"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

[AndyPandy]

Scotland wasn't even in the union when the original Magna Carta was initially signed by King John (then revoked) by the Pope on his behalf in 1215.

[TheNewSaint]

As I understand it, this Article 61 business was an onerous clause in the original Magna Carta. It gave the barony the power to seize the king's lands until he adhered to the charter, but there was a lot of gray area about what "not adhering" meant. A war was fought over it, during which the king died of illness, and the MC was redrawn under the new king without this clause. 800 years ago. Why on earth these idiots think this has any current legal force is totally beyond me.

This also strikes me as a major event in the history of the Magna Carta, something people who study the subject at all should know. The willful obtuseness is astounding.

[JimUk1]

Recent postings on the Facebook page show a worrying obsession with having weapons.

Nonsense about offensive weapons law here, with gleeful
https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 6875376347
And even more chilling, an argument for the holding of firearms here
https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 0245349010
Sailing close to the wind in terms of UK's draconian terror legislation, I suspect.

It's only a matter of time before it happens in the UK. Policemen have already died in the U.S as a result of delusional sovereign citizen beliefs.

[ArthurWankspittle]

It's only a matter of time before it happens in the UK. Policemen have already died in the U.S as a result of delusional sovereign citizen beliefs.

We have actually lost an ex-UK policeman to a SovCit nut in Canada. The guy left the Police in the UK, moved to Canada and became a cop there. He was killed when the SovCit opened fire on some officers who had gone to serve a warrant.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... t-out.html

[Pox]

It's only a matter of time before it happens in the UK. Policemen have already died in the U.S as a result of delusional sovereign citizen beliefs.

We have actually lost an ex-UK policeman to a SovCit nut in Canada. The guy left the Police in the UK, moved to Canada and became a cop there. He was killed when the SovCit opened fire on some officers who had gone to serve a warrant.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... t-out.html

I didn't realise that the cop killer was a sovcit. Was he well known for it?
The link seems to suggest that he was an alcoholic.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I didn't realise that the cop killer was a sovcit. Was he well known for it?
The link seems to suggest that he was an alcoholic.

His ex-girlfriend said he'd gone FMOTL. Quatloos version here: viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10621

[Hercule Parrot]

Recent postings on the Facebook page show a worrying obsession with having weapons.

Nonsense about offensive weapons law here, with gleeful
https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 6875376347
And even more chilling, an argument for the holding of firearms here
https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 0245349010
Sailing close to the wind in terms of UK's draconian terror legislation, I suspect.

Indeed. And I suspect they've just earned a few extra ranking points in the cross-departmental threat analysis model. Far below ISIS of course, probably still below many other domestic extremist groups, but quietly making progress.

[longdog]

Recent postings on the Facebook page show a worrying obsession with having weapons.

Nonsense about offensive weapons law here, with gleeful
https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 6875376347
And even more chilling, an argument for the holding of firearms here
https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 0245349010
Sailing close to the wind in terms of UK's draconian terror legislation, I suspect.

Some idiot thinks he's going shopping for a £500 .22LR copy of an M16... Leaving aside the rank stupidity of having a .22LR assault rifle in the first place (and I had a .22LR M16 copy several decades ago and It wasn't even useful as a rabbit gun) what's he going to do when they say "And can I see your Firearms Certificate please sir?"

I suppose he could save up for an <ahem>off the books</ahem> M16 that fired the .223 round it was designed for but I doubt he'd get change out of a £10,000 note even if he could find someone stupid enough to sell one to him.

[noblepa]

Are fully-automatic weapons, such as the M16, legal for civilians to own in the UK?

My brother has one, and the licensing requirements are pretty complicated (and expensive).

I have to admit, though, that it is a blast to fire. Not quite as much fun as his .30 cal belt-fed tripod-mount machine gun.

[longdog]

Are fully-automatic weapons, such as the M16, legal for civilians to own in the UK?

My brother has one, and the licensing requirements are pretty complicated (and expensive).

I have to admit, though, that it is a blast to fire. Not quite as much fun as his .30 cal belt-fed tripod-mount machine gun.

No... Centrefire automatic rifles were banned many, many years ago and fully auto weapons have been effectively banned since the beginning of the 20th century. They need a Section 5 permit from The Home Office which only certain firearms dealers, international arms dealers and theatrical armourers would get. In the pre-ban days you could own M16s, AKs and the like that had been converted to semi-auto only or get an AR15. I believe the converted M16s were quite a lot cheaper than the AR15.

[morrand]

Centrefire automatic rifles were banned many, many years ago and fully auto weapons have been effectively banned since the beginning of the 20th century. They need a Section 5 permit from The Home Office which only certain firearms dealers, international arms dealers and theatrical armourers would get.

Ah, good. Section 5 is a real thing. I was hoping there was some factual content in there. So when Our Boy Bullethead says:

In 1998, Mike Burke applied to the Home Office for a Section 5 authority for some prohibited weapon or other. He was refused as a matter of policy and appealed to the High Court, which in turn refused his appeal on the grounds that the Firearms Act, 1968, by implication repealed the Bill of Rights. (FC3 98/7400/3)

There really is something there. I mean, other than his interpretation of the cited case. I can't find an authoritative copy of it online, but the one copy I did find quotes it this way:

And then, when dealing with the subject's rights, it was declared [in the Bill of Rights] in relation to “Subjects' Arms”:

"That the subjects which are Protestant may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions (then follow the crucial words) and as allowed by law."

That was the Bill of Rights, It was declaratory of the common law. It contained in it its own words of limitation, namely that the right to have arms for self-defence is limited by the words "and as allowed by Law". The law is a changing thing. Parliament by statute can repeal the common law. Parliament has since 1920 (and it may be earlier, but certainly since 1920) imposed limitations on the right to carry firearms, and one of those limitations is Section 5(1) which we are here concerned with. Where the Bill of Rights says that “the Subjects may have arms for their defence suitable for their condition and as allowed by law”, "and as allowed by law" means “and as allowed by law for the time being", and at this time you have to comply with the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968, section 5, as amended, if you wish to have a prohibited weapon; that is to say, you require authority from the Secretary of State. That is the first ground which makes Mr. Burke’s application hopeless.

Even if that ground was not fatal to it, the submission is not entrenched; that is to say, what the law makes, the law can unmake. Mr. Burke suggested to us that Parliament has no power to alter the common law. That is a submission totally without substance. What the law makes the law can unmake. You now need the authority of the Secretary of State if you have a prohibited weapon. Mr. Burke cannot avoid that provision of the law.

The other case he (Bullethead, not Lord Justice Henry) mentions, the Metric Martyrs (a weights and measures case, nominally), is apparently available on Bailii under [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), but it's not apparently relevant. When the earlier court said, in effect, "yes, you have a right to a weapon subject to the law...and now here is the law that says no," implicit repeal would seem to drop out of relevance.

Taken together, Burke’s dismissed appeal and the Metric Martyrs case agree that the Bill of Rights has not been amended. The Firearms Acts are relevant to and control sporting guns, not military, militia or personal defence ones.

NOT SO MUCH. And I won't even go into his read of District of Columbia v. Heller, since it's totally irrelevant to UK law.

I'll agree on this point: as much as anything can be extracted from this hot tangled mess of ipse dixit and dubious history, one theme seems to be that, if you want to carry a gun in the UK, your best bet would be to sign on to your local citizen's militia. That is rightly a bit alarming. Happily, the commenters seem to be rejecting that call by and large.

[littleFred]

The Bill of Rights 1688 seems clear: the old king, James 2, had allowed catholics but not protestants to have arms. So the new regime allowed protestants to have the same arms-bearing rights as catholics.

Whereas the late King James the Second [...] did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome.
... By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.
[...] And thereupon the said Lords [...] declare [...] That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

As far as I know, that is still the case today: protestants and catholics have the same arms-bearing rights. It requires a mis-reading to conclude that it gives any particular rights to people of either faith.

While we are on the subject of the BoR:

And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.

The BoR was a "welcome-to-Britain" document for the Prince and Princess of Orange, and it granted authority to a foreign prince and princess. But SovCits misread this passage as "foreigners can't rule over us, so the EU is bad, so the Queen committed treason by signing the Treaty of Nice, etc". In modern English, it might be written:

And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate has or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence or authoritie, whether ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.

The problem addressed wasn't foreign authorities in general, but specifically foreign religious authorities. It was anti-Pope.

[John Uskglass]

They really are slipping into dangerous waters.

We certainly don't want a civil war but it may well get to that point if we don't unite and use the peaceful way we have been provided.... We've even made it easy for others as all we require is support by silent witnesses who are prepared to move themselves to wherever we may need it....We have the strategy in place so waiting for the army now.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... n__=%2C%3B

IANAL but I'd have thought that if someone associated with the site did something mega-stupid (and they do seem to discuss taking over public buildings in some of the threads), there might be grounds for conspiracy charges.

[longdog]

They really are slipping into dangerous waters.

We certainly don't want a civil war but it may well get to that point if we don't unite and use the peaceful way we have been provided.... We've even made it easy for others as all we require is support by silent witnesses who are prepared to move themselves to wherever we may need it....We have the strategy in place so waiting for the army now.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... n__=%2C%3B

IANAL but I'd have thought that if someone associated with the site did something mega-stupid (and they do seem to discuss taking over public buildings in some of the threads), there might be grounds for conspiracy charges.

As far as I can work out he was in receipt of sickness benefits but lost them because he refused to cooperate with the DWP and went down the "You have to give me money because Magna Carta and etcetera" route with predictable results. I'm sure the phone-drone at the DWP will be shitting himself about the 'legal notice' winging it's merry way to them but I'm not sure the state has anything to worry about on the impending civil war front just yet

[John Uskglass]

I'm pretty sure they're all mouth and no trousers. However, in the video of them 'seizing' Glastonbury Town Hall, they seem to have an unfortunate liking for camo gear, and current UK law is pretty fierce.

Terrorism Act 2000

[quote]"terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][2] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious[, racial][3] or ideological cause.
[) Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied./quote]

It's obvious that they're a few sandwiches short of a picnic, given the whole basis of the site, but it takes a particular level of stupid to put yourselves in the position where you could fall foul of terror legislation because of what you've posted on a public site.

Put it this way, if they were Muslims, they'd be being a lot more cautious...

[AndyPandy]

They really are slipping into dangerous waters.

We certainly don't want a civil war but it may well get to that point if we don't unite and use the peaceful way we have been provided.... We've even made it easy for others as all we require is support by silent witnesses who are prepared to move themselves to wherever we may need it....We have the strategy in place so waiting for the army now.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... n__=%2C%3B

IANAL but I'd have thought that if someone associated with the site did something mega-stupid (and they do seem to discuss taking over public buildings in some of the threads), there might be grounds for conspiracy charges.

As far as I can work out he was in receipt of sickness benefits but lost them because he refused to cooperate with the DWP and went down the "You have to give me money because Magna Carta and etcetera" route with predictable results. I'm sure the phone-drone at the DWP will be shitting himself about the 'legal notice' winging it's merry way to them but I'm not sure the state has anything to worry about on the impending civil war front just yet

I love all the idiotic comments about this ( no one of course saying you've been an arse and get over yourself !!) .. but this one is particularly special

Christine Jackson

Sorry to hear the state welfare system is being an arse and ignoring law of the land. Could you please explain what I woul do about s bus lane fine I've received. Thank u in anticipation.

[longdog]

I love all the idiotic comments about this ( no one of course saying you've been an arse and get over yourself !!) .. but this one is particularly special

Christine Jackson

Sorry to hear the state welfare system is being an arse and ignoring law of the land. Could you please explain what I woul do about s bus lane fine I've received. Thank u in anticipation.

Brilliant...

You couldn't even negotiate your way through a benefits system and lost your benefits through being a dick so can you explain how I can turn a trivial driving offence into a jail sentence.

Yours sincerely.

The village idiot.


How do these people manage to feed themselves?

[TheNewSaint]

Who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?

[Hercule Parrot]

We certainly don't want a civil war but it may well get to that point.....

https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... n__=%2C%3B .

Oh that's hilarious. So their new poster-boy David Robinson is a long-term welfare scrounger. He won't pay taxes or comply with public duties, but he expects to be maintained at our expense. Why waste public funds on elderly care or hospitals, when DR is so much more deserving?

And I wonder what strange and cruel health condition he has, that permits​ him to fight other people's battles in court, maintain multiple websites and groups, chronicle his own steadfast heroism etc, but unfortunately prevents him from doing useful, paid work.

How do these people manage to feed themselves? They don't, they are almost universally a parasitic burden upon the community.

(Edit - sorry, the quoting has gone sovcit on me)

(Edit - fixed by moderator)

[SteveUK]

new lows have been reached, with one of the PLD crew caught selling a quack cancer cure.
I wonder what the French authorities will make of the BS Magna Carta / Common Law/ Legalese defence thats in the making?