Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 and Gun laws. May 27th 2009
Many people still remember the Dunblane massacre when sixteen children were killed by Thomas Watt Hamilton before he killed himself. (13th March 1996) Before that though was what became known as the Hungerford massacre on August 19th 1987 where Michael Ryan shot and killed sixteen people including his mother. Others were wounded before he finally shot himself.
This led to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 which banned the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricted use of shot-guns with certain specifications. The report that followed, The Hungerford Report, revealed that Ryan’s collection of weapons was legally licensed.
After Dunblane came a great outcry from the people to ban certain Guns and the Conservative Government at that time introduced a ban on all cartridge ammunition handguns with certain exceptions. After the 1997 elections the Labour Government under Tony Blair introduced yet another Firearms (Amendment) (No 2) Act 1997 banning the remaining .22 cartridge handguns in England, Scotland and Wales, though leaving only muzzle-loading and historic handguns legal as well as certain sporting hand guns. I remember people were given a certain time to hand in their guns. Probably all but the criminals handed in their guns as required by that law.
This handing in of certain guns was of course contrary to parts of our Common Law Constitution, (Bill of Rights) which brings me to the fight put up by one Michael James Burke. He brought forward many very important points regarding our Constitution and he most certainly played his part in trying to uphold our laws. The report is well worth reading fully, especially those that have been denied the teaching of our laws and our own Common Law Constitution in schools, colleges and University.
All I will say at this particular point is that our Constitution is one of the best and most important, for had our Politicians followed it as they should have done, we not only would not have entered the European Community, neither they, not the people and Country would not be in the mess we are in at present. Not one Politician can alter one dot or comma of the European Union Treaties, and if they should ignore or deviate from any part of the Treaties, EU Directives, Regulations or Laws they would be fined extortionate amounts. As it is we are on the point of ruination and we simply cannot afford to keep on paying out the Contributions and neither can we afford to pay the extra on almost everything we buy.
One memorable point was made and recorded in Hansard (21st July 1993) regarding Pepper v Hart. When the Speaker said “This case has exposed our proceedings to possible questioning in a way that was previously thought to be impossible. There has of course been no amendment of the Bill of Rights…I am sure that the House is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be required to be fully respected by all those appearing before the Courts”. It is most strange indeed for a Government to remove the rights of those that it is supposed to protect. These are rights that are written down for all the people, which may be built upon, yet should not be removed. Yet here we have governments purporting to remove the people’s RIGHTS.
The Magna Carta and Bill of Rights are not acts of Parliament, they were not debated and passed in both Houses and given Royal Assent. There was no Monarch at that time. These are the people’s Common Law Rights. However, I hope I have shown that although the people’s Rights remain, they were ignored by recent Governments that chose to put the European Community/Union before their own Constitution and before their solemn Oaths of Allegiance they make before they can take up Office, to their Sovereign Queen (Crown).
I hope to highlight the predicament that now presents itself as we go further and deeper into integration in the European Union. To highlight the Court’s decision in Mike Burke’s Case which I feel is now more questionable and controversial than it was at the time. Unless perhaps, I am now told that the people have no rights at all.
Sadly, there are so many things British Governments have agreed to that are contrary to our British Constitution. This has had to be done by them to ratify European Union Treaties because the United Kingdom is so very different to continental states. This is why we fought so hard in two world wars. This is why government are some-what foolish if they think that being in the EU will prevent wars. It will not, it will make more wars, more killing, more death and destruction.
Mike Burke put up a great fight, for all of us really. Was the Court Judgment sound? Backing up our Constitution? Was the government of the day right to ignore our Constitution? Was Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights for all time. I have read time and time again that there are only four clause left in Magna Carta, and I will say to those that say that, I have over a hundred quotes from those in Parliament that have quoted from Magna Carta, clauses that are allegedly no longer applicable, to win certain arguments. I do not think one can “win” an argument with a clause that no longer exists.
When the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill (HL): 'Hot Surveillance' was going through the House of Lords around 2003, it had a very rough ride, especially when the debate touched upon whether Foreign Nationals could carry their service weapons here in the UK. I read and followed much of the debates on this issue at the time
Article 40 of the Schengen Convention allows police and customs officers of EU member states to continue surveillance of a person suspected of a serious crime into another member state (for up to five hours). On the continent, where it is possible to stand with one foot in one country and the other foot in another Country, matters might be more relaxed and easier to operate with the joining Country and 'national' officers may even be waiting at the border to assist. Here in the UK, the only such joined up border is between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, so there was much discussion as to what happened when in “Hot Pursuit” as they crossed the channel. The dividing line seems to be about halfway across the English Channel Waters. Schengen also states that “Officers carrying out surveillance may carry their service weapons during surveillance save where specifically otherwise decided by the requesting Party; their use shall be prohibited save in cases of legitimate self-defence”. If our territorial waters (seas and oceans) are transferred to the EU for their “Motorway in the Seas and Oceans”, it may become ALL EU Territory. Would or could any British national allow that to happen. Not under our constitution or background and certainly not while under Oath to the British Crown.
Of concern also is the expression being used by the EU in the forthcoming ‘Consultation’ on the Common Fishing Policy in EU waters. Have we transferred our territorial Seas and Oceans to the EU? If so when, and how, without a referendum on this very Constitutional move, or without a say so from Government?. I suggest that anyone responding to this Consultation document should correct the expression “EU waters”, to “national states territorial waters”. Most certainly quiz politicians about this. Is “Rule Britannia, Britannia Rules the Waves” no longer our song?
The Government wanted very much to take part in this section of Schengen Art 40 (30(d) but Barbara Roache (then a Home Office Minister) explained that Foreign Officers would not be permitted to carry firearms here in the UK for UK Law does not permit the carriage of firearms unless specifically and individually authorised by the Chief Officer of Police. I followed the debate fully at that time because of our Constitution regarding the sensitive issue of GUNs, Dunblane and the handing in of guns, the Bill of Rights and mindful also of the Bill of Rights case by Michael James Burke.
One could imagine the outcome if the people were deprived of having guns for their defence, (Bill of Rights) and now allowing foreigners fully armed wondering about the streets of our sovereign Country. The Government though were fully intent of being part of Article 40. 3 (d) and was trying very hard to find ways to take forward co-operation in this area consistent with UK law. The only fixed link (The Channel Tunnel) was deemed to be “Sue Generis”; neither land nor sea border and thus, as above, halfway across the English Channel Waters. In spite of all the concerns, debated fully, there was no mention in the Bill of any firearms restriction.
Although this Country is not in Eurogenfor, if we look at Article 5 of the Treaty of Velsen; “Eurogendfor (EGF) may be placed at the disposal of the European Union (EU) and also of the United Nations (UN), the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and other international organisations or an ad hoc coalition”. So basically Eurogendfor may be put into use anywhere that may be deemed a crisis situation by the EU, perhaps a country that objects to EU Treaties or Legislation, especially if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, or perhaps NOT ratified?
Article 16 (2) Eurogendfor Personal may possess, carry and transport arms, ammunitions, other weapon systems and explosives on the conditions that they are authorised to do so by their orders and that they do so in accordance with the laws of the Host State (HOST means the Party on whose territory the permanent HQ is located) and the Receiving State (The Party on whose territory EGF Forces are stationed or in transit).
Eurogendfor has many Privileges and Immunities, (Art 19). Individual Privileges (Art 20) and they also have Inviolability of the premises, buildings and archives (Article 21). In other words, Eurogendfor can basically do what it wants. Don't you wish all of us had the right to do what we want? If they come crashing into your house in the dead of night, we might all wish our premises too were inviolable. (For now, they cannot do this in the UK) I believe even the innocent have much to fear, perhaps more so than the Criminal because criminals know the risks they are taking when they set out to break the law. My thoughts turn to my memories of how I watched newsreels of the Gestapo in action during World War two. Some tried to have us believe they were just propaganda films. Now? Who would have thought this kind of thing could happen in peacetime?
I now come to something even more disturbing. As if we do not have enough foreigners wandering around fully armed while the indigenous people of this Country are not allowed to carry guns, we also have, The European Union Military Staff (Immunities and Privileges) order 2008. This is a new Agreement signed Feb 2009 although it was brought forth in 2003. Here is a little from that document.
2.3 The European Union Military Staff (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2008
confers privileges and immunities on the European Union and its military staff
and provides that the official archives of the EU Military Staff and the EU are
inviolable.
4.3 These three Orders collectively give effect to certain provisions of three status of forces agreements (SOFAs) to which the United Kingdom is a party. They are the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Status of Forces Agreement (NATO SOFA), the NATO Partnership for Peace Status of Forces Agreement (PfP SOFA) and the European Union Status of Forces Agreement (EU SOFA).
4.5 The NATO SOFA effectively has primacy. The PfP SOFA extends the NATO SOFA to all the States which have accepted the invitation to participate in the partnership for Peace. The EU SOFA only comes into force once it has been approved by all the EU Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements and only applies in so far as the status of their forces are not regulated by the NATO or PfP SOFA. Once these orders have been made, Her Majesty’s Government will notify the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union under Article 19(2) that it has completed its constitutional procedures for the approval of the EU SOFA.
4.10 The EU SOFA and Council Decision of 22 January 2001 on the establishment of the Military Staff of the EU oblige the United Kingdom to confer privileges and immunities on military and civilian staff seconded to EU institutions. The European Union Military Staff (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2008 gives effect to the EU SOFA by providing for immunity from legal process for civilian and military staff and inviolability for the archives and documents of headquarters.
7.3 EU Member States, under the banner of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Security and Defence Policy, and subject to the consent of partaking nations, can deploy their armed forces in the territory of other EU Member States in support of the command of EU Operations or training exercises.
In order to facilitate this, on 17 November 2003, the EU Member States signed up to the EU SOFA to establish the status of military and civilian staff seconded to the Military Staff of the EU, of the headquarters and forces which may be made available to the EU in the context of the preparation and execution of the tasks referred to in Article 17(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including exercises, and of the military and civilian staff of the Member States put at the disposal of the EU to act in this context.
7.4 Giving effect to the provisions of the three SOFAs is unlikely to be controversial. Little public or media interest is envisaged.
Reading about CO19 shooting to kill, and I am thinking here of Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian Gentleman shot seven times in the head on Friday, July 22, 2005. He never stood a chance. No one ever took responsibility or stood trial for the shooting of this innocent man. WHY? Do they have immunity? Were they all British nationals? This question has not, or so I believe, been answered. It should be answered. The people should know.
Headlines in the Daily Mail 18.12.2004 “Palace Dismay as British FBI fails to swear its Allegiance”. Will SOCA and SO19 eventually come under Europol, or Eurogendfor? If these two former organisations are to remain under UK authority there really is no reason why they should not swear allegiance to the Crown and this Country. The other reason why they have not as yet sworn allegiance to the Crown is too horrible to contemplate. Perhaps through that paragraph one can see the real danger to this Country by 'no discrimination on the grounds of Nationality”.
When so many foreigners have immunity and access to this Country to be fully armed, is it “RIGHT” that the people of this country are denied their right to carry guns when their own common laws constitution makes clear they have that right?
There is no doubt what so ever that our Government cannot change any part of an EU Treaty, so why are they able to alter and even ignore the Constitution of this, their own Country? It has survived for 600 years, it is the best Constitution on the world, copied by other Countries. Judges all, in looking to the EU Treaties ratified by Government also have a bound duty to their Crown and their own Country and at times must be put in a pretty impossible position, but at all times, they must look to this Country’s wonderful Constitution so envied by so many Countries, they copied it.
It is time to make sure that all obey our own Constitution. No new written constitution, including a new Bill of Rights can be entrenched or dislodge Magna Carta and the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/1689. The Government's own Research Paper (96/82 dated 18th July 1996-available direct from Parliament, page 36) makes that clear. A snippet here for you
"Again, the theory of sovereignty means that no Parliament can bind its successors, and this inability of Parliament to prevent any law from being later altered or repealed by a Parliament means that, in principle, no scheme of constitutional change-Bill of Rights, devolution, even, perhaps a written constitution itself* - can be entrenched - made secure against any or easy amendment or repeal-in the legal order. The recent schemes by proponents of
Scottish devolution and some form of a Bill of Rights demonstrate how difficult (perhaps impossible) it is to reconcile formal, legal entrenchment (as opposed to 'political-moral' entrenchment) with conventional sovereignty".
Parliament did not make these laws of which I write even though Parliament believes it can do anything it likes. Parliament can undo anything it does but what it may not do is to repeal our long standing Magna Carta nor the Declaration of Rights/Bill of Rights because Parliament had no hand in either.
The idea though is to provide the people with a new written Constitution, a new Bill of Rights and then offer them to the people in a referendum (Ah yes, the people will be ‘given’ a referendum on that). If they accept the “new” they will be seen to “reject the old” which contains the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. Perhaps a new Oath will be forthcoming to the State and then, when all is over-ridden by the EU, the new “State” will be the European Union and allegiance will be transferred to IT.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ap
Explanation Memorandum to the Visiting Forces and international Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) order 2008.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/draft/em/ukdsiem_9780110847276_en.pdf
Posts
