I have been asked about the philosophical connection between the Magna Carta Society and the various campaigns to reclaim the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA).
As noted in my earlier posting, the MCS made a strategic decision that the RKBA was only a small component of the problem of the infringement of our common law rights and would not be its main focus.
The reason for this Blog is to spread the word about the MCS's efforts amongst Freemen and Lawful Rebels.
That is because it seems to me that many of them invoke Chapter 61 without considering the courts and barons committee stages. In my opinion they need to know that the MCS took those steps in 2001 and they can use that fact as justification for their individual efforts if they wish.
Having said that, there is a theory that duress alone covers lawful rebellion. Blackstone confirms that duress (committing a minor crime to prevent a more serious one) covers the protection of liberty as well as life and property, at least immediately.
Duress does not however justify offences of treason or murder. For this reason, after a lot of research, I am not convinced that the courts and barons steps can be omitted.
The Casement judgement covers this:
“Natural allegiance is found on the relationship every man standeth in to the Crown considered as the head of that society whereof he is born a member, and on the peculiar privileges he deriveth from that relation which are with great propriety called his birthright; this birthright nothing but his own demerit can deprive him of; it is indefeasible and perpetual, and consequently the duty of allegiance which ariseth out of it and is inseparably connected with it, is in consideration of law likewise unalienable and perpetual”.
(Frost C.L. quoted with approval in R v. Casement (1917)
This is important because it does not allow Crown Servants to claim duress to justify the Home Office policy on the RKBA which is as follows:
“Firearms for personal protection
13.72Applications 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....”.
We have a new Administration. It will be interesting to see if they reconsider this policy.
Regards, John Hurst.
No Title - Thanks for all the kind words. I'd like to shut the blog with this... Come home safe Lads... CSR
10 years ago