I decided to read the English Bill of Rights (1689) which was one of the inputs to the American Bill of Rights. It is still valid and applies to many Commonwealth such as Australia.
I was surprised by this clause
"That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law"
Similar to US right to bear arms but can be constrained by laws.
However it is saying only Protestants may have arms. Earlier in the document it complains the former King James II - who ran like girl from the Glorious Revolution - had armed papists i. e Roman Catholics.
So Roman Catholics shouldn't hold a gun licence and own a gun in the UK and Commonwealth countries.
Can we therefore take guns off Roman Catholics?
Girl's Behavior
Guy's Behavior
Flirting
Dating
Relationships
Fashion & Beauty
Health & Fitness
Marriage & Weddings
Shopping & Gifts
Technology & Internet
Break Up & Divorce
Education & Career
Entertainment & Arts
Family & Friends
Food & Beverage
Hobbies & Leisure
Other
Religion & Spirituality
Society & Politics
Sports
Travel
Trending & News
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
2Opinion
Unlike America, UK laws aren't tied to an outdated constitution. They can be modified to reflect modern needs. To get a gun license in the UK you've only got to show a valid reason for wanting to own a gun and be of good character. Things like religious beliefs don't come into it.
never said "only" it specified in contrast to irish situation.
That's true. But in the list of charges against James II earlier in the Bill of Rights it charges him with arming papists and disarming good protestants.
It has to be read in the context of the English Civil War which was a fight against a Papist Absolute Stuart monarchy and a fight for no taxation without representation. (Ironic that didn't extend to the colonies less than a 100 years later :) ).
With the Stuarts still kicking around, the papist French only agreed to stop sponsoring invasions of England much later. Remember too that Bonnie Prince Charlie did invade in 1748, so there was good reason to keep arms out of the hands of those who might rise up to support the Stuarts.
So there were very good reasons for it to specify Protestant Subjects in an exclusive sense.
Probably amended since then. In the UK you can generally only own shotguns & .22 rifles & you are not allowed to use them for personal or home defence
I took it from parliament's website so it should be current and possibly the whole Commonwealth has to agree before changing it:). I think Australia only adopted it so it is Westminster legislation that covers us too. I have to dig a bit more on that.
Possibly not enforced. The whole legal system of the UK. Australia, New Zealand and Canada exists to prop up the British monarchy.
The legal system has to prop up the British Monarch because without royal assent there are no laws. I, in fact, want Australia to codify the constitutional roles to the chief Justice of our High court, so we don't end up with an El Presidento. No prob with keeping the Monarch as Head of Bling.
Anyway, the protestant subject's rights to keep arms in their defence is still extant so you guys have the constitutional right to gun down home invaders just like Americans do. The Yanks basically pinched that right off you and the Brits were the first with that fundamental human right.
Nope. You shot a home intruder they send you to jail. You can't even use a weapon like a hammer or bat because it's premeditated if you've been keeping it beside your bed for home defence.