read the English Bill of Rights of 1689, section 7. We also have a limited right to keep arms.
I have it in my old university text, Sources of English Constitutional History, Vol 2 Revised Edition, Harper & Row, Publishers, London, Carl Stephenson and Frederick George Marcham, Editors, 1972, pages 599-605 @ 600 and 601, where it says, inter alia,
WILLIAM III STATUTES, Bill of Rights (1689) (P. 600) Whereas the late King James II, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to divert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom by assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of parliament … by causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law … (p.601) that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law ….
So the first thing you had better figure out is whether you're a Dogan, because if you are it appears the Act doesn't apply to you. Protestants only, Laddie. My copy has no sections only text, but that is no never mind. Its been kicking around with me since 1978 and is an English Constitutional History study text, not a book of statutes. Under our law, history books older than 25 years are admissible in proceedings, and a judge can take judicial notice of the law. There is a federal law which states that any statute in effect before July 1, 1867, remains the law of Canada until displaced by Canadian law, so whether this Bill of Rights is applicable depends on whether such has occurred.
Exactly. And they are neither granted, nor can they be removed by courts or gov'ts.......
Of course they can. Have you never heard of the sovereignty of Parliament? A couple of years ago there was a case at the SCC (Supreme Court of Canada) in which one of the justices stated that although they did not want to hear any "right to bear arms" arguments then because that was not the issue (it was a gun case), they would welcome such a case coming forward. None has that I've heard of.
Unfortunately, I am dealing with a moron.
You sound drunk. And some of the people here accused me of rudeness? Like I wrote earlier their issue is pure small "p" pecking order politics. And Yankee Doodlers.
Bed time for me, Herring Choker. I hope you’re hung over tomorrow.