“It was all Mrs. Bumble. She would do it," urged Mr. Bumble; first looking round, to ascertain that his partner had left the room.
 |
| Mr. Bumble |
That is no excuse," returned Mr. Brownlow. "You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and, indeed, are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction."
If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass — a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.”
- Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist
The law in any civilised country is open to the interpretation of a competent barrister, who may, in the defence or prosecution of a case in a court of law, direct a jury to believe that the legislators meant one thing on drafting a statute, when the complete opposite is the case. There have been criminal proceedings in recent times (one in the USA springs to mind) where the evidence pointed to an obvious outcome only for the jury to be persuaded to arrive at a very different conclusion. Thankfully, many. but not all, miscarriages of justice are corrected at the appeal hearing, whereby an objective eye is cast over the merits of the case, and Law Lords (in the UK) pass sentence by defining what the law actually intended for society. However, occasionally, ancient laws, ones drafted in reaction to necessary changes in society at that time, are found to be irrelevant for contemporary civilisation.
In the UK, until 1960, when the Gambling Act - 1960 came into force, the law requiring all men under the age of 60 to have long bows and arrows with which to practice archery was still on the statute books. This antiquated law was enacted under the auspices of The Unlawful Games Act - 1541:
CAP. IX. An Act for the Maintenance of Artillery, and debarring unlawful Games. "RECITAL of Stats. 3 H.8.c.3. & 6 H.8.c.2. Several new devised Games the "Cause of the Decay of Archery. - All Men under the Age of sixty Years "shall have Bows and Arrows for shooting. Men-Children between Seven "Years and Seventeen shall have a Bow and 2 Shafts. Men about Seventeen "Years of Age shall keep a Bow and 4 Arrows - Penalty 6s.8d." (Extract)
 |
| English Bowman |
From the above, the law required every Englishman between the ages of 17 and 60 (with various exemptions) to keep a longbow and regularly practice archery. Clearly, this was a necessity in the England of the later Middle Ages when there was no standing army with which to defend the realm and the king relied on the local noblemen to raise militia in times of war.
So, in an ever-changing, dynamic society, laws need revisiting to ascertain whether they are still fit for purpose. This being true of the UK, it should be so for any of today's civilised world which has adopted the English style rule of law with which to govern that particular country. The English Bill of Rights - 1689 has within its provisions the right for Englishmen to bear arms:
"no royal interference in the freedom of the people to bear arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law"
This was a basic right designed to allow all Protestant Englishmen the ability to defend themselves from
 |
| Child with a Gun!? |
The United States of America adopted the concept of the English Bill of Rights when amending The Constitution in the late eighteenth century. Ratified on 15th December 1791, the United States Bill of Rights included The Second Amendment to The Constitution which seems like it was taken straight from the English version with a variation on the wording:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
In my previous post America's Obsession with the Gun, I argued the case that the draftees of The Second Amendment did so from the direct experience of the War of American Independence when there was no standing United States Army. In order to maintain a force capable of deterring a foreign power from interfering in the fledgling country's affairs, it was important that every able-bodied man in the new United States of America could help defend the country. Over 200 years later, this idea is an anachronism with the United States having the privilege of being the world's remaining superpower. Therefore, the need for "the People" to keep and bear arms is irrelevant.
The tragic incident on 27th August 2014 at the Last Stop shooting range in White Hills Arizona, when an
instructor was accidentally shot by a student, was alarming news when it was revealed that the student was a nine year old girl. What was equally alarming was the fact that she was learning to shoot an Uzi submachine gun, a close quarters weapon designed by the Israelis to help their soldiers eliminate their enemies when fighting in confined spaces. This incident beggars several questions from an incredulous Briton:
 |
| UZI Submachine Gun |
- At what point did her parents think that this was a good idea?
- At what point did the shooting range staff think this was a good idea?
- Why didn't the shooting range staff question the logic of allowing a minor to shoot an automatic weapon which members of the armed forces would have to spend some time familiarising themselves with before being allowed to fire it on a controlled range?
With the number of people killed by gunshot wounds (intentional and accidental) running at a rate of 10.30 per 100,000 population in 2011 in the USA, isn't it time for the country's legislators to revisit The Bill of Rights to determine whether it is still fit for purpose? With no need for a "well regulated Militia" in the United States of America, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" is no longer a need. To quote Mr. Bumble, has not the USA "had his eye opened by experience"?
The Second Amendment is no longer relevant. The Second Amendment is an anachronism. The Second Amendment is an Ass!
