Katana Banning in UK

[Grenadier]

I stand humbled by an outsiders knowledge of how my countries laws work. You live in a land of gun culture, ours is a knife culture, I don't lecture you on the stupidity or not of your laws I find it incredible that people are lecturing me on the stupidity of my countries laws.

We are simply discussing how badly this law is written. Gun or knife culture, it matters not, since this law oppresses people who have done nothing wrong, and aren't likely to do anything wrong, while doing absolutely nothing to hinder criminals.

All the law does is create a bunch of "have's" and "have not's" amongst the law-abiding populace.

I wil reiterate, if you are a genuine martial artist, historical renactment society member, Scottish sword dancer etc you will not be prosecuted. You can pass on your swords to your children if you wish.Sikhs will keep whatever weapons they have.

Again, I would ask, what about the 80 year old collector who doesn't practice martial arts? Why does forbidding him from buying a 51 centimeter curved blade make sense? He's not going to go out there and hack and slash people.

The politicians assert that they only want to go after cheap swords... So, the law exempts 100+ year old swords from being banned... What makes a 101 year old sword that was very poorly forged, any more legit than a brand new Angus Trim, Bugei, or Howard Clark sword? Under the law, the 101 year old junker would be allowed, yet a newly made, fine custom Howard Clark katana would be verboten to the above 80 year old man who just wants to have a nice collection.

The law is full of common sense holes, and is the product of ignorant politicians who are trying to enact "feel good" legislation that does nothing to stop criminals.

Even if, by some magical means, cheap swords are taken out of the hands of criminals, it would still accomplish absolutely nothing. Any criminal can create an improvised blade from commonly available materials, and do so in a relatively short time. If you don't believe this, then just look at what goes on in prisons, where prisoners have used anything not solidly bolted down (and in some cases, where they were solidly bolted down) to make some nasty "shivs."

http://www.designobserver.com/archives/shiv1.html

 

[Tez3]

I probably haven't explained this well enough. We work to the spirit of the law, which as I understand is not what American law does as you work to the word of the law. The spirit of the law is that law abiding people have nothing to fear while those who have knives and swords for illegal purpose do.
We are not so stupid as to believe that any legislation even the best written will stop those intent on breaking law from doing so. The best we hope from law is that we can arrest and try those who do. To believe otherwise is to live in a fools paradise. I'm well aware of what edged weapons can be come across on the street.
The old gentleman collector ( who came under my 'etc' btw) is not breaking the spirit of the law merely by owning a weapon, he will have to however buy his weapons through a registered dealer rather than someone who is not registered. He would not be procescuted I assure you for any of his weapons unless he decided to go on the rampage with them.
No law is perfect, this law will be tested no doubt and if found wanting will be changed/modified as plenty of others have. People take laws to court all the time as I've said even to the Court of Human Rights. This is the courts job, to test the law. As problems are come aross there will be amendments to the law to iron out ambuiguities and mistakes. As I've said the law is a living entity, it evolves, in England it has evolved for over a thousand years, it will continue to evolve. It may even make murder a criminal offence which I can assure you it isn't here, it's a crime under common law not criminal law.
My son ordered a new sword from Europe ( he's a collector), it arrived safely yesterday.

 

[tellner]

No Tez, if the sneering didn't work neither will the "Stupid foreigners. Alright, then don't come over here" line. It's more of Phase III - Call the other lawyer a schmuck. If this continues I fully expect you to come around to "You don't carry tin. You couldn't possibly understand you mere civilian." That is police SOP when using an argument that isn't well founded. The next part is to say "If you don't like the law or what I'm saying you must be against me personally and against the law and police in general."

The fallacies here are blindingly obvious.

This isn't about "knife culture" or "gun culture". It's about a broadly badly written law. What you are telling us, very clearly, is that since we come from a country with somewhat different laws we are incapable of logic or reading comprehension and that our personal preferences with regards to an ideal law make us incapable of reasoned argument.

So far it is you who have descended to the personal and the stereotype. That is not typical of your style, nor is it worthy of your usual level of discourse.

You've said there are exceptions that answer the questions and concerns. So far you haven't come up with a single one except "Trust me. I wouldn't ever do anything like that." You wouldn't. You've got a good heart, a sound head on your shoulders and you're not a political hack. The same can not be said for everyone who will be charged with enforcing the law or the people who wrote it.

According to your posts there are policies handed down that clarify and provide a defense for someone who has wrongfully fallen afoul of the law as written. Since you are making the statement the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that that is true. A quote or two from the documents or a selection of revealing snippets would go a long way towards making your case. So far there is nothing. In the absence of evidence and an increasingly personal tenor to your argument what can we reasonably think?

So tell us, please. Where and how do these directives change the law as written? Do they provide an affirmative defense? Is there anything that a person can say when standing before the judge other than "I'm not the sort of person the law was supposed to apply to. I'm the right sort of person, so according to an unwritten agreement I shouldn't even be here."

I refer you to the newspaper vendors once again. They weren't the sort of person this was supposed to apply to. They had a legitimate reason to do what they did. But when they were stretched on the anvil of the Law and the judge brought down the gavel that meant nothing.

Where are Sikhs granted an exception?

What recourse will Sukerkin have when Customs, which isn't a beat cop who personally knows him, cuts his (expensive) Paul Chen or Cas Iberian in half or decides that the folding wasn't "traditional" enough and melts a few thousand pounds worth of historical artifact into slag?

 

[howard]

Our law does not include "common sense." Perhaps that goes back to the founding of the government, but the introduction of common sense would mess up our system of checks and balances.

Hi,

I suspect that Tez was referring to what is known as common law. Both the UK and the US have long histories of common law; common law in fact is the basis of the US legal system.

That simply means that many judicial decisions are based on precedent cases, rather than the letter of a particular law.

Tez, if I'm misconstruing you, please correct me. Thanks.

The idea of "natural law" is totally foreign to me, and to our law "culture." Could you please explain more of that to us, and explain the appeals or defense process one could go through if they feel that the "natural law" was unjustly used against them?

It's irrelevant to the modern legal systems on both sides of the Atlantic.

Natural law is a concept with roots primarily in old Catholic religious philosophy. It basically says that God created certain "laws" that take precedence over any "positive law" that us humans might enact. A good place to start, if you're interested in learning more about natural law, would be some of the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.

btw, are there any examples of enforcement of the law in the UK yet? Do we have any basis to begin to form conclusions about how the law will be enforced in practice?

 

[Tez3]

Hi,

I suspect that Tez was referring to what is known as common law. Both the UK and the US have long histories of common law; common law in fact is the basis of the US legal system.

That simply means that many judicial decisions are based on precedent cases, rather than the letter of a particular law.

Tez, if I'm misconstruing you, please correct me. Thanks.


It's irrelevant to the modern legal systems on both sides of the Atlantic.

Natural law is a concept with roots primarily in old Catholic religious philosophy. It basically says that God created certain "laws" that take precedence over any "positive law" that us humans might enact. A good place to start, if you're interested in learning more about natural law, would be some of the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.

btw, are there any examples of enforcement of the law in the UK yet? Do we have any basis to begin to form conclusions about how the law will be enforced in practice?

You are perfectly correct, this is exactly what we do. No there have been no cases anyone being arrested for possessing a sword who didn't rightly have reason to have one.

Teller your hostility to me on this thread has been palpable and I wasn't sneering I was being sarcastic, my usual response to being attacked.
You have read far more into my posts than was ever meant. I have never said stupid foreigners, as I neither consider you to be foreign or stupid.
I have never posted up that I thought any law in America was stupid, I refrain on the grounds of tact and good manners from criticising another countries law, customs or way of life especially where I don't understand them. I, for the life of me cannot understand why you should be so adamant that this is such a bad law and so badly written, it may well be but why it upsets you so much that you put words into my mouth I really don't know.
The law will be policed not on the whim of individual police officers, it will be policed in the spirit of the meaning of the law ie that only people with criminal intent will be prosecuted for ownership or possesion of illegal weapons, that is the law.there is no 'secret documents' about this, it has been the understanding of the police since the Peelers time. I think a discussion on the role of the police is probably called for here but i shal just post up this instead, It's PACE, the main framework from which we work.
http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/powers-pace-codes/pace-code-intro/

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/news/samurai-swords-banned

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docume...ons/cons-resp-banning-off-weapons?view=Binary

If people who are in possession of weapons for legitimate weapons are mistakenly arrested and charged it will go to court, it will be thrown out thereby setting the precedent that people with legitimate reasons for having weapons have nothing to fear. the laws 'words' may have been written by the politicians but they will be interpreted by the judges.
I'm not saying people are stupid for not understanding the way things are done, many of our laws are medieval (and our lawmaking) plus you have to remember we have no constitution only the Magna Carta.
I'm bowing out of this debate as it has got uncomfortably personal and I've no wish for reasons of my own to be involved in internet feuds.

 

[Sukerkin]

Steady, chaps and chapesses.

I think perhaps we have a case of one-step Chinese whispers going on in the brief exchange above - by this I mean that I reckon altho' the same stick may have been seized by both sides, each side has hold of a different end.

Given that none of the participants here are unknown to each other, maybe a moment to reflect as to whether what was read was what was meant might help? We all know how easy it is to take or give (unwitting) offense in a Net conversation (I've done it myself after all ) so before things get too heated, ask yourself if offence was meant as taken before a spark turns into a fire.

On-topic, I still haven't had chance to read the new legislation (an oversight I shall correct forthwith) but I do feel that it is poorly targeted and poorly scoped from what I know of the (totally ignored as far as I can tell) consultation process.

I took part in that, as did every other swordsman I know, in the hope that some sense could be wrought from this votes-pandering. Our opinions seem to have changed things a little in that it is now written-in that legitimate martial artists have a certain level of exemption.

As an aside, did you know that this rather sweeping law essentially came into being because of one womans emotion-fueled campaigning? Her son was killed by some eejut with an SLO and she has since been driven to get rid of all Demonic Katana's. Her grief and passion is understandable but her achieveing her goal is woeful as it accomplishes nothing. If it had been a hammer, would all hammers be banned except for licenced carpenters and serious DIY enthusiasts? I doubt it. Will the law remove the uncounted millions of SLO's sold? That's rhetorical enough to leave it at that I think.

I understand Irene's point about law being applied with common-sense and I take her position on that aspect as being reasonable enough (with the proviso's I've already mentioned in previous posts).

I do think tho' that this law has pretty much killed JSA in this country stone-dead. It was a small group already because, once you start serious training, the costs rack up even faster than for kendo - my iaito alone is a £450-£500 piece of kit (not that I paid that much for it due to fortunate circumstances).

If people don't follow on from watching the Last Samurai or Kill Bill, buy an SLO, wave it about a bit, try and find a sensei and go on to buy the 'real' thing, then the already rare JSA dojo will shrink and disappear. The core of my logic chain there was the "buy an SLO" bit. Everyone I know (other than my sensei, who started with a C16th nihonto {:jealousy:}) began their journey in the Japanese Sword Arts with a, erm, 'decorative item' - me too :blush:. Take out that cheap step and people will not take the next one and seek to learn how to use their 'wallhanger' properly and will not then learn the difference between ornament and weapon.