What are the legal restriction for possessing weapons ?

[Nidan Melbourne]

I had this conversation with my girlfriend and friends on saturday about the restrictions and how constitutions allow weapons + whether we as a society world wide should use and have the allowance on owning weapons such as guns etc. And from here I APOLOGIZE if this offends anyone, and a lot of this is my opinion unless specified. I am happy to discuss privately if anyone is offended by what i say.

In Australia; guns are extremely regulated and can only be used in certain situations and sports. It is so regulated because of the Port Arthur Massacre. Which led to automatic and semi-automatic guns being banned to the general public.

Also you need to acquire a firearms licence and a Buyers Permit to be able to buy any gun. If you only acquire the firearms licence you can go to a gun range to operate them.

Now from what i know of American Law & constitution any person may buy a gun as long as you have a licence for owning them. And have a seperate permit to carry it.

To be honest my issue with that is how many people carry a gun around with them in a daily life. I respect that you have the right to own it for protection. But there have been so many shootings over the years that hasn't shaken people up about wanting to have reforms on it. Please know I DO RESPECT your rights and not wanting to restrict them BUT having so many available firearms that are so readily available and so many people own them that something is going to give.

I understand that you will want to own one because someone else does but that causes more issues than good. But this is the one reason why i don't want to live in the USA, because of the risk of someone coming into my workplace, home or wherever i go and shooting up the place and there being the risk of me or someone i love dying. So my safety is more important than living my dream of working and living in the US.

In England as far as i know deaths per year are less than 200. Which is lower than others. And also their right to possess is NOT guaranteed by law.

In terms of non-gun weapons, but still can project something such as a taser or mace i think should still be regulated and should have the same treatment as guns. because Tasers can be potentially lethal if someone has a heart condition (known or unknown) or has a severely weak heart. mace could also be dangerous if in the eyes and not treated quickly, plus if capsicum spray someone may have an allergic or anaphylactic response to those chemicals that are in it.

Weapons that we use in class such as the Bo, Jo, Tonfa, Sticks (Arnis/Eskrima) and other common martial arts weapons may be restricted but you can easily prove that your only intentions with it are for Martial Arts training and that you would only use that training for self defense. I own Arnis Sticks and train with them but only after i spoke with the police about it. The more exotic weapons that may not be seen all that often should also be treated carefully because of the view that people have that they may be dangerous (which admittedly they are) but we wouldn't actually use them in a self defense situation anyway because we wouldn't be carrying them around all the time.

My friends agreed with me on a lot of this, two of them are pro-gun supporters (along with their families) but even they agreed that guns and weapons should be so regulated that people should feel safe and that gun owners would be more accountable for their actions. Their parents also chimed in (they were at the house as well), by saying that firearms should be a privilege not a right and if someone abuses it they lose it and get punished severely according to what they did. Now the parents are all in their late 50's early 60's and have been pro-gun supporters their WHOLE LIFE. They own a gun BUT only will use it in extreme cases to protect themselves and their family.

[ShoriKid]

Not offended sir, but I'll respond a bit in detail. Same disclaimer, I don't mean to offend, never do on the boards. But, it seems there is plenty of media presentation vs. reality of weapons laws in the US at play here.

I had this conversation with my girlfriend and friends on saturday about the restrictions and how constitutions allow weapons + whether we as a society world wide should use and have the allowance on owning weapons such as guns etc. And from here I APOLOGIZE if this offends anyone, and a lot of this is my opinion unless specified. I am happy to discuss privately if anyone is offended by what i say.

In Australia; guns are extremely regulated and can only be used in certain situations and sports. It is so regulated because of the Port Arthur Massacre. Which led to automatic and semi-automatic guns being banned to the general public.

Also you need to acquire a firearms licence and a Buyers Permit to be able to buy any gun. If you only acquire the firearms licence you can go to a gun range to operate them.

Now from what i know of American Law & constitution any person may buy a gun as long as you have a licence for owning them. And have a seperate permit to carry it.

This varies from state to state, but in the majority, you do not have to have a licence to own a firearm. You will have to pass a criminal background check when buying from a dealer. Most individuals may purchase from other individuals without a background check, though in practice many ask them to meet at a dealers to run a check, or will only sell to CCW (carry concealed weapon) holders. Those individuals have under gone additional background checks, and statistically commit firearms related crimes at a fraction of the rate of the rest of the population (last figures I saw, less than most police officers). A separate background check, identification process and training is required to obtain a CCW. This varies by state, some being "shall issue", some being "may". The difference being that "shall" localities have to issue to anyone who applies, passes all the checks and training. "May" locations have additional hoops to jump through, and generally require a "heightened need" be demonstrated. In practice it is not about "need", but your connections, and often your wealth.

To be honest my issue with that is how many people carry a gun around with them in a daily life. I respect that you have the right to own it for protection. But there have been so many shootings over the years that hasn't shaken people up about wanting to have reforms on it. Please know I DO RESPECT your rights and not wanting to restrict them BUT having so many available firearms that are so readily available and so many people own them that something is going to give.

As stated above, last figures I saw put licensed CCW holders committing gun related offenses at a far lower rate than average citizens. Also, the number of defensive uses of firearms tend to be very under reported in the news media, but legal defensive use tends to be at least on par with criminal use, despite the higher requires to legally obtain than to steal etc.

The number of shootings with firearms continues to drop in the US while the number of legally owed guns continues to rise. This has been the trend for at least the last 20 years even as carry laws become more prevalent.

I understand that you will want to own one because someone else does but that causes more issues than good. But this is the one reason why i don't want to live in the USA, because of the risk of someone coming into my workplace, home or wherever i go and shooting up the place and there being the risk of me or someone i love dying. So my safety is more important than living my dream of working and living in the US.

Work place and school type shootings are very rare, and have not been on the rise despite what the reporting may seem like. The media here in the states makes an attempt to make huge issues of this, despite the facts. 24 hour news cycles have a lot to do with this as well. Outside of residing in certain, usually very poor neighborhood, or taking part in high risk behaviors, usually crime related, you odds of being shot are pretty low.

In England as far as i know deaths per year are less than 200. Which is lower than others. And also their right to possess is NOT guaranteed by law.

On an island with extremely strict gun laws that can be expected. We currently can keep tons of narcotics and thousands of people from crossing our southern borders yearly. Stopping something as small as weapons won't happen. Ingenuity beats the law, every time. An example closer to home, http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/man-charged-with-making-machine-guns/story-e6frea83-1226528981674?nk=87db310b1e0b55c6732ed02e928b437e

In terms of non-gun weapons, but still can project something such as a taser or mace i think should still be regulated and should have the same treatment as guns. because Tasers can be potentially lethal if someone has a heart condition (known or unknown) or has a severely weak heart. mace could also be dangerous if in the eyes and not treated quickly, plus if capsicum spray someone may have an allergic or anaphylactic response to those chemicals that are in it.

Here you have effectively removed the ability to use these items for self defense, if you take the same stance with them as you seem to have above with firearms. Most states in the US with strict gun regulation, also strictly regulate the use of these items by regular citizens as well. The point, in my opinion, seems more about disarming citizens as their governments do not trust them with their own defense.

Weapons that we use in class such as the Bo, Jo, Tonfa, Sticks (Arnis/Eskrima) and other common martial arts weapons may be restricted but you can easily prove that your only intentions with it are for Martial Arts training and that you would only use that training for self defense. I own Arnis Sticks and train with them but only after i spoke with the police about it. The more exotic weapons that may not be seen all that often should also be treated carefully because of the view that people have that they may be dangerous (which admittedly they are) but we wouldn't actually use them in a self defense situation anyway because we wouldn't be carrying them around all the time.

Carrying a weapon in the US, without something like a CCW, is usually not something you will be able to do. You can transport things, like say a katana to class, but slinging it over your shoulder will get attention. Carrying a small knife, not so much, but this is a matter of local ordinance and state law. In in Tennessee, as of yesterday, there was a change in knife law as to what is legal to have on you in public. Changes in max blade length, mode of operation/opening and blade design all changed.

My friends agreed with me on a lot of this, two of them are pro-gun supporters (along with their families) but even they agreed that guns and weapons should be so regulated that people should feel safe and that gun owners would be more accountable for their actions. Their parents also chimed in (they were at the house as well), by saying that firearms should be a privilege not a right and if someone abuses it they lose it and get punished severely according to what they did. Now the parents are all in their late 50's early 60's and have been pro-gun supporters their WHOLE LIFE. They own a gun BUT only will use it in extreme cases to protect themselves and their family.

Feeling safe is not the object of regulation of a right or of self-defense. How would you feel if the state, in order to make others feel safe, instituted regulations on how you could train in the martial arts, what techniques you could learn and said you cold not use them in defense of yourself?

As to the standards to which someone is held for committing an offense, they are strict and the punishments are harsh. Robbery with a weapon, any weapons, club, knife, rubber chicken (okay maybe not), carries a higher sentence than doing it without. The same crime with a firearms gets you the harshest punishments. Repeat felons suffer higher and higher penalties until the sentence is life. Gun owners in the US are some of the biggest supporters of hard sentences for people who commit crimes with weapons, especially firearms. However, the view, with long tradition of firearms ownership, is different on this side of things.

Something to consider, and it may be very different for you, legally law enforcement has no requirement to protect any given individual. This is settled case law through to the Supreme Court. An officer can watch you being stabbed ten feet from them, and they don't have to step in to help you. As seen here (and the City won the case btw) http://nypost.com/2013/01/27/city-says-cops-had-no-duty-to-protect-subway-hero-who-subdued-killer/

Nidan, I hope that I didn't offend above, being able to be armed, from firearms down, is something that I feel law abiding people have a right to do. If not, we, as a society have decided that in any encounter, youth, strength, numbers and size are going to be the determining factors. Training can help over come some of this, however, criminals have shown a sever lack of respect for the law regarding assault, weapons, murder etc., thus leaving the unarmed law follower at a disadvantage.[/url]

[Harkon72]

Any object carried on your person with the intent of harming another is illegal in the UK. If you walk down the street with a hammer with no intent of using it in the way it is designed or that you have just purchased it; then you can be cautioned or arrested by the police and the offending implement confiscated.

I have had a key ring confiscated in my home by a police officer; how he knew my intent to use it is a mystery to me.

[ShoriKid]

Any object carried on your person with the intent of harming another is illegal in the UK. If you walk down the street with a hammer with no intent of using it in the way it is designed or that you have just purchased it; then you can be cautioned or arrested by the police and the offending implement confiscated.

I have had a key ring confiscated in my home by a police officer; how he knew my intent to use it is a mystery to me.

Intent laws leave a lot of desire when it comes to enforcement. It gives too much latitude to officers who can let one man walk, and arrest the next man for the same thing. The US has similar "With intent to go armed" clauses in weapon possession. Mostly they will get brought up during illegal carry cases. Sometimes though, it will be used against the guy stopped with a rifle in their auto's trunk, little too arbitrary for my tastes.

In your example, you were not outside of your home, so no restrictions on carrying an object in public should have mattered, though I'm not overly familiar with UK legal system. Personally, I think you should have reported the officer and charged them, by name, with theft of your property. It was not legally confiscated by how you are describing things. When they do things like that, and get to walk off from repercussions, they will continue to do it until they are stopped.