"Offensive Weapons" in the UK

[Cyberman]

Apparently the baton was a retractable club "like the ones riot cops use", according to The Sun. As I said earlier, those things are restricted by definition, since they are (to quote the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, as amended by the Offensive Weapons Act 1996) an "article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person". Owning one without being a police officer in the course of authorised duty is an offence.

Again according to The Sun, police stopped him as he was driving near Kings Cross - for what, they don't say - and then found the thing in the pocket of the driver's door. I'm not sure if the defense could be made that Bassong only kept it in his car, rather than carrying it in public, since again the Act defines a public place as "any highway, or in Scotland any road within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise". Yes it was in his car, but the car was on a public highway.

As to the law being stupid (or as Mr Bumble put it, “the law is a ass - a idiot"), I really wouldn't like to comment.

[Something completely different]

I understand having a weapon in the car, especialy if it is a expensive car (which I asume).

[Cyberman]

Ironically, he might have been able to mount a decent case if he had kept a baseball bat in there, instead of a weapon designed solely for that purpose. A tyre iron would have been even easier to justify.

[festive1]

I'm just mystified... We have states where you don't need a special permit to legally carry a concealed handgun on your person (just the standard gun permit). I don't agree with that, but a baton... Even a police riot baton... Seems a wee bit excessive, in my opinion.

[Something completely different]

Ironically, he might have been able to mount a decent case if he had kept a baseball bat in there, instead of a weapon designed solely for that purpose. A tyre iron would have been even easier to justify.

Just thinking of a uncle of mine who works in the timber buisness.

He drives arround with a chainsaw on his front passenger seat.

edit:


one a sidenote\question:

does anyone here own a weapon?

[Minimalist]

Footballer with a "baton" fined and the baton destroyed.

Meanwhile, people can carry as many baseball bats, golf clubs, hammers, etc. as they like.

*clap* *clap*

Whew. I thought you meant you wanted him to carry it DURING the game.



Might have made soccer a little more interesting though.

[Autumnlicious]

The report said he had it in his car; he wasn't carrying it around in public. The police most likely stopped him for some other offense, and searched his vehicle. If he's using it as a weapon, he should be arrested and the weapon taken from him. Otherwise, he should be left alone.

So he's using a specially designed weapon, not just the run-of-the-mill item that may or may not be used.

I take it you're against an assault weapons ban too?

The fact is, we all waltz around public with potential weapons; we all have fists, our heads, our feet, etc. In a moment's notice, we can unleash some real damage on people by using our bodies. I fail to see why carrying weapons around is grounds for arresting someone and removing it. Self-defense should be an adequate defense.

Beating someone with fists or an impromptu club is harder and evokes less damage to the victim than specially weighted police batons designed to break bones.

And you know it too.

The point of the law is to make it harder to casually harm someone.

"If you're gonna beat someone to death, you might as well work for it" was probably the rationale behind said law.

I've used this argument time and time again: if you remove a right to any sort of weapon, the only people with the weapons are the government and the criminals...neither of whom should ever be allowed to have all the weapons.

When you look at it, why the hell should anyone, barring responsible, certified enthusiasts, be allowed to own weapons?

Hmm?

Why should the lowest common denominator deserve devices that make it easier to kill?

If you really need a weapon, then the system has failed you and you probably do need it.

In that case, there is a pressing need for more reactive and professional police departments with independent citizens review boards that penalize police pension funds in case of sustained officer misconduct.

The above would do more for reducing the conditions that contribute to common public crime than "taking your chances" man versus man.

[Waratah]

I'm just mystified... We have states where you don't need a special permit to legally carry a concealed handgun on your person (just the standard gun permit). I don't agree with that, but a baton... Even a police riot baton... Seems a wee bit excessive, in my opinion.

I have heard this before about carrying a concealed weapon(TV cop shows), does this mean if the weapon is not concealed it is okay?

[Cyberman]

does anyone here own a weapon?

Only the one I use on the ladies...

[Kirbmarc]

does anyone here own a weapon?

I own a Smith & Wesson .357 magnum revolver. My father gave it to me and taught me how to use it responsibly, how to clean it and how to avoid using it on a human being as much as possible.

I never had to shoot anyone and I really hope I'll never have to, but I think that it is perfectly within my rights to have the means to defend myself.

I am not naive enough to think that anyone can use guns responsibly. But this is a true for every kind of weapon and even for things that can be used as weapons, such as...pretty much everything.

Plenty of people think that having a driving licence is an excuse to use the road as a playground. By doing so, they create a very serious potential danger for everyone around them. And they don't even have to take the conscious decision of pulling a trigger. Should we ban cars because of them?

I've used this argument time and time again: if you remove a right to any sort of weapon, the only people with the weapons are the government and the criminals...neither of whom should ever be allowed to have all the weapons.

Exactly. We can't afford to leave the monopoly of the use of force in the hands of criminals and the government.