The British Bill of Rights of 1689 restored the 'ancient right' to bear arms to Protestants that had been removed from them by the Catholic monarch, James II. The bill made that right "suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law". It would perhaps in modern times be difficult to determine what kind of arms was suitable to any particular person’s ‘condition or degree’. I do not believe the question in practice arises since the common law right to bear arms (of any sort – even knife blades over three inches in length may not be carried in public now without reasonable cause) has always been subject to restriction by statute law, which has accumulated considerably. There were several acts in the 19th century that limited it, mainly aimed at, but not solely applicable to, Highlanders, vagrants and poachers: it must have been thought that their ‘condition or degree’ was not entirely self-evident in this matter. More widely applicable restrictive legislation was passed in 1903, 1920 and 1937. Those acts did not have criminals solely in mind. The 1968 act was a general codifying act that introduced further restrictions. Further legislation was introduced after horrific shooting incidents here, at Hungerford in 1988 and Dunblane in 1997. The result was to make this country one of the most restrictive of the right to bear firearms of any in the world and there was more legislation in 2006.
So strict is the legislation that the government had to allow special dispensation for the sports shooting events of the 2002 Commonwealth Games and the 2012 Olympic Games. It is actually illegal for sports pistol shooters to train in the UK.
All this must sound strange to many transatlantic ears, but there is remarkably little pressure here even from shooters and their organisations for significant relaxation of the law, and general public opinion apparently favours even greater control. The general US refusal to countenance legal restrictions on firearms is a topic of some fascination, and incomprehension, on this side of the Atlantic, even though we here have, in principle, a similar 'constitutional' right to 'bear arms' of our own.
Fully and semi-automatic weapons (often the focus of debate in other countries) are completely banned in the UK. No firearm can be bought or owned without being specifically licensed on a firearms certificate, for which the police must be satisfied in each case that the owner has good reason to possess that particular firearm and that he or she will not create a public danger. Shotguns are less strictly controlled and are quite commonly founf ein rrual communities but they must be capable of holding no more than three cartridges. Self defence is no longer regarded as a possible good reason for owning a firearm. Virtually no-one would dream of arguing that an individual's need to protect themselves from an over-mighty state could be regarded as good reason - either in general or, certainly, in particular. Ironically it could, I think, be argued that, although the meaning of the second amendment is disputed in the US, historically the British right to bear arms is theoretically more of a right counterbalancing state power, but that is certainly not an active issue in the UK.
The use and possession of firearms by criminals nevertheless remains a public concern, but, whether or not it is because of this legal framework, the UK has one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the world: in relation to population it is almost 43 times less than in the USA and 3 times less than in Germany. Most police are also unarmed and shooting fatalities of the police are also extremely rare: there were 3 in the ten years from 2000/01. However, armed police are becoming a more common sight, especially in locations thought to be vulnerable to terrorism - to the distress of some sections of society. So far surveys of rank and file police officers have found a majority opinion opposed to their routine arming with guns.
There have been a few cases of police shooting people either unnecessarily or entirely mistakenly, and they have attracted considerable public concern. One such case where the police appear to have been over-zealous or precipitate in shooting a criminal suspect has been the subject of inquiry that concluded in the past few days that the man was killed unlawfully. Such a case is not unprecedented but prosecutions, or even disciplinary sanctions, of indiividual officers seldom, if ever ensue. Such incidents, as wen a few years ago an innocent man was shot and killed by police as he left a public house because they assumed the wrapped-up table leg he was carrying was a firearm, provoke significant public concern, possibly fuelled by an apprehension that UK policing may be headed in an unwelcome 'American' direction.
