Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MindBender26

Just wondering... does England have something like the 2nd Amendment codified into whatever their equivalent is of our constitution?


7 posted on 04/30/2012 9:36:17 AM PDT by Reddy (B.O. stinks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Reddy
Just wondering... does England have something like the 2nd Amendment codified into whatever their equivalent is of our constitution?

Unfortunately no.

The police where well aware of the mental instability of both ,Ryan and Hamilton, and chose to do nothing about the two lunatics. It was the excuse the idiots where looking for. The mass hysteria that followed was wiped up by a useful Idiot on Talk radio. The ownership of almost any Gun is still permitted, as long as it is converted to a carbine, licensed and kept locked away. [s]The strange thing is how gun and knife crime spiralled almost instantly after the ban, considering that concealed carry was already illegal in a public place.[/s]

9 posted on 04/30/2012 9:45:43 AM PDT by moose07 (The truth will out, one day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Reddy
does England have something like the 2nd Amendment codified into whatever their equivalent is of our constitution?

"The English Bill of Rights 1689 is an Act of the Parliament of England (1 Will. & Mar. sess. 2 c. 2) with the long title An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown and also known by its short title, the Bill of Rights. It is one of the basic documents of English constitutional law, alongside Magna Carta, the Act of Settlement and the Parliament Acts. It also forms part of the law of some other Commonwealth nations, such as New Zealand and Canada. A separate but similar document applies in Scotland: the Claim of Right.

The Bill of Rights 1689 is largely a statement of certain positive rights that its authors considered that citizens and/or residents of a constitutional monarchy ought to have. It asserts the Subject's right to petition the Monarch and the Subject's right to bear arms for defence. It also sets out (or in the view of its writers, restates) certain constitutional requirements where the actions of the Crown require the consent of the governed as represented in Parliament. In this respect, it differs from other "bills of rights," including the United States Bill of Rights, though many elements of the first eight amendments to the U.S. Constitution echo its contents. This is in part due to the uncodified constitutional traditions of the UK, whereby the English Bill of Rights forms a list of rights in respect of the people as represented in Parliament, in addition to those rights already provided for individuals as set out in Magna Carta.

Source: Yahoo Answers

It appears that they did at one time have "codified" rights including the "right to bear arms".

Castle doctrine stems from English Common Law. The original Book 4, Chapter 16 of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England states that a man has the right to protect his house (also called his castle) and there is no possible way to lawfully enter the house, except for cases when it is needed for Public Safety (for example during a lawsuit).

It also appears that English Common Law like American Constitutional protections have have been greatly eroded by aggressive (progressive??) liberal attack over the passage of time (it's for the children, don't ya know...).

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you we can keep it.”

Regards,
GtG

30 posted on 04/30/2012 10:50:44 AM PDT by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson