MPs should have guns to protect themselves?
The mask continues to slippeth ever further
Under current UK law any item that is described as something to be used as a weapon, or in a defensive manor is illegal, and an “offensive weapon”.
1. An offensive weapon per se i.e. one that is made for causing injury to the person
2. those adapted for such a purpose, e.g. a baseball bat with a nail embedded in it
3. items not made or adapted, but merely intended to be used as an offensive weapon even if they have some other legitimate use e.g. car keys held between the knuckles or a cup of bleach which is intended to be thrown in someone’s face
This means that we can end up with wild scenes of police in the UK treating any item as something of serious concern.
This means that anything in the UK that is intended to be used to cause harm to another person is illegal unless otherwise prescribed by law.
Guns that are held by the public are not otherwise prescribed by law and can only be held under certain terms. Those terms are laid out in the licensing guidelines. Typically these are, being part of a gun club, vermin control, target practise.
The simple call to use firearms as a means to protect ones self in the UK would signal an intent to use the firearm for defensive purposes and render it illegal, and possibly even premeditated.
Will the Tory party be reporting this Senior Minister to the police for a checkup on any licenses they may currently hold?
In the non statutory guidance from the Home Office on the issuing of Fire Arms and “Good reasons” (Chapter 13), there is a subsection (13.80) that prohibits the use of Firearms for any kind of personal protection:
Firearms for personal protection
13.80 Applications for the grant of a firearm certificate for the applicant’s, or another’s, protection, or that of premises, should be refused on the grounds that firearms are not an acceptable means of protection in Great Britain. It has been the view of successive Governments for many years that the private possession and carriage of firearms for personal protection is likely to lead to an increase in levels of violence. This principle should be maintained in the case of applications from representatives of banks and firms protecting valuables or large quantities of money, or from private security guards and bodyguards. The exception to this would be armed guards on UK flagged ships, the justification being the unique threat posed by piracy to cargo and passenger ships in specific high risk geographical areas.
Unless this current Government has suddenly had a change of heart from it’s position that is quoted in the previous passage “It has been the view of successive Governments for many years”, one might hazard a guess that things are different when it’s their necks on the line.
Funny that.
