Friday, 2 May 2014

Obama’s Arrest For Treason

There is some serious speculation that Chief Justice John Roberts has signed off on Interpol, which would mean that Obama is one step closer to being removed from office for multiple counts of treason.Charges include infringements of the Second Amendment, and declaring war without consent of Congress, and some other serious violations of Obama’s Oath.

The leaked document claims that Obama is guilty of the following crimes:

Article 1, Sect. 1
1. Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated.
2. Issued 23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment.
3. Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration

Violation Article 1 Section 1
4. NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated.

Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments.
5. Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything.
6. Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.
7. Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cyber security – Bypassing Congress
Violations: Article 1 Section 1, Art. 4 sect. 4,
8. Signed into law the establishment of “NO Free Speech Zones” – noncompliance is a felony.
9. Attempt to tax political contributions

Violations: 1st Amendment, Art.1 sect. 7

10. Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Law – Obama directed DOJ ( Dept. of Justice ) to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law.

Violations : Art. 2 sect.2 , 5th amendment, 18 USC 241 – Sec. 241
11. Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated.

Violations: Art. 1 Sect. 1
12. Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-Trade
13. Attempt for Graphic tobacco warnings (under appeal)

Violations: 1st Amendment. Art. 1 sect. 8
14. Four Executive appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)

Violations: Art. 1 sect 2 &5 ,
15. Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council –

Violation : Art 1 Sect. 9.
16.Obamacare( A.C.A. ) mandate – SCOTUS (U.S. SupremeCourt ) had to make it a tax because there is no Constitutional authority.
Violations : Art. 2 sect. 1 , Amendments 1, 2, 9, 10, & 14, Art. 1 sect. 7
18. Healthcare waivers – No president has dispensing powers.
Violations: 1st, 2, 9,10, & 14th Amendment, Art 1: Sect. 7
19. Refuses to acknowledge state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare( Affordable Care Act ) .
Violation: Art. 1 sect. 1 , Art. 2. sect. 1 , 10th Amendment
20. Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4. Obama falsely claims UN can usurp Congressional war powers.
Violations: Article I, Section 8, Art.2 sect. 1
21. Obama has acted outside the constitutional power given him – this in itself is unconstitutional.
Violations: Art. 2 sect 1
22. With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. Violation of 4th Amendment.
Violations: 4th Amendment.
23. Plans to sign U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment.
Violation: 2nd ,4th, 9th, 10th , & 14TH Amendment, Art.1 Sect. 4 , Art. 2 sect. 124. The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;
Violations: Art. 1 sect 4th, 7 ,& 8th, Art. 2 sect. 1, Art.4 sect. 4,
25. Obama refuses to uphold the Business Mandate Law (ACA) for a year. President does not have that authority

Tuesday, 29 April 2014

How Many Have We Killed?

Khaled Abdullah/Reuters/Corbis

The wreckage of a car destroyed by a US drone strike in Azan, Yemen, February 2013

On Monday, The New York Times reported that “the Senate has quietly stripped a provision from an intelligence bill that would have required President Obama to make public each year the number of people killed or injured in targeted killing operations in Pakistan and other countries where the United States uses lethal force.” National security officials in the Obama administration objected strongly to having to notify the public of the results and scope of their dirty work, and the Senate acceded. So much for what President Obama has called “the most transparent administration in history.”

The Senate’s decision is particularly troubling in view of how reticent the administration itself continues to be about the drone program. To date, Obama has publicly admitted to the deaths of only four people in targeted killing operations. That came in May 2013, when, in conjunction with a speech at the National Defense University, and, in his words, “to facilitate transparency and debate on the issue,” President Obama acknowledged for the first time that the United States had killed four Americans in drone strikes. But according to credible accounts, Obama has overseen the killing of several thousand people in drone strikes since taking office. Why only admit to the four Americans’ deaths? Is the issue of targeted killings only appropriate for debate when we kill our own citizens? Don’t all human beings have a right to life?

In the NDU speech, President Obama also announced new limits on the use of drones “beyond the Afghan theater.” He proclaimed that drone strikes would be authorized away from the battlefield only when necessary to respond to “continuing and imminent threats” posed by people who cannot be captured or otherwise countermanded. Most important, he said, “before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured—the highest standard we can set.” Yet in December, a US drone strike in Yemen reportedly struck a wedding party. The New York Times reported that while some of the victims may have been linked to al-Qaeda, the strike killed “at least a half dozen innocent people, according to a number of tribal leaders and witnesses.”

The decision to drop the requirement to report on the number of people we kill in drone strikes fittingly if depressingly came on the ten-year anniversary of CBS’s airing of the photos of torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. To this day, the United States has not held accountable any senior official for torture inflicted during the “war on terror”—not at Abu Ghraib, not at Guantanamo, not at Bagram Air Force Base, and not in the CIA’s secret prisons, or “black sites.” President Obama has stuck to his commitment to look forward, not backward, and his administration has opposed all efforts to hold the perpetrators of these abuses to account. Indeed, the administration has classified even the memories of the survivors of torture in CIA black sites, now housed at Guantanamo, maintaining that they and their lawyers cannot under any circumstance even talk publically about their mistreatment.

To be fair, Obama deserves some credit for both banning torture and achieving some transparency on the subject. In one of his first acts as president, he formally prohibited the “enhanced interrogation techniques” that his predecessor had approved—and that Bush and Cheney both proudly proclaim in their memoirs they would approve all over again. Shortly thereafter, Obama declassified the chilling secret memoranda, drafted by various Justice Department lawyers in the Bush Administration, that were designed to give legal cover to the CIA’s torture program. And most recently, in March, Obama said that he thinks that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the CIA’s interrogation program, the only comprehensive review based on access to classified information to date of the agency’s treatment of prisoners, should be declassified and released to the public. (The committee has voted to declassify and release a six hundred-page executive summary from the 6,300 page report, and it is now up to the president to live up to his statement and declassify it.)

But it’s one thing to demand transparency for a predecessor’s wrongs. It’s another to support it in regard to one’s own dubious actions. In the past, some have argued that the United States cannot be transparent about targeted killings in countries like Pakistan and Yemen because their governments approved of our use of lethal force within their borders on the condition that we not admit that we were doing so. The morality of such an agreement is itself deeply questionable; presumably the plausible deniability is demanded because no government could openly admit to its people that it had given another sovereign the green light to kill by remote control inside its own borders. But the deniability is no longer plausible.

As long ago as September, 2012, the Yemeni President Abed Raboo Mansour Hadi disclosed that he signed off on every US drone strike in Yemen, and in April 2013, former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf similarly admitted that his government had agreed to targeted killings in Pakistan. Following the strike on the Yemeni wedding party last December, the government there conceded that civilians were killed, provided reparations to the survivors, and suspended permission to the United States to conduct further drone strikes until the incident was investigated. But the US has not even publicly acknowledged its own involvement—namely, as the killer.

International law acknowledges that killing is not always illegal or wrong, and that a government has the authority to do so as a last resort in genuine self-defense. But if the US government’s targeted killings are lawful, we should have no hesitation in making them public. Surely the least we can do is to literally count and report the lives we’ve taken. Yet even that, for “the most transparent administration in history,” is apparently too much.

Sunday, 16 February 2014

The Boycott Law Stifling the debate

Op-ed: New bill approves cheese boycott but stifles debate on major national issue like settlements

This bill is flawed first of all because of its twisted definition: “Geographical boycotts,” as if the whole matter here has to do with some coordinates on the map that we’re all forced to love. and if the confusion created by the odd definition isn’t enough, the bill makes it clear that it has no intention to undermine boycotters over what it characterizes as “ideological motives,” such as the various cottage cheese boycotts.

In other words, we are allowed to utilize boycotts to fight against the price hikes of dairy producers here, and that’s an ideological boycott, but we must not utilize this weapon in struggling over an issue the has been tearing this nation apart for 44 years now – the territories conquered in the Six-Day War.

Boycotts are a bad thing. One does not need to be Knesset Member Zeev Elkin in order to understand that there is a problem with this scheme. On more than one occasion in our 2,000-year history, we were on the side that was boycotted to death, and hence there is a point and place to engage in a war against the boycotters.

Where is the line drawn?

However, the problem with this law, after we already exhausted the absurd separation between “ideological” and “not ideological,” is its sweeping tendency to fence in our democracy.

I am allowed to think that some of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank jeopardize the State of Israel’s existence. I am also allowed to think that if there is no other choice, these settlements need to be “dried up.” But I’m not allowed to let anyone know that this is what I think? Is this the idea? Because where exactly is the boundary between expressing an opinion and what the law shall characterize as a call for a boycott? A living room conversation is legitimate, but posting it on my blog is forbidden?

In this case, the problem is not the call for boycotts, and in any case the solution is not a ban on calling for boycotts. What we have here is a legitimate, longtime debate that will apparently not end tomorrow – with the new law or without it.

The attempt to force upon us in a twisted manner a stifled debate, by law, is bad, unwise, and mostly won’t work. This energy should have been invested in an attempt to focus the problem and seek legitimate, agreed-upon ways to argue over it.

Freedom of Speech killed by the Boycott Law

Knesset votes in favor of 'boycott bill'

Controversial bill which calls for imposing sanctions against anyone declaring embargo on Israel garners 47 ayes, 38 nays. Kadima: Bibi crossed red line of stupidity, national irresponsibility

The Knesset voted Monday in favor of the controversial "boycott bill," which proposes imposing sanctions against anyone declaring a commercial embargo on Israel. The vote was carried 47 to 38.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were conspicuously absent from the vote, while Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin abstained. The Kadima faction voted against the bill, and members of the Independence faction abstained and were not present for the bill's second and third readings.

Op-Ed

Stifling the debate / Ariella Ringel-Hoffman

New bill approves cheese boycott but stifles debate on major national issue like settlements
Full story

The bill, which was backed by the cabinet, states that any boycott against Israel or any group located within its territory, including the West Bank, will be labeled a civil offense and its initiators will be subject to litigation. The legislation has been the focus of harsh criticism.

Kadima blasted Netanyahu for his absence from the vote: "Netanyahu's government harms Israel and should be the first to pay the price... Netanyahu's scuttle from tonight's vote does not diminish the harm he has done. He has crossed a red line of stupidity and national irresponsibility.

"Netanyahu knows the gravity the law's impact will have, but is demonstrating political flaccidity and total capitulation to the extreme right which is taking over the Likud. The boycott bill is a mark of disgrace for Netanyahu's government and the State of Israel and its citizens will pay for it dearly."

The plenum (Photo: Atta Awisat)

MK Eitan Cabel (Labor) called the bill "a cowardly law," and "another law in a series of fascist laws drafted by the government."

Several human rights groups, including Adalah – the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, The Public Committee against Torture in Israel and Physicians for Human Rights, immediately announced that they would file a High Court appeal against the new law, and asked that it be annulled.

The groups plan to argue the law is anti-constitutional, that it impedes political freedom of expression, and violates international law and the laws of torts.

Dr. Yishai Menuchin of the Public Committee Against Torture said: "The road to anti-democratic hell is sometimes paved with good intentions – but not this time. The Knesset is full of legislators who took it upon themselves to infringe on Israel's democracy time and time again.

"The boycott law is just another step by the legislator to eradicate democracy in Israel. Warnings by human rights groups and many others in Israeli society had failed this time. The Knesset has led Israeli society another step closer to hell."

Adalah Director Hassan Jabarin echoed the sentiment, saying that "Once more we are seeing how the Knesset is trying to promote legislation which does not coincide with international law… The (bill) fails to meet any criteria and we believe the High Court won't accept it."

'Bill anti-democratic'

Ahead of the vote, the Knesset plenum convened for a filibuster, which saw heated arguments from both Left and Right.

The opposition vowed to fight the bill, which it labeled "anti-democratic"; several prominent legalists said that it was "grayish" at best, and unlikely to withstand High Court scrutiny.

Knesset Member Ilan Gilon (Meretz) was the first to speak before the Knesset plenum; he said the recent "anti-democratic" laws, in his words, legislated by the Knesset "black dysentery" that de-legitimizes the State of Israel.

"I know of nothing that causes more de-legitimization for Israel abroad than these acts of legislation," he said, adding that they leave Israel in a position of "a nation on its own shall dwell."

The Kadima faction said it would oppose the bill, with MK Shai Hermesh (Kadima) saying that the bill was a "muzzling bill, a bill that harms the basic rights."

MK Ahmad Tibi (United Arab List-Ta'al) took things to a personal level, wondering from the podium if Likud faction Chairman MK Zeev Elkin's "past as a shunned schoolboy who got beaten up" prompted him to initiate the bill.

Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud) said that "the majority of those who oppose the bill, do it in the name of freedom of expression. That begs the question – does freedom of expression in a democratic state includes the right to call for financial boycotts.

"It's a principle of democracy that you don't shun a public you disagree with by harming their livelihood. A boycott on a certain sector is not the proper manifestation of freedom of expression. It is an aggressive move meant to force a sector that thinks a different way to capitulate. Boycotts are aggressive and wrong," he said.

Netanyahu initially wanted to defer the vote, to avoid presenting Israel in a negative light as the Quartet gears to meet for a crucial discussion over the intention of the Palestinian Authority to seek UN recognition for a Palestinian state.

The Palestinians also denounced the bill, saying that if it passes, "the content of an impending Quartet announcement regarding the possible renewal of negotiations will become irrelevant."

Freedom of Expression.The Right to Criticize the State and be even in favour of Boycotts of Zion

High Court hears petition against controversial Anti-Boycott Law

ACRI says law created to harm use of boycott as tool for a non-violent protest against Israel's 'occupation policies.'

A special nine-judge panel of the High Court of Law held a hearing on Sunday on the legality of the controversial Anti-Boycott Law, which permits punishment for anyone or any organization supporting a boycott of Israel or an Israeli institution.

The petition was brought by human rights organizations who claim the law violates the freedom of speech and is hurting public debate on controversial issues.

This is one of the most meaningful legal challenges to reach Chief Justice Asher Grunis' desk. Grunis is known as a conservative judge who often avoids interfering with government decisions.

The Law for Prevention of Damage to State of Israel through Boycott was passed in the Knesset on July 11, 2011. The law defines a "boycotter" as any individual or organization who deliberately avoids having economic, cultural or academic relations with any person or body purely over affiliation to the State of Israel, a state institute or a specific region under its control.

The law permits economic sanctions such as a denial of tax exemptions or participation in government contracts. The law also allows private individuals who say they were hurt by a boycott call to file for compensation.

Many organizations have submitted petitions against the law, among them left-wing groups and individuals who have called for a boycott of the settlements - the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), Yesh Din, Coalition of Women for Peace, Adala (the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel), MK Ahmed Tibi and Gush Shalom.

ACRI claims that the purpose of the law is "to hurt initiatives for political, cultural and academic boycott as a tool for a non-violent protest against the occupation policy and/or the discrimination policy against the Arab minority in Israel."

In its response to the petition, the state conceded that the law "raises significant legal difficulties," but since it has yet to be implemented, there is no reason to strike it down.

Wednesday, 5 February 2014

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Right to keep and bear arms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see Right to bear arms (disambiguation).

The right to keep and bear arms (often referred as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the people's right to have their ownarms for their defense as described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others.^[1] In countries with an English common law tradition, a long standing common law right to keep and bear arms has long been recognized, as pre-existing in common law, prior even to the existence of written national constitutions.^[2] In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is also an enumerated right specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions^[3] such that people have a personal right to own arms for individual use, and a right to bear these same arms both for personal protection and for use in a militia.^[4]

The concept of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is derived from the English Bill of Rights 1689 which states:

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

This must be read in the context of the grievance being addressed, which reads:

By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.

The English Bill of Rights established that regulating the right to bear arms was one of the powers of Parliament, and did not belong to the monarch.^[5] In most common law jurisdictions, this right has since the early 20th century largely been abolished by statute, for example in the United Kingdom (in 1903), Canada, and Australia. In all jurisdictions, common law or otherwise, gun laws vary widely.

In the United States, with a common law tradition and a constitution dating to the 18th century, the "right to keep and bear arms" has been enshrined in the United States Bill of Rights (coming into law as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States); precursory legal wording can also be found in the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776. Following the American Revolution in 1776, one of the first legislative acts undertaken by each of the newly independent states was to adopt a "reception statute" that gave legal effect to the existing body of English common law to the extent that American legislation or the Constitution had not explicitly rejected English law.^[6] Many English common law traditions were enshrined in the US Constitution, such as the right to keep and bear arms, habeas corpus, jury trials, and various other civil liberties. Significant principles of English common law prior to 1776 still remain in effect in many jurisdictions in the United States.^[7]

Australia

As there is no right to own firearms that is recognized or upheld by the federal or state and territory governments of Australia, firearms are usually seized when an individual is charged with an offence (a court order is not required). The laws strictly forbid ownership for the purpose of self-defense however the use of a firearm in self-defense is based on the specific characteristics of the case and whether its use represented excessive force. Security Guards may posess weapons for the protection of property and Police for the purposes of public safety and can apply for the firearm to be kept at their residence, this is a separate permit/requirement to being able to use a firearm in the execution of their duties. Carrying Firearms on ones person or in a motor vehicle (if the weapon is being transported it must be rendered inoperative and be taken directly to and from where it is to be used) is illegal without a permit, however such permits are only issued relatively rarely ( e.g. Armoured Car Security) and have stringent qualification requirements. A genuine reason must be given when applying for a license to own a firearm, and several valid categories such as Sport, hunting or collecting are specified, giving self-defence as a reason is specifically prohibited by law in all states and territories. As with most other jurisdictions persons with criminal convictions cannot acquire a permit.

Historically, controls on firearm ownership have usually followed major crimes which resulted in public outcry. This resulted in an incoherent collection of regulations — following the fact that Australia is a federal country. Legality varied wildly between jurisdictions, approaching American latitudes in places like Queensland and Tasmania. The current licensing and permit regime was enacted following the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania and has largely converged all jurisdictions to a similar standard. The present pressures on gun law legislation in Australia arise from organised-crime activity, particularly the drug trade. Australia has been an agrarian country for much of its history, and therefore there is a significant population of gun owners.^{[citation needed]}

With the exception of Victoria all states and territories do not require a license to own swords, knifes, bayonets or any other type of blade (with the exception of push daggers). Folding knives are regulated on the mechanism type or on the manner of opening and is consistent throughout all states and territories, Automatic knives, OTF knives, Centripetal force, balisongs/butterfly knives, are prohibited. Assisted Opening knives were legal before a change in regulation post 2011 election and are now prohibited for import, and carry but may be kept in a private home/residence if the knife was imported pre-ban. The carrying of a blade (either folding or fixed, irrespective of length) in public is illegal unless the individual can give a lawful reason (or such reason is clearly evident) to police for why they have a blade, self-defence is not a lawful reason. If a reason can not be provided then the individual is usually arrested and is then given the opportunity to give a reason to the Judge/Magistrate who may dismiss the charge if such a reason is provided.

Canada

Further information: Gun politics in Canada

In Canada, although citizens do not have a constitutional right to bear arms, gun ownership is allowed, regulated and many models of firearms are not available or are prohibited.^[8] Certain models are classified as prohibited firearms, as defined by the Firearms Act. Possession of a restricted firearm requires a Restricted Possession and Acquisition License or RPAL.^[9] An RPAL may be obtained at the same time as, or subsequent to, a PAL with additional testing and scrutiny by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. AnAuthorization to Transport allows RPAL holders to transport their restricted firearms directly to and from gun ranges and gunsmiths or to a change of address.^[10]

Under certain circumstances, an Authorization to Carry may be issued, allowing one to carry a loaded restricted firearm on their person;^[11] however, these permits are rarely acquired by ordinary citizens. In 2002, only 6172 permits were issued across the entire country and over 94% were related to armoured vehicle protection and related services.^[12]

Chile

Citizens meeting certain requirements may legally acquire firearms that are not automatic or semi-automatic. The requirements for eligibility include obtaining a certification of mental health, having a fixed address, and having a secure storage method. Firearm owners also must agree that firearms that are legally acquired, along with the secure storage location, may be inspected at any time between the hours of 8 AM to 10 PM upon a request of the national police. It is illegal for citizens to acquire ammunition other than what is used in the specific firearms that are registered to them. Upon the death of a registered gun owner, the person responsible for the estate shall transfer the firearm(s) to a legally eligible and registered owner within 90 days, or else must turn in the firearm(s) to either the closest military facility or the closest national police station.^[13] In practice, single shot and double barrel shotguns, lever action rifles, and revolvers account for the majority of the registered civilian firearms owned by citizens, although any firearms that are not automatic or semi-automatic may be legally owned by citizens. Firearms may be used for legal hunting, outside of the home or business, or, within one's home or business, for legal defense.

China

According to PRC law, there are firearms regulations and according to those regulations "whoever, in violation of firearm-control regulations, secretly keeps firearms or ammunition and refuses to relinquish them shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than two years or criminal detention."^[14]

Private ownership of firearms in China was first banned by the Qing dynasty.^[15]

Cuba

Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Constitution of Cuba states the following: "When no other recourse is possible, all citizens have the right to struggle through all means, including armed struggle, against anyone who tries to overthrow the political, social and economic order established in this Constitution."

Czech Republic

Main article: Gun politics in the Czech Republic

Finland

Further information: Gun politics in Finland

To possess firearms in Finland, citizens require a valid reason, such as recreation or exhibition, and must be licensed by local police. Permission may be denied if the citizen has a criminal background or a history of substance abuse or mental illness. The right to possess a firearm does not include the right to carry it in public, except while hunting. At home, firearms must be kept behind locks or inoperative. Knives and similar items may not be carried in public.^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]

India

Further information: Gun politics#India

In India, purchase and possession of firearms requires a license and is a stringent process.^[20] The Arms Act of 1959 and the Arms Rules 1962 prohibits the sale, manufacturer, possession, acquisition, import, export and transport of firearms and ammunition unless under a license. Firearms are classified into two categories: Prohibited Bore (PB) and Non-Prohibited Bore (NPB), where semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms fall under the Prohibited Bore category. The criteria considered during the issue of NPB firearm permits are whether the person faces threats and for PB firearms is more strict.^[21]

Israel

According to the licensing service for a private carry permit, a permit may be issued to a legal resident over the age of 21, that is working or living in dangerous zones defined by the Ministry; an individual who works in specific professions listed by the Ministry or individuals who served in the Israeli Defense Force or other military agencies, at the rank of Captain or equivalent (currently serving in the standing army or reserves), retired officers at a rank of Lt. Colonel, or active reserve members of specific special forces units. The granting of a private weapon permit is neither an inherent statutory right nor automatically approved. An applicant is vetted medically and by the police, and even then the request can still be denied by the licensing officer, though a denial can be appealed.^[22]

Japan

With the exception of law enforcement and defense force personnel, ownership of handguns is prohibited in Japan. Exceptions are made for firearms with cultural/artistic value (i.e. museum pieces) and for class 4 air pistol competitors, such as Olympic athletes. For shotguns and rifles there is a registration process which you must complete. These are to be used only for hunting and pest control purposes.^[23]

Mexico

Legal right

Since 1917 Mexican citizens have had the right to possess firearms "except those expressly prohibited by law". However after rioters looted gun stores in Mexico City in the 1960s, the Mexican government began to restrict wholesale gun ownership. By 1995, the government had closed the last private gun stores and given the military a monopoly on gun sales.

The country now only has one official gun store, the "Directorate for Arms and Munitions Sales" in Mexico City. Located near the army's main headquarters, the two-room building is heavily guarded.^[25] All Mexican citizens who wish legally possess firearms must abide by regulations and limitations in order to make a weapons purchase at the store. They are as follows:

Prospective customers need a permit from the army that can take up to several months to receive.
Limited amounts of ammunition they can buy each month
Where an individual can take the gun
Who gun owners can sell it to
All privately owned guns must be registered with the Mexican military
If Owners want to transport their firearms outside their homes they must obtain a permit that must be renewed annually.

Owning a gun

Gun control laws in Mexico are extremely strict in comparison to the United States, making it difficult for the average citizen to purchase anything larger than a .22 caliber. Article 11 (of the Mexican Constitution) " Ley Federal de Armas de Fuego y Explosivos" lists prohibited "military firearms" in Mexico. They include:

Anything full-auto.
Any semi-auto handgun larger than .380 (e.g., 9mm, .38 Super, or larger).
Any revolver in .357 Magnum or larger.
Any rifle in larger than .30 caliber.
Any shotgun larger than 12 gauge or with a barrel shorter than 25 inches.

Purchasing

Mexico's constitution has a right to keep and bear arms for its citizens:

Members of hunting clubs may be able to acquire hunting guns of a non-prohibited caliber.
All applications must go through the single national gun store in Mexico City for approval. Approval will be denied once you own more than 2 handguns or 10 long guns.
Carry permits exist for outside of your home, but are rarely granted.
Mexican citizens and immigrants can have firearms in their homes, and only of permitted firearms. The privilege of carrying a firearm outside of one's home is limited to what is authorized by Mexican federal law.
All privately owned firearms are registered with the Mexican army.^[26]

Penalties

Mexico's gun laws are very restrictive, and extremely harsh if you do not follow them. Where there are prohibitions, there are penalties. The penalties for possession of prohibited "military firearms" include: 3–12 months in prison for bayonets, sabers and lances, 1–7 years for .357 magnum revolvers and any revolver larger than a .38 Special, and 2–12 years for other prohibited weapons.

These are the possible legal consequences of being convicted of possessing illegal firearms in Mexico:

Jail time and vehicle seizure.
Separation from your family, friends, and your job, and likely substantial financial hardship.
Court costs and other fees ranging into the tens of thousands of dollars on legal defense.
A 30-year sentence in prison if found guilty.

The consequences of possessing a knife on your person in Mexico, even a pocketknife are:

A criminal charge with possession of a deadly weapon.
Weeks could be spent in jail waiting for trial, and if convicted, one may be sentenced to up to five years in prison.
Tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees, court costs, and fines.^[27]

North Korea

The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly rejected by the national constitution. Instead, the state is exclusively charged with "protecting and fortifying" the country.

Chapter IV, Article 60 of the Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea):
"The State shall implement the line of self-reliant defence, the import of which is to arm the entire people, fortify the country, train the army into a cadre army and modernize the army on the basis of equipping the army and the people politically and ideologically."^[28]

Pakistan

Further information: Gun politics in Pakistan

Sharia law

Under Sharia law, there is an intrinsic freedom to own arms. However, in times of civil strife or internal violence, this right can be temporarily suspended to keep peace and prevent harm, as mentioned by Imam ash-Shatibi in his works on Maqasid ash-Shari'ah (The Intents and Purposes of Shari'ah)^[29]^[30] Citizens not practicing Islam are prohibited from bearing arms and are required to be protected by the Islamic State's Military, the state for which they pay the jizyah. In exchange they do not need to pay the zakat.^[31]

Spain

Per section 149.26 of the Spanish Constitution "The State shall have exclusive competence over ... the regime for the production, trading, holding and use of weapons"

In practice, there is a tight regime over firearms which are regulated by law and administered by the Intervención de Armas unit of theGuardia Civil. The law requires every person carrying or having possession of a firearm to have a licence issued by the Civil Guard Authority. There are separate licence categories for officers of the state (e.g., the armed forces, the police and customs officers), personal use, security guards, game hunters large and small, for collectors, sports users and for minors participating in sports. Licences usually are issued for a limited period and are restrictive regarding the class of weapon that may be held.^[32]

Switzerland

Further information: Gun politics in Switzerland

Although the Swiss do not have a constitutional right to bear arms, Switzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. Every male between the ages of 20 and 34 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military, and following a brief period of active duty will commonly be enrolled in themilitia until age or an inability to serve ends his service obligation.^[33] However while there is no constitutional right to bear arms, gun ownership in Switzerland is protected under the 1997 Arms Act contrary to popular belief. ^[34]^[35] Up until December 2009, these men were required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their homes as long as they were enrolled in the armed forces.^[36] Since January 2010, they have the option of depositing their personal firearm at a government arsenal.^[37] Up until September 2007, soldiers received 50 rounds of government-issued ammunition in a sealed box for storage at home.^[38]

Switzerland may have one of the highest personal gun ownership rates in the world.^[39] It has an overall low crime rate by European standards, but it has one of the highest rates of gun homicide, and the highest gun suicide rate in Europe.^[40]^[41] However Switzerland also has one of the world's lowest overall homicide rates, a rate considerably lower than the European average. ^[42]

Swiss gun laws are considered to be restrictive.^[43] Owners are legally responsible for third party access and usage of their weapons. Licensure is similar to other Germanic countries.^[44] In a referendum in February 2011 voters rejected a citizens' initiative which would have obliged armed services members to store their rifles and pistols on military compounds, rather than keep them at home, and required that privately owned firearms be registered.^[41]

United Kingdom

Further information: English law, Scots Law, Northern Ireland law, and Gun politics in the United Kingdom

Until recently, English statute was not concerned with absolute rights and rights that were recognized in law, such as the right to life have traditionally been part of the common law. There is an English common law right to keep and bear arms for self-protection but the possession of certain arms is controlled for the common good.^[45] The right to bear arms was not specifically made legal until the Bill of Rights 1689. The first serious control on firearms after this was not made until the passing of the Pistols Act 1903 more than 200 years later.^[46]

Modern-day possession of guns operates as follows: everything that isn't prohibited under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 must be held on a section 1 firearms certificate, unless it is a section 2 shotgun and can thus go on a Shot Gun Certificate. The requirements for a firearms certificate are more demanding than that of a Shot Gun Certificate.^[47]

Police officers in Great Britain do not routinely carry firearms but do typically carry a baton and/or pepper spray. In recent years Tasershave controversially been deployed against citizens, occasionally in error.^[48] Police that do carry firearms regularly are typically those guarding national ports of entry, those engaged with diplomatic security, Royal Protection officers, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary or officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Police officers carrying semi-automatic rifles were employed across London during the 2012 Olympics as a deterrent to terrorism and can occasionally be seen year-round at major London rail stations and other areas of high public concentration.

General

The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibited the carrying of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. This is defined as any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use.^[49] The law covers not just firearms but also knives. A person cannot merely carry a knife around with him for self-defence as the courts do not regard this as reasonable excuse. Since 1972, in the Queens Bench court case Evans v. Hughes, the threat has to be believed to be real and imminent.^[50] A person with fishing tackle and carrying a knife or on a camping expedition would have a reasonable excuse for carrying a knife. Non locking, folding knives with a blade under 3 inches, may be carried freely without "reasonable excuse", however the police and courts regard them as an offensive weapon if used as such. It was not considered a "reasonable excuse" to carry a weapon for self-defence, unless his job carried a high risk of being attacked by criminals such as people carrying money to a bank, security guards and certain people who worked for the government. Since 1973, security guards and others are not allowed to carry truncheons and other weapons as part of their duties and only police are allowed to carry weapons.

Firearms

Pistols with barrels shorter than 9 inches were first controlled by the 1903 Pistols Act, which placed hurdles in the path of those who were not householders. Pistols, revolvers, rifles and ammunition, but not shotguns, were much more tightly controlled by the Firearms Act of 1920, which made it illegal to possess these weapons without first obtaining a certificate from the police and registering each individual firearm. Less stringent provisions were introduced for shotguns in 1967.^[51]

UK legislation often gives considerable powers to ministers to issue regulations that control the way the various acts are applied. In relation to firearms, this power generally falls to the Home Secretary. The Home Office therefore has some control of the conditions under which firearms certificates can be issued. On a few occasions over the years, permits have been granted to private individuals to keep firearms for personal protection, however these are very limited and exceptional cases.

The Firearms Acts 1936/7 placed additional controls on fully automatic firearms, effectively restricting them to the armed forces and police. The Criminal Justice Act 1967 was passed which introduced Shotgun Certificates. The act was at least in part a response to themurder by criminals of three policemen the previous year, though this had been committed with handguns. The Firearms Act 1968introduced the concept of compulsory security for rifles and pistols and incorporated the Shotgun Certificate first outlined in the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The Firearms Act 1982 extended the provision of the 1968 Act, including control of imitation firearms. The Hungerford killings in 1987 was followed by the Firearms Act 1988 which banned centre-fire self-loading and pump action rifles and extended compulsory security to shotguns. The Dunblane massacre in Scotland in 1996 was followed by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which effectively banned all but .22 pistols; and then, after the Labour government led by Tony Blair came into power, the Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Act 1997 was introduced, which effectively banned the private possession of all modern pistols, even for competitive sporting purposes. Rifles are not limited to smallbore, or to competition use and numerous types of rifles, shotguns and black-powder pistols and longarms, may be owned privately. ^[52]

The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 has brought certain types of air weapons into the categories of control created by the firearms acts.^[53]

The Crown Prosecution Service has published a summary of the laws regarding firearms in England and Wales.^[54]

Knives

The following laws^[55] apply to the controlled use of knives in the UK; possession of an offensive weapon in a public place (section 1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953); the possession of a bladed or pointed article in a public place (Section 139 Criminal Justice Act 1988); trading in flick or gravity knives (restricted under the Offensive Weapons Act 1959), the unlawful marketing of combat knives and publishing adverts for combat knives and using someone to mind a weapon (Violent Crime Reduction Act VCRA 2006). The police have powers of entry, seizure, retention and forfeiture (The Knives Act 1997). School staff members have powers to search school students and others (VCRA s.45, 46 and 47 & S550aa of the Education Act 1996). Senior police officers can authorise constables to stop and search persons in a specific area either where a serious public order problem is likely to arise, or look for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments (S60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994).

The Crown Prosecution Service has published a summary of the laws regarding knives in England and Wales.^[56]

Others

The Firearms Act 1968 also forbids the use of "any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing" by the public. This, for example, covers pepper spray, ammonia, CS gas, and electric shock armaments such as the Taser and Stun gun.

United States

Main article: Right to keep and bear arms in the United States

Further information: Firearm case law in the United States, Gun law in the United States, and Gun laws in the United States (by state)

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is codified in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The text of the amendment reads:

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.^[57]

English precedent

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights 1689, which restricted the right of the English Crown to interfere with the personal right to bear arms. The 1689 Bill of Rights restricted the right of the monarch to have a standing army and to interfere with the personal right to bear arms. It did not create a new right to have arms, but instead rescinded and deplored acts of the deposed King James II which extended the right to Catholics and Protestant dissenters in addition to upholding prior legislation that limited the ownership of arms to certain social classes. The English Bill of Rights firmly established that regulating the right to bear arms was one of the powers of Parliament, and did not belong to the monarch.^[5]

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century about the right to have arms being auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", but conceded that the right was subject to their suitability and allowance by law.^[58]

Yemen

In Yemen firearms are both easily and legally accessible.^[59]^[60]

Notes and references[edit]

Jump up^ Halbrook, Stephen P. (1994). That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Independent Studies in Political Economy). Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute. p. 8. ISBN 0-945999-38-0.
Jump up^ McAffee, Thomas B.; Michael J. Quinlan (March 1997). "Bringing Forward The Right To Keep And Bear Arms: Do Text, History, Or Precedent Stand In The Way?". North Carolina Law Review: 781.
Jump up^ State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions
Jump up^ Wills, Garry (September 21, 1995). "To Keep and Bear Arms".
^ Jump up to:^a ^b "1688 c.2 1 Will. and Mar. Sess. 2". Statutelaw.gov.uk. Retrieved August 30, 2010.
Jump up^ Lammi, Glenn G.; Chang, James (December 17, 2004)."Michigan High Court Ruling Offers Positive Guidance on Challenges to Tort Reform Laws". Legal Backgrounder(Washington Legal Foundation) 19 (46). ISBN 10563059 Check|isbn= value (help).
Jump up^ Milestones! 200 Years of American Law: Milestones in Our Legal History. By Jethro Koller Lieberman. Published by West, 1976. Original from the University of California. Digitized Jun 11, 2008. ISBN 0-19-519881-6, ISBN 978-0-19-519881-2, pg. 16 [1]
Jump up^ Firearms Act (S.C. 1995, c. 39). Department of Justice. Retrieved 2011-11-22.
Jump up^ RCMP 5592: Application for a Possession and Acquisition Licence Under the Firearms Act. RCMP. Retrieved 2011-11-22.
Jump up^ Form CAFC 679: Authorization to Transport Restricted Firearms and Prohibited Firearms. RCMP. Retrieved 2011-11-22.
Jump up^ Form CAFC 680: Application for an Authorization to Carry Restricted Firearms and Prohibited Handguns. RCMP. Retrieved 2011-11-22.
Jump up^ Authorization To Carry Permits, by Province, 1999-2002Spreadsheet on website of Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Member of Parliament
Jump up^ "Republica de Chile, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, Dirección General de Movilización Nacional, Control de Armas y Elementos Similares, Ley 17798". Retrieved 2013-02-08.
Jump up^ "CRIMINAL LAW OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA". Retrieved 2008-05-10.
Jump up^ The Family magazine, or, Monthly abstract of general knowledge, Volume 2. Eli Taylor. 1837. p. 309. Retrieved 2010-06-28.
Jump up^ "Firearm Act of Finland". Finlex.fi. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
Jump up^ "Hunting Act of Finland". Finlex.fi. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
Jump up^ "A letter by the Ministry of the Interior". Intermin.fi. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
Jump up^ "Public Order Act of Finland". Finlex.fi. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
Jump up^ Lakshmi, Rama (1 February 2010). AR2010013102079.html "New groups mobilize as Indians embrace the right to bear arms". washingtonpost.com. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
Jump up^ GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS INTERNAL SECURITY-II DIVISION ARMS SECTION (21 December 2009). "ARMS AND AMMUNITION POLICY FOR INDIVIDUALS". GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. Retrieved 18 May 2013.
Jump up^http://mops.gov.il/Documents/Publications/Firearms/FirearmLicensingCriterion1.pdf
Jump up^ http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html#fn5
Jump up^ "Mexican Constitution (As amended)". pp. Article 10. Retrieved 2009-07-30.
Jump up^ Hawley, Chris (1 April 2009). "Mexico: Gun controls undermined by U.S.". USA Today. Retrieved 27 December 2011.
Jump up^ "A Practical Guide to Mexico's Gun Laws for Americans".panda.com. 2010. Retrieved 15 December 2011.
Jump up^ "Guns are Illegal in Mexico". U.S. Consulate General Tijuana, Mexico. 2011. Retrieved 15 December 2011.
Jump up^ "Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Full Text) 1998". Novexcn.com. 1998-09-05. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
Jump up^ Aḥmad Raysūnī (2005). Imam Al-Shatibi's Theory of the Higher Objectives and Intents of Islamic Law. p. 60. Retrieved October 13, 2012.
Jump up^ "Purpose of Law" (Book). Imam Al-Shatibi's Theory of the Higher Objectives and Intents of Islamic Law (Paperback).
Jump up^ Goldschmidt, Arthur; Arthur Goldschmidt Jr (2002). A concise history of the Middle East. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press. p. 108. ISBN 0-8133-3885-9.
Jump up^ Licencing categories in Spain Spanish government in Spanish
Jump up^ The Swiss Army at Europeforvisitors.com.
Jump up^ http://www.poa-iss.org/CASACountryProfile/NationalLegislation/1@Swiss-Weapons-Act-.fr.pdf
Jump up^ http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/1535
Jump up^ Lott, John R. "''Swiss Miss'', John R. Lott writing for The National Review, October 2, 2003". Nationalreview.com. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
Jump up^ "Hinterlegung der persönlichen Waffe". Logistikbasis der Armee, Eidgenössisches Departement für Verteidigung, Bevölkerungsschutz und Sport. Retrieved 4 May 2013.
Jump up^ "Gun laws under fire after latest shooting". Swissinfo. 27 November 2007.
Jump up^ "Estimating Civilian Owned Firearms" (Press release). Small Arms Survey. September 2011 Number 9. Retrieved January 27, 2013.
Jump up^ "De-Quilling the Porcupine: Swiss Mull Tighter Gun Laws". Retrieved 2008-01-22.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b "Switzerland rejects tighter gun controls". BBC News Online. 13 February 2011.
Jump up^ http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&f=tableCode%3a1%3bCountryUNNumCode%3a756&c=2,3,5,6,8,10&s=countryName:asc,yr:desc&v=1
Jump up^ "Switzerland — Gun Facts, Figures and the Law".International Firearms Injury Prevention & Policy. 27 June 2012. Retrieved 15 January 2013.
Jump up^ "Bundesgesetz vom 20. Juni 1997 über Waffen, Waffenzubehör und Munition (Waffengesetz, WG)". Swissinfo. 20 June 1997. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
Jump up^ Kopel, David (1995). "It isn't about duck hunting: The British origins of the right to arms". Michigan Law Review (Michigan Law Review Association) (93): 1333–1362. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
Jump up^ John Pate (1903-08-11). "Dunblane Massacre Resource Page — Pistols Act, 1903". Dvc.org.uk. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
Jump up^ Home Office guidelines to Police on granting of a firearms certificate
Jump up^ [2]
Jump up^ "Prevention of Crime Act 1953". Opsi.gov.uk. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
Jump up^ "Court of Appeal ruling on the validity of "self defence" as "reasonable excuse"". Bailii.org. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
Jump up^ "Report 87: Psychological Evaluation and Gun Control"(PDF). Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. 1996. Retrieved 2007-03-07.^{[dead link]}
Jump up^ "Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997". Office of Public Sector Information. Retrieved 2007-03-07. and "Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997". Office of Public Sector Information. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
Jump up^ "New Legislation". The Metropolitan Police. Archived fromthe original on 2007-03-02. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
Jump up^ "The Crown Prosecution Service. Guidance re Firearms". Cps.gov.uk. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
Jump up^ "Knife Crime Best Practice Guidelines". Crimereducition.homeoffice.gov.uk.
Jump up^ "The Crown Prosecution Service. Guidance re Offensive Weapons, Knives, Bladed and Pointed Articles". Cps.gov.uk. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
Jump up^ Young, David E., The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms, p.222.
Jump up^ "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved 2012-05-22.
Jump up^ Weapons in Yemen, Yemeni gun market.
Jump up^ [3], Gun policy in Yemen