Malcolm’s moment(UK)

powerlineblog.com ^ | 18 August, 2011 | Scott Johnson, Joyce Lee Malcolm

[victoriacross]

“the scotsman”,

40 posted on 22 August 2011 11:52:26 GMT+01:00 by the scotsman

If you can’t read english then you should stop posting on blogs that use the english language.

“Thirdly, again you either are not reading my posts correctly or are distorting them. Because my references to 1946 are about CIVILIAN British ownership of firearms, not the police, whose rights to arms are of course different.”
“the scotsman”

SERVICE REGULATIONS, ETC. - SEC. 6

FIREARMS FOR USE OF POLICE

Use

Operational use of firearms.

19. EVERY POLICE OFFICER TO WHOM A WEAPON IS ISSUED MUST BE STRICTLY WARNED THAT IT IS TO BE USED ONLY IN CASES OF ABSOLUTE NECESSITY, e.g., IF HE, OR THE PERSON HE IS PROTECTING, IS ATTACKED BY A PERSON WITH A FIREARM OR OTHER DEADLY WEAPON AND HE CANNOT OTHERWISE REASONABLY PROTECT HIMSELF OR GIVE PROTECTION, WHEN HE (AS WELL AS A PRIVATE PERSON) MAY RESORT TO A FIREARM AS A MEANS OF DEFENCE.

(Reprinted: October, 1977) (Set 10/77) 6/5

As anyone can clearly see from the above, hundreds of times every day from at least 1966 to 1996, if not from 1829 to 2011, Metropolitan Police police officers verbally state they are a subject of the crown, or a citizen, or a member of the public, etc., upon the issuance of firearms to them so that they can carry out their duties and responsibilities as either a private person or police officer.

The above Metropolitan Police General Order makes it clear that no police officer has the right to carry or use a firearm; only a subject of the crown has the right to carry and use a firearm, or “citizen” as you say. That means that at least as far as a police officer’s carrying of firearms and a police officer’s use of firearms is concerned, his fundamental authority for such carrying and use rests on the fact that he is a subject of the crown: not the fact that he is a police officer.