Looking back over this thread I realise that we are talking at cross purposes. I'm talking about the law which makes carrying an offensive weapon in public illegal and Mr Lawson is talking about the law that some thought would make owning a sword illegal in the UK. Neither of these laws by the way includes firearms because they come under their own laws.
It has not been legal for over sixty years and probably before then ( I only know the more recent Acts from my work training) to possess ( which under the law actually means carry) offensive weapons in public. It doesn't specifically mean swords it can mean quite a lot of articles.
"Possession of an Offensive Weapon
Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession in any public place of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or excuse. (Archbold 24-106a.)
The term 'offensive weapon' 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".
The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first limb of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis, it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury (Archbold 24-115)."
The chap with the sword will have been arrested but in all likelihood will either not be charged ( but be given a caution ) or will be charged only with simple possession as there was no intent to cause injury (most likely be given a community order) There is an offence committed though which ever way.
The defendant is entitled to be acquitted if he shows on the balance of probabilities that he had "lawful authority or reasonable excuse" for having the weapon (Archbold 24-121-122). Where details of a defence are given in interview or in a defence statement, the CPS should consider whether evidence is available to rebut the defence and should liaise with the police if additional enquiries or evidence are necessary.
Defence
The defendant is entitled to be acquitted if he shows on the balance of probabilities that:
- he had "good reason or lawful authority" for having the bladed or pointed article; or
- he had the article for use at work; or
- he had the article for religious reasons; or
- he had the article as part of a national costume; (Archbold 24-125).
The defendant does not discharge the burden of showing "good reason" just by providing an explanation that is not contradicted by the prosecution evidence: (Archbold 24-128). Where details of a defence are given in interview or in a defence statement, the CPS should consider whether evidence is available to rebut the defence and should liaise with police if additional enquiries or evidence are necessary. Any defence should be tested by robust cross examination."
There is no public outcry about repealing this Act, if anything there are pressure groups who want it tightened up further which most people in the legal/policing business think is unnecessary as there is enough in there to cover just about every instance.
This is the law ( courtesy of someone who has written it out without the legalese) as it concerns specifically swords and which did attract petitions and protests.
Sword Legislation - Ninja Sword