Previous Post
Next Post

British subjects are denied the right to use ANY self-defense weaponry. While Her Majesty’s Government “allows” some subjects to own shotguns, the regulation regime is onerous. And they cannot be used for self-defense. At the same time . . .

The British arms industry is a powerhouse It’s the second largest arms manufacturer in the world, second only to the United States.

Without arms sales, the U.K. economy would be hurtin’ for certain. According to Auntie Beeb, the British arms industry “directly employs 350,000 people, spread over 11,000 firms, with as many as 1.2 million people relying on it for a living.”

In 2014, the Land of Hope and Glory exported some £7.7bn worth of military weaponry. Now check this from a article published last May:

More than £3bn of British-made weaponry was licensed for export last year to 21 of the Foreign Office’s 30 “human rights priority countries” – those identified by the government as being where “the worst, or greatest number of, human rights violations take place”, or “where we judge that the UK can make a real difference”.

So bad guys get arms. That’s the way of the world, yes? But we’re not just talking about jets and missiles and such. The UK is also sending small arms — guns — to bad actors.

H&K and another major German firm, Sig Sauer, turn to UK and US operations when guidelines and political pressure in Germany are likely to block exports to conflict-affected countries, according to the report – entitled Small Arms in the Hands of Children (English, German pdf) – by the Berlin Information-centre for Transatlantic Security.

The cases cited by the study include H&K’s attempts to export thousands of guns to Nepal in 2000-01.

“When it became obvious that Germany would deny such an export deal due to public pressure because of the ongoing civil war, Heckler & Koch quickly applied for an export licence for 6,780 rifles in Great Britain, which was then granted,” said the report’s authors.

So children in “developing countries” get guns. That’s the way of the world, yes? But if the British government believes its subjects shouldn’t own guns, why is it allowing UK companies to send guns to countries where they’re bound to end-up in the hands of civilians? Think of the children!

Money honey. More to the point, if statists didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have any at all.

Previous Post
Next Post


      • I actually wrote a short article on that, outlining the key principles of British law on self defence, and submitted it to TTAG yesterday… so it may be published, guess we’ll have to wait and see.

        I’m a gun-owning Brit, and it sometimes bugs me to see some of the comments on here about firearms law and self defence laws in the UK. Sure, things are far from perfect, but they are actually a lot more reasonable than many on this site seem to think.

        Below is an excerpt from the article I sent in, which outlines the position regarding self defence in the UK:

        The laws on self defence in the UK are of course open to criticism, but are not as dire as some TTAG readers believe.

        In outline, there is a triple-lock test for whether the use of force can be justified. Any use of force must be:
        (a) minimal,
        (b) reasonable, and
        (c) proportionate

        What this means in practice is that:
        (a) whatever force is used should be the minimum necessary to prevent harm;
        (b) it must be in a situation where “a reasonable person” would believe that the use of force was necessary to prevent the harm and no other means existed; and
        (c) the force used should be proportionate to the harm that would otherwise occur (eg. beating on somebody for using rude language is not justified, but using deadly force against apprehended deadly force is justified).

        There is a separate and very legitimate debate around gun laws – which are restrictive when compared to most states in the US. But on self defence specifically, once the firearms laws are taken into account, the situation is not so radically different to the States.

        • @ Geoff: Yes it’s possible your attacker would try to sue you, but if you were acquitted (or not charged) for the use of force, it’s pretty much guaranteed he/she would lose, and you would get costs and maybe also punitive damages for a frivolous lawsuit. To be fair, as far as I know there’s nothing to stop an attacker from suing the person who defended him/herself in the States, either…?

          @ Rattlerjake: With respect, I’m not sure what your point is… If you think I’m wrong on the law then by all means cite your sources and we can circle back. But as this case shows, using force in self defence in the UK doesn’t automatically end with the defender in jail and sued to pieces.

    • I saw that article as well. It was a blatant example of overreach on the part of ‘Her Majesty’s’ prosecutors who seemed intent on making an example out of an elderly man. Pathetic doesn’t begin to describe their actions.

      As to the larger issue of gun control in the UK, I fear that the population has been so conditioned to be subjects rather than citizens that they’ll accept a complete police state as long as the pubs are kept open.

      • Completely agree, who the hell do they think they’re working for? The criminals apparently.
        This is the sort shamelessly lazy thinking, incompetence and moral cowardice us Brits have to put up with nowadays, the idea (or feeling more like) being that whoever has ended up the loser is automatically the “good guy”.

        • “Citizens” ARE “subjects.” A citizen BELONGS to some non-voluntary government entity, and is bound by that declaration to whatever “rules” the government imposes.

          As opposed to individuals who own themselves and enter into voluntary contracts and agreements with others as suits their purpose.

          No non-voluntary government wants to allow anyone to be a self owner. They want abject subjects, whatever they are called – though most fit the term “slave.”

          Slaves are not “allowed” to own guns to defend themselves – at least not without their master’s permission. Free individuals – self owners – can’t be prevented from doing so.

  1. Just for sporting that rifle, an HK with a 20 round clipazine amongst other evil features, I would face a felony conviction where I’m located at. A felony conviction for a grandpa with no record and service to his country behind him. Just cause.

    • I just legally purchased those same felonious 20-round magazines for less than the cost of a cup of Starbucks coffee. The amazing thing is, the place where you live and the place where I live don’t just exist in a book or on the internet. You could literally just get on your bike one morning and be here the same day. Maybe do that before there are checkpoints…

      Want to pickup a new handgun over lunch and still make it back to work on time? To quote a famous orphan, “you’re only a daaay aaaa waaaaaaay!!!” We welcome you.

      • And become a refugee in my own country? Admit that my rights are dependent on my zip code?

        That’s a win win for the bad guys.

  2. Also, those who receive arms would probably be the “official” government of the place where human rights are being abused. And whom would be the ones abusing human rights? Why, the government, of course.

  3. I have been beating this drum for awhile but . . . Declassified MI5 documents prove that the crown did give small arms to Protestant militia in N. Ireland as late as the 90’s. There are firearms “loose” on the UK populace because the queen put them there. It ain’t just in the congo or angola. The safety of the british subjects did not and does not mean shite when it does not serves the monarch’s purpose.

  4. Gun control started there after ww1 when the red menace was terrifying. They couldnt have the proletariat rising up, god cant save the queen if the working class are armed. Churchill the great anglophile hero was heavily involved. Small arm sales isnt about the money its about keeping the people they want in power, in parts of the world there populace has never heard about nor cares, but may at some time have strategic importance.

    I hate when people try to say small arms is a big business, it just aint. Compare ruger and s&w in terms of market cap, revenue and profit to exxon and chevron or apple and google or walmart and amazon.

  5. After reading “To Keep And Bear Arms the origins of an Anglo-America Right” by Joyce Lee Malcolm made me appreciate even more my American freedoms. This part of English history is not taught in American schools. British Army captain Iain Harrison had his legal hand guns confiscated when the English government said civilians could no longer own hand guns. So he came to America and won Top Shot in season one of that TV show.
    Welcome to America!!!

    Only America of all the British colonies has constitutional protection for arms for all its citizens. Those warrior societies, where everyone carried a weapon now only the police can have a gun. I believe Mahatma Gandhi had something to say about that. With all the American Indian fighting and reservation history, the American Indian can still buy and own guns, just like whites or blacks or anyone else.

  6. Seems to me the Chief Crown Prosecutor should be billed for the legal expenses he persecuted those people with.

  7. The funny thing is that there currently are no British small arms producers to speak of, meaning no British firms designing and producing pistols or rifles on the same scale as Beretta, Glock, SIG, ect, and there hasn’t been for almost half a century now. HK doesn’t count, both because of the short duration of British ownership and the fact that none of HK’s designs were designed by britons.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here