read more at britainusa.com ...
Why not? I own one here in Florida.
Is there really a law in Fascistchusetts which prohibits you from possessing that weapon in the state?
Also, believe it or not, often police are not very careful or knowledgeable about informing citizens about the gun laws of their state. They tend to be politically motivated. You should check the law for yourself.
You haven't. Please understand that I was asking to learn, not to challenge. Thank you for the information.
But as I said before - I'm not trying to defend UK laws, simply pointing out that it is not against the law to own a gun ... as many in the US seem to think. I own guns in the UK ...I'm not allowed to own them where I live at this time in the US. I understand this is not true in all states.
Which is interesting, and counter to my previous understanding. I appreciate the information.
Do you understand that it is not illegal to own/buy a gun in the UK.
Yes, you've pointed that out very well.
Granted the laws are more strict in the UK than in most US states, I wish they weren't but that is what most people there seem to want. Here in MA the gun laws seem even worse.
Come to Texas! Besides the food is better in Texas! (Yes, I know, that was a completely unnecessary slam to MA.)
Finally, once more, I AM NOT AN ANTI-GUN NUT.
I'm just pointing out a common misconception (probably propagated by liberals and anti-British (IRA terrorist supporting) Irish-Americans.
That's an aspect I hadn't considered.
Well said.
Technically speaking MA laws are unconstitutional. You should be able to violate them,take your case to the Supreme Court and win. The Bean case in Texas is an opportunity for the Supremes to overturn the thousands of unconstitutional firearms laws some states and Congress have been busy cranking out since NFA 34.
I'm sorry MA has not lived up to your expectations of the US. I personally would not live there due to the pernicious socialism that pervades the state. The Southern and Western states are pretty good when it comes to firearms.
But you have discovered a serious flaw in America and are rightfully annoyed.
Now if you are willing to get arrested over this, I'm sure GOA and JPFO would help out with the legal fees so we can have a nice test case. If you don't want to challenge the law, you might consider joining these fine organizations.
Boston T. Party's - Gun Bible at Amazon.com has a good summary of American gun laws.
Here in Colorado, I can openly carry or have a loaded weapon in plain view in my vehicle....Except in Denver where there are laws that conflict with State and Federal law....Some folks have gotten together, deliberately violated this law and are now working their way through the courts.
Gun laws in America are a royal mess...This is why folks in this forum are so touchy about the issue.
LOL! Well, first, you mustn't pay attention to the media talking heads. They think they're in charge but nobody elected them to do sqat.
Second, one thing that gets complicated about America is the States' rights versus the authority of the Federal Government.
Originally, there were 13 States. If we use today's standards to look back upon them- they were in effect 13 different nations. After the Revolution against rule from England these 13 States/(Nations) formed a loose Confederation governed by the Articles of Confederation. In my opinion- this was the perfect state of affairs. But it did have its problems.
It makes for interesting reading if you care to. The entire thing is only 13 Articles. If you wrote small enough, you could place all of them on one sheet of A4 paper. You will note the peculiarities of our original binding document:
Article 2 strongly establishes the sovereignty of each State. In this sense, even under the Articles of Confederation, each state was a sovereign nation- except where the Articles themselves expressly said otherwise.
Article 4 establishes that every person residing within the several states is protected (or affected by) this agreement. It also lays out the ability of one State to demand extradition of a criminal wanted in one State from another where he might have taken refuge.
Article 5 is one of the most interesting to me. In it, it is spelled out that the delegates to Congress can be recalled at any time by any State for whatever reason. Back then, there was no democracy and this state of affairs is what the original revolutionaries had fought so hard over. It is never spelled out by the Articles of Confederation how the several different States/(nations) should select/elect their representatives. Presumedly, they would be chosen by the processes of gov't within each State; the delegates going to Congress to represent the interests of the State- not the people. Likewise, if these delegates got up to shameful shenanigans- the State could recall them at any time. Also- each State got only one vote. They could send up to 7 delegates, but each State only got the one vote.
Article 6 is the article that limits some of the powers of the States. It spells out what each State can't do. For instance, a State (or group of them) could not enter into an agreement with a foreign nation which contradicted something the US Congress had decided. It also forbids any two or more States from entering into "mini- pacts" that go against the Articles of Confederation or without the agreement of the Congress.
Another key point of the 6th Article is that no State can keep a vessel of war or standing army without the approval of the Congress.
The other Articles are relating to the preceding Articles in some shape or form except the 11th. Article 11 grants that Canada has the same protections and rights as spelled out in the document for the other 13 States. Originally, Canada was fully welcome to become a full member of the Confederation. This was to be done- period. Any other Colony wishing to join would have to meet with approval from 9 States of the Confederation.
Note- there was no executive in the government (no president or king) and no Supreme Court. These were flaws/advantages that led to the downfall of the Articles of Confederation.
The key point to remember is this is the gov't we originally had and wanted in the USA. It gave the federal gov't very little power. The States were basically sovereign nations- printed their own money, made their own laws etc. But the lack of federal power is what broke the Articles. Disputes between the States were very hard to settle. There was nothing per se wrong with this state of affairs, but it became obvious (I guess) to the States that this state of affairs left them weak as a whole. They would rarely be able to present a united front to a common foe and they couldn't levy taxes to raise a necessary Army to defend the borders.
The Constitution was an attempt to rectify the faults of the Confederation. It took them years and years to agree upon the Constitution. There were those (based upon their experience with the Articles of Confederation) that wanted the Federal Government to have more power and those that opposed such. There were those that worried about the rights of the States- this was key under the original gov't- the States were almost absolutety sovereign within their borders.
The Constitution is a very well thought out compromise actually to the varying concerns back then. But it was a compromise with loopholes- the ability to ammend the document itself. I'm not sure if this was an oversight or the devious machinations of a few of the delegates- but the ability to ammend the original Constitution is basically what has landed us in our present positition. It was the ability to ammend that gave the Federal Government the right to levy income taxes. Before the 1930s this did not exist in America. The ability to ammend could be used to alter the fundamental document itself- for instance, if all the rules were met, the Constitution could be ammended to state that this or that family would forever be the sovereign power in the States.
Also, the sovereign States have been arguing about their loss of sovereignty ever since. It is easily arguable that the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution is a direct precursor to the American Civil War.
The EU had a very interesting opportunity to adopt a contract like the Articles of Confederation that would have benefited them all and protected the sovereignty of each as well. They chose instead to forfeit sovereignty explicitly and create a union that is even more oppressive than the original member states were and one that is bound to fail.
When I say that democracy = enslavement what I mean is when democracy is used as a standard, the rules of society will inevitably be altered to suit the "needs" (or wants) of the masses. Any system so governed will be eventually chipped away at and broken down until the law says that those who are able must produce a life for those who are not. Democracy (even without leadership) will always be Marxism in action or gov't sanctioned theft.
It is important to keep the way Americans view what "ought to be" and "what IS" in context. America is a nation born of many nations. A nation that is suspicious by birthright of a strong federal gov't but one that is also governed by the same rules of thumb that apply to any herd or pack animal. It has always been a nation in flux, an experiment for the rest of the world to profit from (which the rest of the world routinely refuses to do) but also a nation that has deep roots in European culture. All these things are endlessly fascinating to me and I love my country dearly and would die for its security. When I hear the French or whoever say "America has no Culture" it hurts me deeply, because our culture is vastly more complex than any other in the known universe.
But getting to your point about the difference in law in Massachusetts and the rest of the nation- under the Articles (which were largely libertarian in nature), Mass would have retained its sovereignty. If you found conditions there not to your liking, you could've gone to a different state which might've been radically different- and back then they were. Today, radical differences can still be found between the States- namely in taxes and gun laws. But the bottom line- regardless of the rights that have been eroded by the Constitution itself and by the subsequent ammendments to it- you would do better to look at America as 50 sovereign nations under one contract than to think of them as being one country. Although it is increasingly difficult to find examples of State's Sovereignty- it does still exist and it was the way it was meant to be.
Hence our name- and I'm given to understand that even back then the spelling was different---- We are the united States of America- States being the key word.
Stay Safe !
Good facts as usual Backhoe !! Stay Safe !
... and you and yours, neighbor. These are the times that try mens' souls...
And for the record, I have not seen anybody claim that gun ownership is not allowed in the U.K. Rather, I've read myriad descriptions of how gun ownership is tightly regulated by the U.K. authorities--so tightly regulated, in fact, that it would be unheard of here except in a couple of liberal (in the modern sense) enclaves. You happen to live in one of these.
"If you need to carry a concealed weapon you can get a permit from the Home Office."
The Secret Service escorting Bush maybe, but no one else. Note, England doesn't allow ordinary people to have guns for self defense. What other reason is there for a concealed weapon?
No it doesn't. Not unless your politically connected and have been given some official permission, keep them locked up(most off the premises in some community safe store). Even for shotguns England requires a certified need statement, character(2) witness testimony, locked storage and inspection of the premises.
For your info. If you were politically connected in MA, you to could carry concealed and have any gun you wanted in your house. Tell the chief your working on his side, the gun grabbers. He might take a liking to you and let you have whatever you want. Even more than you had in England and with less hassle.
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.