British toff loses gun permit as he "flagrantly abused the privilege"

"A judge has refused a bid by Princess Diana's former lover James Hewitt to have his gun licence returned.

Judge Charles Byers said Mr Hewitt had "flagrantly abused the privilege" which came with being allowed to possess shotguns and rifles.

London's Blackfriars Crown Court heard how the "drunken" ex-major had left one of his weapons on his living room floor. The judge said one of the most "troubling" aspects was that Mr Hewitt had allowed a friend to use his 16-bore shotgun.

The judge said the friend had used the gun on a number of occasions, when the law required it be kept in a gunsmith's locked steel cabinet when the owner did not need it...

Judge Byers also said..."Moreover, we are satisfied he lied to the police." He said Mr Hewitt had shown he "lacked proper self-control". "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4043595.stm

In the UK, if you don't obey the strict gun laws then you lose your guns. Does anybody think that's it's unfair to take guns away from someone who has proven that they'll treat them without due care and attention?

Incidentally, it wasn't that Hewitt just let his friend "use" the gun - he must have let him borrow it and take it away. There's nothing to stop me shooting somebody else's gun if I'm out with them shooting, you just can't legally allow them to borrow it and take it away.

why isnt this guy serving hard time in prison, how dare he leave his personal property on his living room floor.

When left on the living room floor you know.

Does anybody think that's it's unfair to take guns away from someone who has proven that they'll treat them without due care and attention?


Does anybody think that "due care and attention" is a little subjective and societally contextual?

It's a sad day when rights are treated as privileges.

It's a matter of public safety.

This drunk was loaning out weapons and leaving them unsecured on his living room floor when the law specifies safe storage procedures be followed.

Can't follow the same rules everyone else does? You don't get to play. Seems fair to me. Why do you have a problem with this?

Breaking the law is breaking the law - even if said law is asinine.

Simple solution: move to a place that allows more freedom of choice.

I see it as inherently unfair when one must apply for permission to own and use personal property.

An aside: Do you have the same mind set when a U.S. American is arrested and jailed for possession of a couple of joints? That's also a violation of the law. If we're going to enforce one law, let's enforce them all equally.

He left a shotgun locked up in his apartment, but didn't lock it up inside the locked up apartment. He loaned said shotgun to a friend.

Such reckless behavior. It's a good thing for British subjects that the Bobbies were on the case.

I can't understand why we don't require that gun loons disassemble their weapons and store the parts in distinct safes scattered throughout the house. If you can't affort the safes or take the time to protect potential home intruders you ought not have these horrible weapons.

I just can't understand why anyone would want these deadly things.....

but reason must never upset the law.

and police find an unsecured shotgun lying around in there house I'd rather the police took that gun away from them.

I know, I know........if you disarm the criminals then only the law-abiding will have guns, and that's hardly fair now is it?

are evil and should have all of thier rights taken away from them. :eyes:

As for having shotgun "unsecured" in his own home.

I dont know how things work in the UK, but most people in the US generally consider thier home to be secured.

See we have these other little rights here in America like due process.

BTW, Convicted felons cannot legally own guns here. So after your boy gets his due process, then they have every right to deny his gun ownership.

This guy failed to abide by the laws regarding owning a gun in the UK and has paid the penalty laid down by the law. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Moreover, he was arrested (whilst drunk) having just been caught (albeit in a sting operation) buying drugs, he lied to police, and then when police went to his flat they found a shotgun lying on the floor of the lounge, rather than in the gun cabinet that he actually had there (and in which he was required by law to keep his gun). Had he not been arrested, he would have returned home drunk and with drugs and would have had to handle / move the gun in question.

Exactly HOW FUCKING ILLEGALLY AND IRRESPONSIBLY DO YOU THINK SOMEBODY HAS TO BEHAVE before they forfeit their right to keep weapons?

It strikes me that for many people in here, the "right" of gun ownership trumps both common sense and any law they disagree with, and that they are "law abiding" / "responsible" if and only if you only consider the laws they agree with.

I know you don't hold certain rights in the same regard, but many do.

"Exactly HOW FUCKING ILLEGALLY AND IRRESPONSIBLY DO YOU THINK SOMEBODY HAS TO BEHAVE before they forfeit their right to free speech?"

"Exactly HOW FUCKING ILLEGALLY AND IRRESPONSIBLY DO YOU THINK SOMEBODY HAS TO BEHAVE before they forfeit their right to have an abortion?"

"Exactly HOW FUCKING ILLEGALLY AND IRRESPONSIBLY DO YOU THINK SOMEBODY HAS TO BEHAVE before they forfeit their right to free assembly?"

"Exactly HOW FUCKING ILLEGALLY AND IRRESPONSIBLY DO YOU THINK SOMEBODY HAS TO BEHAVE before they forfeit their right to due process?"

"Exactly HOW FUCKING ILLEGALLY AND IRRESPONSIBLY DO YOU THINK SOMEBODY HAS TO BEHAVE before they forfeit their right to freedom of religion?"

etc. etc. etc.

Short answer - rights are never forfeited.

for why gun ownership is a "right", I'll answer your counterpoint.

It is, however, an intelligent and well made counterpoint, but only if you assume that gun ownership is a right. It might be, but nobody has shown me any reason for it to be considered as such (other than as a purely legal right in law).

Self-sovereignty. Natural rights. I sort of see it as an extension to the right of life. Defense of your own life is rather important since you only get one go at it. And you should have the right to have the proper tools for it.

I suppose it also depends on your view of rights. Personally, I don't believe rights have to be codified into law to be rights. I believe that you have the right to do anything you want as long as you don't harm anybody else in the process.

Also, even if you don't believe one thing is a right, you easily open yourself for others to deny something you cherish is a right as well.

...but to your larger point: so what? If that's how they like to do business over on your side of the pond, well then go to! I say. There's a whole big Atlantic Ocean between the way we do business in that regard over here, and the way things operate over there. What possible bearing could that charming little tidbit of a tale have to do with "law abiding" gun owners in the United States? It's all very confusing..but thanks for sharing. :eyes:

Just goes to show that you can't trust most people with guns. the gun loons just don't understand the sociological implications of private weapons ownership.

I've come to conclude that the only proper response it to repeal teh second amendment

1) Is license revocation the usual penalty for lending out a gun? If so, then I'd say he knew the law and broke it - so no sympathy there.

2) As for the day in question, is there anyway that it would have been legal for him to have the gun in the house at the time? (Perhaps if he had been shooting that morning, or was taking it to be sold later in the week, or something?) If it was legal for the gun to be there, then I would think that it was possible that he got a bit screwed - it would really depend on exactly what happened when the police went to the house.

It seems like an odd situation: a photographer (paparazzi?) takes pictures that he claims show a drug deal, the police go to investigate, find the guy drunk, and end up arresting him and searching the house. I guess I'd really want to know exactly what the pictures were of, whether the police had other reasons to suspect the guy that may have contributed to their decision to visit, and what exactly went on during the visit that prompted the arrest and search before I form an opinion on whether he was mistreated...

I read that post and think how sad it is that the UK has de-volved to the point that you think he got what he deserved. Is there proof of a drug conviction? That seemed to be based on a freelance photographer, not any police evidence.

I've had a safe full of guns in my house, and while hiking in the woods, carried a concealed handgun with an easy to obtain concealed carry permit- for over 20 years. I haven't killed anyone yet, or even thought about it. And there aren't bullets flying outside my home. It's pretty quiet and nice in fact.

I hope you guys can get your freedom back someday.

In this area, the UK is operating on a higher plane than the US.

It's not that Pert is desenstiized, it's that you can't comprehend living in a society where you don't have to have a cannon strapped to your waist 24/7.

Maybe someday...

I'll take the plane the US is on in those matters.

They're subjects - not citizens - and they're on the wrong flight on this issue IMO.

All the way to the crash site!

props to Tater Salad HA HA! HE SAID PROPS!

:spank:

POOPIE HEAD!:evilgrin:

Unfair to require a license for a basic human right.

If I want to loan my gun to a trusted friend, why should the government be involved?

In fact, If I choose to loan my gun to someone, I just do it.

Freedom. Its so refreshing.

About 228 years ago? Geez, get over it. The UK and the US are different in culture and have, apparently, vastly diverse views on essential human rights. Yes, gays can't marry here, but at least they can own a pistol (in most places) to prevent bigots from harming them.

I know of no area in the U.S. that bans ownership of long guns by the law abiding - unless of course it CA and you choose a .50 BMG (the assholes).

If there is such a place, someone please enlighten me.

...so many US gun owners are resistant to most gun control beyond keeping guns out of the hands of crazies and criminals (ATF FORM 4473). The laws will be used to remove guns.

It sucks to be a gun owner in UK.

Handguns are banned unless registered as of 1976.

Non-semi-auto (mag or no mag!) shotguns and rifles can be owned, if registered with MPD, but must be kept unloaded and either disassembled or trigger locked at all times while in DC, even at home (there are no public shooting ranges in DC). Every round of ammo must be registered with the MPD before it can be brought into the district.

The exception to the "unloaded" law is that you are allowed to keep a loaded firearm "at your place of business." :eyes: I'm not kidding . . .

Edited to add:

http://dccode.westgroup.com/home/dccodes/default.wl

§ 7-2507.02. Firearms required to be unloaded and disassembled or locked.


Except for law enforcement personnel described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.

the fact that he was nailing Diana had nothing to do with the po-lice going after him....