5th March 2008, 06:59 AM | #18 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Room 101, Glos. UK
Posts: 4,182
|
freebooter,
the act prohibits the sale, trade, importing, loaning or giving away of the covered weapons, so both the the seller and the buyer are committing an offence. you can keep existing items in your home, (or museum) they can never leave tho, no loaning between museums. (or sending to collecters overseas, sorry) dealers who are afraid they will get arrested due to the vagueness of the law will err on the side of caution and just not sell anything remotely similar. ebay will just ban the sale of anything that might be. reminds me of the breed specific 'dangerous dogs act' that banned american pit bulls and 'pit bull types' - who defines what a 'pit bull type' is? the police, and the courts, lawyers and politicians, who have no idea or training. a chihuahua is genetically the same species as a pit bull, or a timber wolf. they can interbreed, is a chihuahua a pit bull type? it basicly means that any dog is liable. the 'if it looks like a pit bull, it is one' attitude is a bit vague for me. it's not the inanimate piece of steel, or the badly behaved dog, it's the owner and how he uses, or trains, them. the police over here had to enter the home of a suspect, there was a dog in the back yard. to gain entry, they shot the dog. turned out to be the wrong house. no apology, no remorse, it was a dangerous dog. it barked at the invaders. distraught owners have no course of action. police said they did it to protect their men. one of the incidents that lead up to the ban was a man brandishing a cheap stainless steel 'decorator' samurai sword at people from his front steps. the police arrived, and to protect themselves, shot him when he wouldn't put it down. the fact he was legally entitled to have it on his property was not a factor. the police did not apparently have any other means to subdue him, tho why they did not just isolate him & wait till he calmed down & talk to him i do not know. seems they justify it by saying he was on the steps, which were a public walkway so he was fair game. there will likely be an 'amnesty' where people are allowed to bring in their swords to police stations for destruction. they had one for knives recently, and tv showed piles of them, most were kitchen knives, or those odd spikey fantasy knives, but you could spot the odd antique treasure soon to be a puddle of molten iron. more history down the tubes by unthinking barbarians. my first father in law was a royal navy officer, lost his leg in battle with german patrol boats in the channel, he had two german short hunting swords he captured after a boarding, they were the typical bronze sculpted hilts with shell guards, blued blades with gold inlayed figures, complete with scabbards and sword knots. beautiful. he'd promised i could have them after he was gone. meanwhile they passed one of the earlier knife banns, had an amnesty & he turned them in, fearful of being a criminal - i was in the states at the time so by the time i found out it was too late. yet another anecdote of history down the melting pot. the odd bit to me is that japanese swords are effectively and specifically exempt in a law intended to prohibit them, and i do not see any provision for antiques. i have a hand forged & tempered katana made this century which i guess is still legal but only if it was made in japan. it's unmarked, unsigned, does that mean it illegal, i am guilty unless i can prove i am innocent. though it was supposed to be i am innocent inless they prove i am guilty. the early 20th c. dha with the silver inlayed blade is no longer legal, the 19c. one may or may not be. it is a draft, so maybe some sense will prevail, but with less than a month to go before it gets rammed past any opposition, i doubt it. will it do any good? i doubt it. criminals do not obey the law, only honest citizens (who will now soon be criminals). it'll make a good sound byte on tv, and make the sheeple feel more secure in their beds, even as the crime figures continue to rise. yobbos and gang members who might have carried one will just shift to cricket bats (baseball is not played here, so carrying a baseball bat is already considered to be armed with a dangerous weapon). as anyone using an edged weapon in public is already illegal, even for defense, i do not see why the law is needed in the first place, i did not see why they needed to ban guns either, the crooks still have them, and still get them, it's the honest sportsman and home owner who again suffer. they cannot accept the facts that where guns are banned crime, inc. gun crime goes up. where guns are allowed and encouraged, crime goes down. the spate of university shootings on campuses where guns are specifically banned, in states where concealed carry is allowed under permit shows that the ban areas are just a target area for those who want to kill with impunity without risk they themselves may be stopped before they are done. arghh! Last edited by kronckew; 5th March 2008 at 07:16 AM. |
|
|