Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

CCW Laws......To those that don't know...Legally Packing Heat!

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

CCW Laws......To those that don't know...Legally Packing Heat!

Old 10th May 2010, 21:38
  #281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 204
RE: ENGLISH, SCOTTISH, WELSH, ETC POLICE

There seems to be a touch of confusion here! So.... for the benefit of those outwith the British Isles, here's the info that matters.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is made up of four constituent parts - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. While they are often referred to as countries, the nation state is the United Kingdom. England and Scotland were separate countries, with separate monarchies and governments, until 1603. When Queen Elizabeth of England died without issue, her closest heir was King James VI of Scotland, who thus become King James I of England. The separate governments continued until the Act of Union of 1707.

Wales, formerly a principality (to this day, the heir to the throne of the UK is accorded the title "Prince of Wales") had already been subsumed within an English empire long before, as had Ireland. Prior to English rule, Ireland had never been a unified nation, so any talk of Irish "reunification" is somewhat bogus. Under both Elizabeth and James I, plantations (and early term for colony) of protestants were set up in Ireland, concentrated in northern counties.

For much of the 19th century, successive British governments attempted to steer bills through parliament to grant Ireland home rule - effectively independence within the Empire, as was granted to Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There was opposition to such a move within parliament and also within the protestant community in Ireland. Eventually a compromise was reached under the Government of Ireland Act of 1920. Six of the nine counties of Ulster, the northernmost province of Ireland, were retained within the UK, while the remainder of Ireland was granted home rule. In 1939, Ireland unilaterally declared full independence while the UK government was a little preoccupied with more pressing issues.

Today, the constitutional situation is as a I outlined above - there is a single nation state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and another nation state entirely called the Republic of Ireland. Within the UK, while there is a parliament in Edinburgh dealing with matters specific to Scotland, and there are assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland dealing with their specific interests, the national parliament is in London.

The legal system in Wales has been unified with that in England for centuries, while in Scotland (and to some extent NI), a separate legal system was retained after the Union. Most major items of legislation cover the whole of the UK, though in some cases separate Acts of Parliament are required in order to comply with the Scottish and Northern Irish legal systems while achieving the same end, and in some cases (for instance, the legislation covering the legal calibres, bullet weights and construction, etc, for killing deer) both the legislation and the effect is different.

Througout the UK, there are police forces covering geographical areas - about 54 of them if my count is correct. Northern Ireland is the only constituent part of the UK to have a single police force covering the entire area. Thus, there is no such construct as "Welsh police" or "English police". There are some specialist police forces covering the whole of the UK, such as the Ministry of Defence Police (who guard MOD establishments) and the British Transport Police, but in general policing is a relatively local matter. London's Metropolitan Police has some extra-territorial responsibility with regard to fighting terrorism, and the City of London Police may well be called on outside the city when dealing with financial crime, but the vast majority of policing decisions will be taken within the force area by the Chief Constable of a particular police force.

Police on regular patrols, "beat coppers" in British English, are not routinely armed except in Northern Ireland. Most forces will have armed-response vehicles on patrol at all times, and police at airports are generally armed.

Administration of civilian firearms licensing is the responsibility of local police forces, which can lead to the law being interpreted in different ways depending where you live. I'm glad to say that by the time I left the UK in 2004, it was becoming more common for police forces, at least in Scotland, to realise that they were being paid by licence-holders to provide a service, and also that licence-holders were not the problem! Whether that is still the case, I don't know.

Anyhoo, I hope that clears things up enough that no one will say "England" when they mean "the UK" anymore!
Scooby Don't is offline  
Old 10th May 2010, 21:51
  #282 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 73
Posts: 2,394
Anyhoo, I hope that clears things up enough that no one will say "England" when they mean "the UK" anymore!
Perhaps I did not express myself clear enough, but I am well aware that England is considered a separate country as well as Scotland, etc.


That is why I posted ...........


Oh hell, the tornado sirens have just gone off....
con-pilot is offline  
Old 11th May 2010, 09:43
  #283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 38
I don't like guns, mainly because I'm English and have never had any experience of them, but I have no issue with Americans being able to possess and carry them - different country, different culture. Now I've got that out of the way, I do have a serious question.

There is much talk from the Americans on this board about how owning guns ensures that they cannot be pushed around by central government. How true is this? If the Federal Government started behaving in a way that you felt was impinging on your freedoms, do you really expect that the population would rise up and go to war with the government? As I stated, this is a serious question and I am looking forward to what should be some enlightening answers.
Nick Riviera is offline  
Old 11th May 2010, 11:03
  #284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 69
There have been side arms close to hand in my house all my life, 9mms and .357s.
Go out to the pub and everyone is carrying, all PPWs in the back of their trousers.

Good one though. Piano tuner out at my folks house which I had agreed to attend because they were away.
Ding ding ding ding Dunk. pause.. Dunk dunk.
Crap.
'Er, let me look at that for you.'
An issue Ruger 357 hidden in the top of the piano.
Oops.
Foss is offline  
Old 11th May 2010, 11:12
  #285 (permalink)  
Dushan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Nick Riviera View Post
How true is this? If the Federal Government started behaving in a way that you felt was impinging on your freedoms, do you really expect that the population would rise up and go to war with the government? As I stated, this is a serious question and I am looking forward to what should be some enlightening answers.
In a word: YES

 
Old 11th May 2010, 12:07
  #286 (permalink)  
I'll mak siccar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Tir nan Og
Posts: 282
I'm English and have never had any experience of them,....
There is much talk from the Americans on this board about how owning guns ensures that they cannot be pushed around by central government. How true is this?
It's true. During the War GIs would comment on how tiny England was, and the Brits thought they were obnoxious. Fact is, they were just stating a reaction. England IS tiny. The US is HUGE, and it brings a huge breadth of vision.

I recall commenting that the manufacturer would not be able to swing a new aircraft out of the hangar because of the mountain at the back. "Son!" said the engineer, "We gonna move thet mountain", and they did.

So with guns. Look at the commotion a few religious fanatics can cause with a carful of fertilizer, and then think of the potential of 300 million armed in a huge country.

When people say they will do something, at least some of them mean it. Read "Mein Kampf". Lots of it makes good sense (benefits of education and exercise, for example) and then you come to the plans for the Poles and such. "Ah!", we think, "He can't really mean that!". Oh Yes, he did.

In my dull lawyerly practice I was in a Cadillac in one of the States. We stopped and some "minorities", shall be say, were cavorting around a bit, one might have said threatingly. Mine host put his hand below his seat and brought out a Luger,which he held out of sight until the lights changed.

Like Riviera, I wondered if he would have used it. Well, he would. I know that because I heard of an incident some months later in which he did. Took out three. I suspect that many of those with guns just talk big, but then ... do you want to make someone's day?
Davaar is offline  
Old 11th May 2010, 12:20
  #287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ashford Kent
Posts: 40
Well, as a 72 year old Englishman (who did National Service and so was gun-trained to a certain extent) but has never had much of an opinion either way about gun control:
The forum is for discussion and, hopefully, a way to help folk make up their mind on the subject under discussion. I have read all the posts in this thread and will just make the observation that although there seems to be more willy-waving by the US pro gun lobby here, and noting that bad folks of all nationalities will have guns whether legal or not (and gun laws have no effect on that whatsoever), I now definitely decide that, if it is ever allowed, I will buy a gun for self/home/family protection. Not much chance of that in my lifetime however given my age.
JWP1938 is offline  
Old 11th May 2010, 12:25
  #288 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,615
If the Federal Government started behaving in a way that you felt was impinging on your freedoms, do you really expect that the population would rise up and go to war with the government?
The simple answer to that is: "Hell Yes!"

The simple explanation is: "Because we have the capability to do so!"

The real Question is "At what point does the Federal Government get so oppressive that the People see the need to take up their arms against the Federal Government?".

There is a growing concern extant in this country that the current Regime is heading in that direction. We shall see an indicator of that come the November elections. Unless we as a People see there is no way to rein in the excesses of government by ordinary means....the ballot box, term limits, adequate enforcement of corruption laws and the like....we shall restrain ourselves to those avenues. Should ever we determine there is but one way to regain control of the government then Yes, you can well expect to see an uprising of the People.

I pray that situation never arises.

You have to remember we see the Government as being subservient to the People in this country and not the other way around. The Progressives tend to see it the other way but they are still in the Minority.

We came into being by doing that against an Oppressive Government all those years ago. We fought a bloody Civil War in the 1860's over State's Rights. Many of the same issues are rearing their heads again regard taxes and state's rights. Add in the shift towards Socialism being pushed by the current Regime and you can begin to see the threat of some concerted action by those opposed to the direction the country is headed in at this time.

It will be at the ballot box in November. Watch for those results and see if the tide turns?
SASless is offline  
Old 11th May 2010, 13:16
  #289 (permalink)  
I'll mak siccar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Tir nan Og
Posts: 282
You have to remember we see the Government as being subservient to the People in this country and not the other way around
Interesting that you use that word "subservient". That is exactly the word that took me out of constituency politics here. The Party gave a weekend training seminar at which one numskull from HQ told us we board members were "totally subservient" to them. That was my cue to get off my mark. Sayonara. Don't call me.

The essence of the US constitution is "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and of the Canadian is "Peace, Order and Good Government", and our national symbol here is a policeman on a horse.

Even so, there was the farmer who owed money to the bank. He was in default and the bank went through the motions to seize his farm, as perfectly entitled to do. Bank passed the good news to Farmer: "We'll be along on the tenth. Have the keys ready!"

Farmer responded: "Meet you at the gate. With my shotgun. First man sets a foot on my land, I blow his f*ck*ng head off".

Br'er Rabbit, he lay low.

Well it turned out that everyone at the Bank from Provincial Vice-President down to Wee Lassie who made the Coffee at the Branch was off on course or vacation or sick-leave, and no one really knew when he/she would be back. Honest. Hard to say.

Naturally people were understanding. After all, no Banker signs on to have his head, f--- or not, blown off. But soft! What of the Horsemen? The shiny boots, the spurs, the cowboy hats? They always get their man!

Not the local lot. For one thing, as there always is with policemen, there was "the budget", then the training program, and the conference out on the Coast, and as always understaffed, and so on.

They never did seize the farm, and Mr Farmer never did go to jail, and all was negotiated to a peaceful end ..... with his weapon of mass destructiion in the background. Was Justice served? All in all I think so. The influence of one little 12 gauge is very great.
Davaar is offline  
Old 11th May 2010, 13:47
  #290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 68
Posts: 195
I'm Scottish and would happily live in a country which permitted gun ownership and CCW. I'd be even happier if that was Scotland.

Dushan: Nice piccy. Yours?
MagnusP is offline  
Old 11th May 2010, 14:17
  #291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
Davaar,

Sorry but I seem to be having some trouble working out how a businessman in default with regard to his financial commitments threatening to murder an innocent bank official is a good thing
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 11th May 2010, 14:33
  #292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 664
There is much talk from the Americans on this board about how owning guns ensures that they cannot be pushed around by central government. How true is this? If the Federal Government started behaving in a way that you felt was impinging on your freedoms, do you really expect that the population would rise up and go to war with the government? As I stated, this is a serious question and I am looking forward to what should be some enlightening answers.
The scenario is a little farfetched, but not entirely so.

And the answer is "yes." Do I mean me with my .45 trying to take out an M-1 flying the Obama red flag? No.

I mean that if the government crosses the intolerable line, which I think it is dangerously close to doing, that I will resist either passively or actively should it come to it. I don't believe I will be alone.

An all out assault on the 2d Amendment (pun intended) will be such an intolerable act (again, pun intended).


I hope it never comes to that and I am hopful (although hope is never a good strategy. That's ironic, eh?) that the elections this November can counterflood the port list in the ship of state.


I am nervous, but cautiously optimistic.

Last edited by brickhistory; 11th May 2010 at 14:52.
brickhistory is offline  
Old 11th May 2010, 15:43
  #293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NW
Posts: 269
Interesting debate...my .02 cts....It might be worth remembering that the original colonists decided to take a long boat ride, followed by years of deprivation in order to find a little religious and personal freedom from a monarchy dead set on giving everyone zero percentage of it......

It's not lost on me that the majority of American people with CCLs, do so because they can, not out of any real tactical need...I have one, but I don't carry...and as was pointed out, when and if where I live because such a place where I feel the need to carry a firearm, I will move...all that said, I have a CCL because the laws, any laws applied these days, seem to be revenue producing, draconian in nature, and generally trumped up, then negotiated down...so if your typical cop finds a gun, somewhere in the car, on the way to the range, he can conclude it was concealed, and even if wrongly so...it's cost's thousands of dollars to debate the topic, with your freedom hanging in the balance...a $50 CCL ends the argument....it's like going to a debate, pushing a button, and the other person shut's up, sit's down, and idle's there moping...

Since freedom seems to be the byword thrown around with everything American, and not being a homogeneous population...individualism is much more the norm then being part of some group, culture or religious entity.

Americans laugh at the idea of people taking so much stock in a soccer game, that violence ensues due to some idiotic sense of territory and obligation toward a sports team. We find silly the genocides perpetrated under the flag of politics, religion, and culture.......and maybe that comes to down to simply not relating to each other as much as other people in the world do..

The violence/crime in the US is high...probably due to our sickening need for capitalist expansion and chasing the almighty buck...no doubt half the criminals in the US are looking for drug money not food or shelter...and that many criminals simply want more stuff.....morality here is dead, no homogeneous culture binds us to a common set of ethics, good or bad...we are on our own...and given the recent stock market/govt/terrorism silliness that is ensuing, it's pretty clear we can count little on our govt/media/law enforcement to show their own citizens anything more then childlike contempt while they play their games, pursuing more made dashes for power and resources...

So having a firearm and carrying a gun...is about survival...the most universally regarded and understood principle that trumps any political/cultural/legal/moral doctrine..

Without a firearm, or the means in which to defend one's self from those that do, your simply hoping and wishing upon the good nature of others to consider your welfare....

And that my friends, we can agree, is not what is is happening these days...we are all, very much on our own...so plan accordingly...
johns7022 is offline  
Old 11th May 2010, 15:51
  #294 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Solid observations, johns.

When it comes down to it, you rely on yourself to handle what life throws at you. The more you put in someone else's hands, the more vulnerable you are.

Brick, ever since the 2000 election I've thought every one was critical. More of the same in 2010 and especially 2012, but this time I think the survival of the Constitution and our way of life are at stake.

At times like this, I'm happy I was born in the best country, at the best time. I'm afraid not for myself, but for our posterity, and retain some guilt that somehow I could have done more to prevent what I fear will happen. We, our generation, have not given as good as we got.
BenThere is offline  
Old 11th May 2010, 16:15
  #295 (permalink)  
I'll mak siccar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Tir nan Og
Posts: 282
Sorry but I seem to be having some trouble
I'm not surprised, Seldom, that you do and I do not au fond disagree with you.

In my post I did with intent tell my story as "even here", since this is a placid country that will accept just about any bullying by da leeberal or "authority". I wrote that the Bank was entitled to follow its process. That was the law. Advice to that effect was met with universal incredulity ["Everybody KNOWS the bank cannot take a farmer's grain"]. I also ventured the thought that Justice was not ill-served in the actual result. That was quite apart from the law. I rather think the mythical "everybody" agreed, local bank officials and police included.

Why do I think the second part? Simple. For years the banks pressed farmers to take out more and more by way of loans at rates above 20%, and then when things went a little -- or even a lot -- sour they pursued the debtors at those rates when revenues and current rates had tumbled far below that. It is not so long since financial institutions owned over half the land in one of our provinces.

As it happens, I thought my farmer (not really mine, but I had a peripheral involvement) did not have a snowball's chance in law and so stated, but inwardly as the lady novelists used to write I thought the bank had little merit in morality. It was then out of my hands. As I say, Br'er Rabbit, he lay low. I was privately delighted to follow the tale. The farmer was a local hero.

Really, though, my intent was to answer a poster who wondered if people really really would take up a gun in response to oppression. Yes, they would.

When will they do it? Aha! Government does not really know how far it can push, so in your country it plays very safe by taking away all the guns. Nothing to do with gun culture. In the US they have to be more careful. That leaves you open to attack by people who have weapons. Government does not care a damn until that fateful day when you try to defend yourself and then it comes down on YOU, because you have exposed its feet of clay.

Last edited by Davaar; 11th May 2010 at 16:25.
Davaar is offline  
Old 11th May 2010, 16:32
  #296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: home of the donkey jacket
Posts: 44
Really, though, my intent was to answer a poster who wondered if people really really would take up a gun in response to oppression. Yes, they would.
there are two sides to this coin of course, are you taking a stand against oppression? or are you trying to overthrow a democratically elected government? the government can claim that in attempting to overthrow it by force of arms you have shown yourselves to be undemocratic and therefore you have provided a good reason for much tighter firearms legislation. tricky question this one and politicians are of course very tricky people.
shedhead is offline  
Old 11th May 2010, 16:48
  #297 (permalink)  
I'll mak siccar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Tir nan Og
Posts: 282
are you taking a stand against oppression? or are you trying to overthrow a democratically elected government?
The second question is implicit in, or may necessarily follow from, the first, and the answer to both is "Yes"

We have here a government democratically elected on the explicit promise that it would impose no new taxes. It was not in office a dogwatch but it imposed new taxes. Seems to do it daily, in fact. Its performance as government is not predicated on the democratic process by which it got the job.

As an earlier poster made explicit, in the US the People, not the government, are sovereign: "We the people"; not "We the government" as the constitutionists tell us is the case here and with you.

Not sure, of course, that that was always so all over the UK, as for example in Scotland where the Kings were Robert Bruce, King of Scots, and Mary Queen of Scots.
Davaar is offline  
Old 11th May 2010, 16:58
  #298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 664
At some point, it becomes the people in the government - in this case, federal law enforcement and/or the military that will have to decide if the government is acting lawfully.

Hard to oppress a population without the forces to do it.
brickhistory is offline  
Old 11th May 2010, 17:00
  #299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: home of the donkey jacket
Posts: 44
As an earlier poster made explicit, in the US the People, not the government, are sovereign: "We the people"; not "We the government" as the constitutionists tell us is the case here and with you.
then you come to the question of how many of the people are needed to say "No, we will not allow you to do this!" in order to make it legitimate. As I say, tricky!
shedhead is offline  
Old 11th May 2010, 17:04
  #300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,209
When you overthrow the government do you get to keep your pilot license?

Pugilistic Animus is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.