Just curious about the common law position on "gun rights"

 So, I did another AI search. And even though I am against AI, I thought I would see what sort of response I received to the following query: "What is the British common law position on gun rights". Here are the results.

AI Overview

In British common law, there is no enshrined right to bear arms; rather, gun ownership is considered a strictly regulated privilege. The state controls access to firearms to protect public safety, requiring individuals to obtain licenses and demonstrate "good reason" for possession, such as sport, hunting, or occupational use. 

Key details:
No Right to Bear Arms: Unlike the U.S. Second Amendment, the UK has no legal right to bear arms.
Licensing and Control: The Firearms Act 1968 and subsequent acts strictly regulate, and often prohibit, the possession of firearms.
Requirements: A valid license is required from the local police, which involves a vetting process to ensure the applicant is fit and has a "good reason" for ownership.
Restrictions: Handguns have been generally illegal since 1997.
Self-Defense: Firearms are not considered a legal means of self-defense. 
The law focuses on public safety, making gun ownership highly conditional. 

what is the british common law position on gun rights

In British common law, gun ownership is currently viewed as a privilege, not a right. While a historic right to bear arms was once recognized, it has been effectively superseded by a series of parliamentary statutes, particularly since 1920. 

Historical Common Law Context
Historically, the common law position was rooted in both an obligation and a right for citizens to be armed: 
Mandatory Armament: Dating back to the 12th century (e.g., the Assize of Arms 1181), free Englishmen were required by law to maintain weapons suitable to their rank for the defense of the realm and local order.
English Bill of Rights (1689): This document codified the right of subjects who were Protestants to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". This was largely a response to attempts by King James II to disarm his opponents.
Blackstone’s Commentaries: In the 18th century, jurist William Blackstone described the right to have arms as a "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" and a "public allowance" to prevent the suppression of other liberties. 

Shift from Right to Privilege
The transition from a common law right to the modern regulated system occurred through several key legislative milestones: 
Firearms Act 1920: This marked the definitive end of the "right" to bear arms by introducing a mandatory licensing system where applicants had to prove a "good reason" to own a firearm.
Removal of Self-Defense: While self-defense was initially considered a valid reason for ownership, the Home Office ceased recognizing it as such in 1937 (Great Britain only).
Modern Prohibitions: Following mass shootings in Hungerford (1987) and Dunblane (1996), Parliament banned most semi-automatic rifles and nearly all handguns. 

Current Legal Status
Today, the "common law" has been almost entirely displaced by the Firearms Act 1968 and subsequent amendments: 
Licensing: All firearms must be licensed by the local police, who must be satisfied the applicant is not a danger to public safety and has a "good reason" (e.g., sport, hunting, or work).
Northern Ireland Exception: Northern Ireland remains the only part of the UK where "personal protection" may still be accepted as a legitimate reason for a firearm certificate under specific, verifiable risks. 
Would you like to explore the specific licensing requirements or the list of prohibited weapons under current UK law?

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more

My addition is this quote from Blackstone on the subject:

5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

And this is a link to a Parliamentary paper: 

FIREARM CONTROLS IN BRITAIN PART I THE HISTORY OF FIREARMS CONTROLS IN GREAT BRITAIN

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm
 

What The F*** Is Wrong With USS Gerald R. Ford?

 OK, this is something which is definitely verifiable.

 Trump's fiasco is harming the United States: and that's not Trump Derangement Syndrome. 

We know he's in a panic because his war has spun out of his control. 

The West isn't getting the truth about Operation Epic Failure

Sure, the BBC had a reputation of being trustworthy, but that is now long dead. I stopped watching post-Brexit and notice a pro-Western bias when I do pay attention to them.

Definitely, there is a bias in the western media to promote the war by failing to talk about it openly.

There is a question about US naval resources in the region. Iran claims that both the USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald Ford are out of commission. There are rumours another carrier is being sent to the region.

And there is the rumoured 5,000 marines being deployed.

There was enough time to have stopped this since it's hard to hide sending a carrier group to a region, which would have been enough time for a war powers resolution to have been raised. But, no, that didn't happen.

This is a disaster for the United States.

It should never have elected a business person who has gone bankrupt 6 times if it wants the fantasy of running the nation like a business. His track record should have shown he would be a disaster for the country. 

 I'm not sure about the accuracy of the following video, but it makes a very serious allegation about the war effort if it is true.

 

The US Constitution give only Congress the power to declare war. This should only be the prerogative of the legislature, and not in the hands of the executive.

There is only one rogue state in the Middle East that destabilises the region and has nuclear weapons: Israel

Iran is a signatory of a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is responsible for monitoring compliance. Iran has faced scrutiny for its nuclear activities, with recent agreements for inspections being complicated by its restrictions on IAEA access to its facilities.

On the other hand, Israel is not a party to the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty. It is not subject of IAEA scrutiny. It is also supposed to actually have nuclear weapons.

What's wrong with this picture? 

 The US has just gone on another unjustified war for Israel: this needs to end.

The Glenn Amendment refers to an amendment to the Arms Export Control Act (Section 102). Under the Glenn Amendment, if the President determines that a non-nuclear weapon state [as defined by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)] detonates a nuclear explosive device, certain sanctions apply. The sanctions impose broad-ranging restrictions on various types of assistance, loans, and trade. The DOD Appropriations Act of 2000, signed into law on October 25, 1999, provides authority for the President to waive Glenn Amendment sanctions. 

This policy needs to end. 

Israel needs to be held to the same standard as Iran. 

War Made Easy - How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death

This is Richard Karl Breuer's teaser for the excellent documentary "War Made Easy"by the Media Education Foundation. It features a quote from Oregon Senator Wayne Morse from 1964 that:

The foreign policy belongs to the American people, not the President, who is the administrator of the will of the people. Therefore, the President shouldn't be allowed to wage war without the consent of the people.

 This is why the constitution needs to be amended to make it clear that the president is there to make sure that government runs according to the law made by the people. Or at least the people who are supposed to be representing the people: the legislature.

And only the legislature can declare war.

This current disaster was entered into without any cause or objective. 

It is a prime example of when the War Powers Resolution should be invoked.

This person gets it: why couldn't the US Legislature?