End of sword collecting in the UK

[A. G. Maisey]

Those of you who live in countries that did not start life as a penal colony, might like to consider this:-

AUSTRALIA IS THE ONLY COMMON LAW COUNTRY WITHOUT A BILL OF RIGHTS.

That's right, Australia has no Bill of Rights.

The result of this is that in Australia citizens really cannot claim to have the right to anything, but they have been given numerous "privileges" by their elected governments.

Thus, in Australia we may possess certain specified firearms, under extremely stringent conditions, but that possession is a privilege, it is not a right.

Similarly, possession of various other objects is subject to "privilege", not to any inherent right.

These "privileges" do not stop just with ownership of certain things, they extend to actions in which citizens may wish to engage.

In respect of the possibility of the existence of legal avenues which could give some protection to the continued existence of a sword, but not necessarily ensure its ownership by any particular person, it might not be a bad idea to have a look at United Nations Agreements dealing with the preservation of important cultural heritage. I've forgotten the details, but I used an argument that included this, in a fight against some proposed NSW legislation of perhaps 15 or 16 years ago.
I suspect that a strong case could be mounted on the foundation of United Nations Agreements, that could argue against the destruction of many items of historic weaponry.

[Mark]

A quote I love (I can't remember where I read it, but I think it was on Antonio's Bladesign Forum):

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the results."

[Jens Nordlunde]

This subjects has been discussed before, and will no doubt come up for discussion again when other countries 'turn the screw'. Here is a link to an earlier discussion http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...Armour+Society
Collectors have to be registered by the police as collectors, and if they buy a sword or a knife fromt an antic dealer or an auction house they have to show their collectors certificate, or they will not get the item.
The rules in Denmark are, at the moment so, that in some towns you are not allowed to wear a normal pocketknife during the night, and the police can search you without any warning - so be warned, if you want to see the nightlife in some of the bigger Danish towns.

[VANDOO]

LAWMAKERS OFTEN LOOK AT THE LAW THEY ARE MAKEING IN ONE WAY ,FOR INSTANCE IF ONE MADMAN GOES ON A RAMPAGE WITH A SWORD THEY TRY TO COME UP WITH A LAW THAT MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED THAT ONE OCCURANCE. THEY NEVER TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT IT WOULD NOT HAVE STOPPED THE MADMAN IF THE LAW WAS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS OR THAT THE CRIME HAD ONLY HAPPENED ONCE IN THE LAST 100 YEARS.
WITH GUN/ SWORD/ KNIFE/ ECT. CONTROL THERE ARE USUALLY GROUPS WHO WANT MORE POWER OVER THE PEOPLE AND USE LAWMAKERS AND PEOPLE WHO ARE UNREALISTIC TO PARADE ON CAMERA FOR THE MEDIA THAT THEY CONTROL. THESE LAWS ARE ALWAYS MADE BY THE FEW FOR CONTROL AND POWER OVER THE MAJORITY.

SO THE LAWMAKERS PASS A LAW THAT IS VAGUE AND OPEN TO MANY WAYS OF INTREPTATION, PAT EACH OTHER ON THE BACK AND FORGET ABOUT IT. PERHAPS THEY WERE REASONABLE PEOPLE AND DID NOT INTEND TO ENFORCE THEIR NEW LAW ON EVERYONE , GOOD LAW ABIDING CITIZEN'S NEED NOT BE BOTHERED. MANY SUCH LAWS REMAIN ON THE BOOKS AND NEVER CAUSE A PROBLEM UNTIL SOME GROUP OR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE OR LAWYER ,ECT. DECIDES TO USE IT TO MAKE A NAME FOR HIMSELF. THE MAKEING OF A NAME REQUIRES THAT YOU CAUSE SOMEONE (USUALLY GOOD CITIZENS) A PROBLEM THRU FINES, LAWSUITS, ARRESTS, CONFISCATION, ECT. THIS WILL ATTRACT THE PRESS AND THE PERSONS NAME BECOMES KNOWN AND IF HE WINS A LEGAL PRECIDENT IS SET AND THE GOOD PEOPLE LOSE ANOTHER FREEDOM AND PERHAPS BECAUSE IT CAN BE ENTREPRETED SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS MAY LOSE MORE THAN ONE FREEDOM PER CASE.

A LOCAL EXAMPLE IS A POLICE OFFICER FOUND A VAGUE LAW THAT HAD BEEN PASSED BUT NEVER ENFORCED SO HE TOOK IT UPON HIMSELF TO LAUNCH A PERSONAL CRUSADE. HIS ENTREPETATION OF THE LAW WAS THAT A DOG OR CAT COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE LOOSE IN THE AUTOMOBILE AND HAD TO BE RESTRAINED. HE STARTED PULLING PEOPLE OVER AND GIVING TICKETS. WHEN HE HAD GIVEN ENOUGH TICKETS THE LOCAL NEWS PICKED IT UP AND AIRED IT SO NOW ALL THE POLICE HAVE TO ENFORCE THIS LAW. THE ONE GUY WHO STARTED IT STILL WRITES MOST OF THE TICKETS AS HE GOES TO THE PARKS WHERE PEOPLE COME TO WALK THEIR DOGS AND WAITS TO GIVE THEM TICKETS. HE HAS MADE A NAME FOR HIMSELF LOCALLY AND ENJOYS MAKEING PEOPLES AND DOGS LIFES A BIT MORE MISERABLE IN THE NAME OF SAFETY. I SUPPOSE SOON WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO BUY DOGGIE AND CAT CARSEATS AND STRAP THE ANIMALS IN WHEN TAKEING THEM IN AN AUTOMOBILE. I AM GLAD I HAVE A DOG AND NOT A CAT AS I SUSPECT TRYING TO STRAP IN A CAT WOULD BE DANGEROUS TO ME.

[A. G. Maisey]

The actual process for the drafting and passing of laws is a long drawn out and complex one, at least it is in this country---Australia--- and I imagine that what I know to be true here would also be true in many other countries.

The hands-on writing of the legislation to be brought into law is most often done by a fairly junior member of the relevant department, passed through a review process carried out by more senior people, and then submitted to the minister for approval. Often it will be bounced backwards and forth a number of times before the minister is satisfied that he can get it passed, and make no mistake about it, getting the new legislation accepted by all involved, and its politically positive impact, is what the game is all about. That proposed legislation needs to be designed to be acceptable to not only the politician who is responsible for its administration, but also to the other politicians, perhaps from different parties, upon whom he will rely to see the proposed legislation passed into law.

After such a long drawn out process a reasonable person may expect that the final draft of the legislation would reflect an attitude that was representative of the prevailing attitude in the broad community.

Regrettably, in so far as weapons related legislation is concerned, this is not always so.

The mindset of the original person who prepared the initial draft is often still evident in the final draft. In recent years these initial writers of weapons legislation in at least one state in Australia have been socially aware ladies of relatively immature years and with a minor degree in something like arts-law, or sociology.

I believe that politicians in general see the issue of possession and carriage of weapons other than firearms as a fairly minor issue, and because of this they are loathe to spend more than a bare minimum of resources on it.So it is that the original draft suffers only cosmetic changes before it becomes law.

Now, when that vague and very non-prescriptive law falls into the hands of an officer of the law, such as the one whom has been described by Barry, you create a situation that can only result in the law being badly administered, unenforced, or perhaps unenforceable, by the courts, and laughed at by the general public. When that situation has been created we have the exact opposite of what was intended when the law was brought into being:- widespread non-compliance, a loss of respect for the police, and contempt for the lawful regulation of society.

Going back a few years a law was introduced into the state of NSW , that prohibited the carriage of any bladed implement. It was directed at certain types of individual and certain areas where it was known that knives were being carried for the specific purpose of being used as weapons in crime.
Nobody could have a knife or other bladed implement in his possession in a public place without a lawful excuse for having that implement. The legislation provided an example of a lawful excuse as "being for the preparation and consumption of food".

Heavy reliance was placed on the good judgement of police officers in the administration of this law.

Some months after this law came into force trainee police officers from the police academy in a large provincial town were directed to raid the local stock auction and confiscate all knives found in the possession of people attending the auction. Most people who live in rural areas in Australia, particularly those who run stock, or who farm, habitually carry a pocket knife in a small belt pouch. The police cadets confiscated all the knives from all the farmers and graziers present at that auction, took names, and issued cautions. No prosecutions were launched..

Another incident occurred when an apprentice carpenter who had forgotten to remove his fishing basket from the boot of his car was stopped for a traffic offence. The police officer considered that it was necessary to search his vehicle, he found the knife in the fishing basket, and because that apprentice carpenter had not been fishing that day, nor did he intend going fishing that day, he was charged with being in possession of a knife without lawful excuse.

Then there was the 50 year old lady who was in the habit of carrying her large knife to and from her job in a fruit market. She used the knife to cut pumpkin and did not want to leave it at work because she had nowhere at her place of work that was a secure place to keep her property, and a previous knife had been stolen. This lady was cautioned by a police officer and the knife was confiscated, she was not charged, but she lost the knife.

These are just a few incidents that occurred when that law was introduced. The situation has now pretty much settled back to what it was before the law was introduced. Mostly people take little or no notice of it, and the police only use it as incidental to the apprehension of somebody who is acting in a socially unacceptable way. But during the first few years the law was in force, it was very badly administered by many police officers.

Because the law was non-prescriptive and largely left to the discretion of the police in its application, the predictable thing happened:- society as a whole has decided to ignore that law. When one law is treated with contempt, it is a very short step before other laws are treated with contempt. When the courts fail to convict people who have offended against the letter of the law, but not against its intent , those non-convictions can be used as precedent by people who have offended against both letter and intent of the law, leading to non-conviction of persons who should have been convicted.

Poorly drafted, non-prescriptive laws that rely in their application upon the judgement of police officers have the effect of causing widespread disrespect for the law, for those who administer it, and bring about a weakening of the fabric of society.

[spiral]

Poorly written laws from a goverment that is mostly made up of barristers is deliberate not an error.

They can interpret such a law in any way they wish. That give them greater power than if the law looked written by someone over the age of 10....

Trying to proove an undated tulwar is probably 150 years old not 90 in an antique shop or market or if stopped driving home to the average PC plod should be interesting & probably rather futile though.

WW1 Austrian, Gertman & British trophys will be officialy legal to trade.

if your wealthy enough to have a top lawyer & barrister to pay experts, {such as ourselves?} to proove its over 100 years old your probably ok, if your on legal aid or low wages, your in trouble.

"Wish i were a rich man Yabba , yabba doo, all daylong etc. etc....."

Spiral

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, I understand why you might think in this way Spiral, and quite honestly, I used to hold the same opinion.

I no longer hold that opinion as one that is universally applicable.

I think that in some instances the attitude might be:- " that's good enough for the purpose; let the courts sort it out"

I think in other cases the attitude could be:- "not politically important, we've already spent more than enough time on this; let it go as is"

In other cases---and this I know to be true--- the responsible politician doesn't even look at the report or the proposed legislation, and acts on the advice of a bureaucrat.

However, whatever the reason might be that poorly written legislation is passed into law, the end result is too often the same:- a weakening of the legal fabric that could be regarded as the primary control ensuring a well regulated society.