Source: http://ordre.net/?id=474
Timestamp: 2017-08-20 00:26:54+00:00
Document Index: 17722262

Matched Legal Cases: ["l'article 33", 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1']

ORDRE.NET - Armes
Soldats ! Retournez vos fusils
Contre nos oppresseurs communs.
Jean-Paul Alandry
Jews for Preservation of Firearm Ownership
guntruths.com
ironic banners
danger of gun control
12 times ?
The facts on gun control
statistics as example
UK ans USA crime comparison
http://www.liberty-belles.org/
http://wagc.com/
http://www.mothersarms.org/
http://www.pierrelemieux.org/laf/
http://www.clairejoly.org/laf/help.html
ARMES: ESPOIR ?
24.01.2004 "
le registre des armes a du plomb dans l'aile. les opposants a un registre des armes en circulation en Suisse marquent un point. l'office federal de la police propose d'exclure de la revision de la loi le projet d'enregistrer tous les proprietaires d'armes. il plie devant les vives critiques que l'idee a suscite lors de la procedure de consultation. Christoph Blocher ne s'est pas encore exprime sur ce projet, lance par Ruth Metzler. " (ats)
L'EPICIER ACQUITTE
Je vous avais parlé de cet épicier accusé de s'être défendu avec son arme à feu (voir article ). J'avais egalement signalé (là) ceci:
je precise juste au sujet de loi qu'il ya un probleme d'interpretation... la loi dit que "Toute personne qui porte une arme en public doit être titulaire d'un permis de port d'armes."
donc bien sur pour moi un magasin c'est prive, mais je ne sais pas ce qu'en dit la jurisprudence... l'epicier ayant fait recours, reste a voir ce que l'instance superieure decidera...
Eh bien, l'instance supérieure a décidé, et, pour changer, bonnes nouvelles: acquitté ! Et, surtout, le Tribunal de police "a ordonné la restitution des trois armes propriété de l'épicier et qui avaient été saisies à tort." Autrement dit, l'interprétation libérale l'a emporté: un magasin est bien privé ! Seule ombre au tableau: notre bien aimé Etat aimerait bien changer la loi sur les armes, et un des changement prévus, qui semble anodin, devient ici clair: changer le "en public" en "dans un lieu accessible au public"...
L'ETAT NOUS PROTEGE
Comme je l'ai mentionné, tous les week-ends je comments l'imprudence de lire le journal...
Voici encore quelques extraits d'un article, qui cette fois-ci se passeraient même de commentaires:
" Victime d'un marabout, l'épicier est maintenant accusé.
Collectionneur d'armes, un épicier des Pâquis a été condamné par ordonnance à quinze jours de prison avec sursis et 1000 francs d'amende pour avoir utilisé l'une d'elles sans droit [oui je sais ça fait mal de voir le mot droit employé de manière aussi érronée].[...] Autorisé à détenir les trois armes de poing déclarées, il n'était en revanche pas au bénéfice d'un permis d'un port d'armes. Or, afin de se défendre d'un marabout qui s'apprêtait à le délester de 37'000 dollars, alors qu'il l'avait déjà escroqué de 10'000, il a brandi son pistolet SIG Sauer P245 chargé. La substitute y a vu une infraction à l'article 33 de la Loi fédérale sur les armes.[...]
En retenant ainsi l'Africain prétendument multiplicateur de billets de banque et surtout escroc, l'épicier l'a empêché pour quelque temps de sévir, même s'il a été étrangement libéré après une semaine de prison [!!!!]. Les circonstances de son arrestation ont en revanche donné l'idée au Parquet d'ouvrir une information pénale contre la victime [j'adore la fin de la phrase... information pénale contre la victime, sic.]. L'épicier détenait deux revolvers sous clé dans son appartement et le pistolet dans son magasin, dans un tiroir près de la caisse. [...] Après l'avoir escroqué une première fois, le marabout est revenu à la charge, dans le commerce même de l'accusé. Il s'est montré violent, le menaçant de "le saigner", tout cela en présence des enfants. "Que pouvais-je faire pour me préserver et le retenir en attendant la police ? Il fallait faire vite. J'ai pris mon pistolet dans le tiroir.[...]""
Donc, selon l'Etat, agresser les gens c'est très bien, c'est même recommandé, puisque les gens que vous agresserez ne sont pas autorisés à se défendre ! Et si l'un vous retient malgé l'interdiction de l'Etat ? Rassurez-vous, l'Etat vous relâchera dès que possible ! Voleurs, volez, les commerçants ont le devoir de se laisser faire !
Et après cela, certains vont encore s'étonner que la criminalité augmente....
De plus, Si cet épicier avait respecté la loi, il serait peut-etre mort aujourd'hui. Autrement dit: selon l'Etat, il aurait dû se laisser tuer, selon l'Etat il n'a pas le droit de se défendre, selon l'Etat il n'a pas le droit de vivre.
Encore une preuve que lorsque l'anarchiste Lysander Spooner disait que l'Etat est une bande de voleurs et de meurtriers, il avait entièrement raison: oui, un Etat qui pense qu'un épicier qui se fait agresser mérite de mourir, cet Etat est non seulement brigand et criminel, mais meurtrier et assassin. Et certains voudraient que cet Etat assassin assure notre sécurité, que cet Etat criminel qui encourage les criminels nous protège des criminels...
COHERENCE ANGLAISE
Décidèment, le gouvernement anglais est cohérent dans sa stupidité: après avoir interdit les armes à feu, provoquant une augmentation
de la criminalité avec armes à feu sans précédent (+35% en un an, statistiques du gouvernement), il a décidé de faire la chasse aux terroristes... sans armes ! 24 (!) policiers, sans armes (!), interrogaient 3 suspects et fouillaient leur appartement, lorsque l'un des suspects se saisit d'un couteau de cuisine (!) et poignarda l'un des officiers de police et en blessa 3 autres...
Un expert en armes déclare: "Knives are of course a greater threat to police officers and indeed to all of us than illicit guns. Far more people are killed with knives than guns. " Wow ! Voilà qui est bizarre, le ministre de l'intérieur anglais veut pourtant prendre de nouvelles mesures anti-armes, et étrangement il ne vise pas les couteaux de cuisine, mais notamment les très dangereuses (!)
armes factices...
BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2660321.stm
BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2648343.stm
BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm
swissguns http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/swissguns/edito.htm
Free Goat http://www.freegoat.dreamstation.com/ukdisaster.html
(posté sur le forum de la TdG)
Je viens de lire dans la Tribune d'aujourd'hui (17.08.2002) qu'en France des malfrats ont attaqué un fourgon, équipés d'un LANCE-ROQUETTE. La France a pourtant des lois sur les armes plus strictes que la Suisse, et, ce qui va de pair, une criminalité plus grande. Je pose donc la question à tous les partisans du contrôle des armes: croyez-vous donc que des LANCE-ROQUETTES soient légaux en France? Il faut simplement accepter la réalité: si on n'arrive pas à contrôler l'importation illégale de quelque chose d'aussi encombrant qu'un lance-roquette, comment voulez vous empêcher quelqu'un de se procurer un simple pistolet? Même en mettant des policiers à chaque coin de rue, dérive que personne ne souhaite je l'espère, ce serait chose impossible. Le choix est donc simple: on ne peut désarmer les agresseurs. Souhaite-t-on désarmer les victimes?
DOES GUN CONTROL WORK ?
A utilitarian and statistical look at gun control in the UK
(thus we shall not focus on the ethic problems of gun control. For example, why a government would have the right to steal its citizens property, guns included, only to then toy with it itself? How would you feel were you to see a policeman armed with your gun, which you purchased, which he stole from you whilst breaking no laws, and which he has a right to carry when you, for doing exactly the same, would risk 10 years of jail ? This is not just about liberty, this is also about equality! And what about your right to your own property, your life included, and your right to protect it? Denied, shut up and obey! I'm just saying that either an ethic or a utilitarian view is enough to convince me of something, but when the two views lead to the same conclusion, I actually have trouble understanding those who are ready to sacrifice human lives AND liberty AND equality for NOTHING.)
"what matters is what works" Labour Party slogan
Labour says: "We came into government with a promise to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, this is not an empty slogan at all."
1997: Labour Party in power in UK
1998: handguns are banned. (larger than .22 forbidden, .22 very restricted use)
What exactly did they do ?
" In the biggest surrender of private property in Britain since the late Middle Ages, Britons today handed over thousands of handguns in the hours before a new firearms bill took effect at midnight.
Spurred by last year’s massacre of 16 schoolchildren in Dunblane, Scotland, the government has made possession of any handgun larger than a .22 caliber a crime punishable by 10 years in jail and fines of as much as $7,500. "
"Government officials hailed what they describe as among the toughest firearms rules in the world."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/britguns930/
And why wouldn’t they "hail" their own policies indeed?! They can still carry guns. The government and the military is still armed.
now let's see what works....
Let's see those two BBC articles, same style, same picture, but three years have passed and innocents have died....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/578750.stm
"despite"... Why not say frankly how things are ? "Because of " would be more correct:
"The new anti-gun law is also expected to have little impact on another source of potential danger—the estimated four million guns owned illegally in Britain."
Food for thought: The total of legally-held weapons that got confiscated numbers 160,000. That's 4%. How can anyone be stupid to the point of hoping to reduce crime in any way by seizing 4% of guns, not to mention the fact that the citizens most likely to hand in their arms are the citizens that are the most unlikely to employ them to unlawful ends in the first place?
Responding for the Tories, shadow home secretary Ann Widdecombe said: "Today's figures show that crime is spiralling out of control with an appalling 190,000 more victims last year than in the previous 12 months. Things are getting worse, not better, under Tony Blair. "When they came to office crime was falling. Their policies have caused this rise. Labour's law and order policy has failed," she said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/837875.stm
Think about it. If you were a criminal, would you rather attack
a) a house whose inhabitants are armed
b) a house in which you know they’re not
Would you rather rape
a) a woman with a gun who can kill you
b) a disarmed woman
Logic, isn't it ? How can the people “elected” to govern a country not understand even so simple a logic ?
Or is THAT their logic ?
Now let's see a few more data
The Economist....
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=513031
"Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime. And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average."
(which I seriously doubt could be accused of making right-wing propaganda)
One in three criminals under the age of 25 owns or has access to a firearm, the Government's researchers have discovered.
A continuing parliamentary inquiry into the growing number of black market weapons has concluded that there are more than three million illegally held firearms in circulation - double the number believed to have been held 10 years ago - and that criminals are more willing than ever to use them.
Officers patrolling the Notting Hill carnival last month said they had been prevented from searching a suspect, later found to be carrying a loaded 9mm pistol, for fear of inciting violence. Last Monday, doormen trying to break up a fight at the Epping Forest Country Club in Essex watched in horror as several revellers produced guns and began shooting at them. Two doormen were hit and seriously injured. A few hours later, a man was shot in the head during a 'road rage' row in south London.
Last Tuesday, three people were left fighting for their lives after a group of young Rolex robbers ambushed them in the driveway of their luxury home in Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire. Millionaire Joe Martorana had just stepped out of his BMW when two men snatched the Rolex from his wrist. When his wife, Josephine, tried to raise the alarm, she was shot once in the back by a handgun. As she lay bleeding, the gunmen snatched her Rolex. The couple's son, 18-year-old Steven, and his girlfriend, Isabella, had heard the shot from inside the house. They rushed through the front door to confront the robbers who gunned them down. Steven was hit by a bullet in his chest, and Isabella was shot in the stomach. A few hours later, a 28-year-old man was seriously injured after being shot at a London nightclub.
Last Wednesday, Essex builder Ronald Fuller was shot dead by a moped-riding gunman who waited near his home. Fuller, who has a child, was shot twice in the head and twice in the body at point-blank range. Fuller had been acquitted of stabbing a man to death at the Epping Forest Country Club. Police have not ruled out a link between his murder and the violence at the club.
Between 1997 and 1999 there were 429 murders in the capital, the highest two- year figure for more than 10 years. At least 100 of them were drug-related; nearly two- thirds of those involved firearms. Dozens of other firearms incidents resulted in people being seriously injured. Last month eight people were wounded when a gunman began shooting indiscriminately outside Chicago's nightclub in Peckham High Street.
The picture is the same across the country. Last month a small-time cannabis dealer, Paul Rogers, was shot dead in front of his young son after two gunmen burst into his Liverpool home. In Birmingham and Manchester, police attend more than 100 firearms incidents every month. In Wales, armed police have been called into action every day this year.
Detectives say modern weapons are increasingly being held by young drug dealers protecting themselves and their territory.
Small shopkeepers, who in the past have found themselves threatened with iron bars, baseball bats or knives, are increasingly finding themselves facing handguns or even automatic weapons. A study by Independent Retail News shows that a third of all attacks now involve firearms. Lee Jasper, who advises the London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, on matters of race and policing, believes that, whereas guns were once reserved for the criminal élite, they are increasingly falling into the hands of younger, less experienced criminals. 'We have a culture developed where people think it is very cool to carry a gun, and are prepared to use it at the drop of a hat. The crime has moved on from just protecting your market and your market share to doling out punishment and intimidation. And the gun is the first resort - the weapon of choice - for settling arguments.'
Government researchers are hoping to track the source of black market weapons to devise more effective ways of combating the trade. Controls such as the banning of handguns after the Dunblane tragedy have had no effect on the number of illegally held guns that are smuggled into the country, supplied by corrupt dealers or reactivated from supposedly decommissioned stock.
Meanwhile, makers of bullet-proof vests are reporting record profits. Vest sales have quadrupled, with 60,000 snapped up in the past two years at about £400 a time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2763,363761,00.html
What does this data show ? Not only do legally owned guns NOT cause more deaths, but in fact they do actually cause LESS deaths ! When facts confirm mere logic....
There are only two possible societies: a society where everyone is armed, like Kennesaw where the crime falls, and a society where some are armed and some aren't, like the UK: I still do not understand how can the left, which claims to be defending equality, accepts such flagrant injustice. I do not understand either how can anyone feel safe in a situation where there are four million illegal guns, thus probably owned mostly by criminals, and where honest citizens are prevented from buying guns. And please, don't tell me that a society with no guns at all is possible. Because in all objectivity, it's not. Take France for example. Armed bands in France own ROCKET-LAUNCHERS. Do you think rocket-launchers are legal in France ? Do you think that a society that can't stop criminals from importing such huge weapons as rocket-launchers and rockets can stop anyone from acquiring an easily-concealed handgun ?
Besides, even if it were, say for example in a fascist state where there would be more policemen than civilians and where everyone would have to submit himself to daily body searches, it would mean only one-thing: the return of rule by brute force. I still do not understand either how is it that so many women actually support gun control: imagine a woman of 50Kg attacked by a brute man of 100 Kg. Just who exactly are the odds in favour of? Now imagine them both having a shotgun... You can't rape a woman with a shotgun, it's that simple.
So the choice is pretty simple:
1) society where as many people as possible are armed.
2) society where criminals are armed, military is armed, police is armed, and no one else
3) fascist state of rule by brute force (even though I doubt that even in that case 0 illegal guns would exist...)
l'incroyable example de Kennesaw ! Une petite ville de géorgie où le flingue est obligatoire pour tout le monde... résultat: 70% de crime en moins, pendant qu'en douce France dans toute banlieue qui se respecte les crimes augmentent de +70%... et après les français vont donner des leçons aux américains.... ça prouve aussi qu'il y a d'autres solutions , plus simples, plus efficaces et moins dangereuses que le "tout-flic" à la Sarkozy...
LA LOI EXACTE
Gun Law Ordinances
The City's most famous ordinance adopted in March 1982 reads as follows.
Sec. 34-1 Heads of households to maintain firearms.
FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR) statistics for the year 1998 based on incidents of crime per 100,000 population indicate:
Overall Crime for the City of Kennesaw is approx. half the state and national rates.
Burglary incidents are approx. half the state and national rates.
Violent Crime incidents are approx. four times less than the state and national rates.
Violent Crime Burglary Total Index Crimes
Kennesaw: 107 347 2567
Georgia: 553 951 5200
U.S. : 566 862 4616
Note: Violent Crime includes Murder, Non-Negligent Manslaughter, Rape, Aggravated Assault and Robbery. Part 1 Index Crime includes all violent crime plus Burglary, Larceny, Auto Theft and Arson.
To control for population differences and make descriptions and comparisons between jurisdictions more accurate and meaningful, index crimes are reported at the rate per 100,000 persons. The rate is figured by dividing the number of crimes by the total population and then multiplying by 100,000.
Crime Statistics also indicate that incidents involving the use of a firearm during the commission of a crime make-up less than 2% of all reported Part 1 Crimes. Since 1982 approx. 4,900 Part 1 Crime incidents were reported with approx. 59 involving the use of a firearm.
1981 (Year prior to Gun Ordinance)
Total Part 1 Crimes: 228
1982 (Year Gun Ordinance Passed)
Population: 5,308 (+1% )
Burglaries : 35 ( -35%)
Total Part 1 Crimes: 165 ( -27%)
1998 (Compared to 1981)
Population: 19,000 ( +275%)
Burglaries: 36 (-33%)
Total Part 1 Crimes 227(+0%)
(articles en anglais, externe)
le parlement refuse de supprimer les munitions a domicile pour les soldats !
droit de cite sur la question des armes, excellent intervention de notre collegue libertarien de www.prolibertate.org
inutile de dire que j'ai ecrit quelques mails, mais qu'ils furent ignores au profit de messages aussi enrichissants que "mon fils s'est suicide avec un flingue c'est pas bien maintenant faut les interdire"
Countries having successful gun-control laws in the 20th Century - and the results of those laws:
1915-1917 : Ottoman Turkey, 1.5 million Armenians murdered
1929-1953 : Soviet Union, 20 million people who opposed Stalin murdered
1933-1945 : Nazi-occupied Europe, 13 million Jews, Gypsies, and others who opposed Hitler murdered
1948-1952 : China, 20 million anti-communists or communist reformers murdered
1960-1981 : Guatemala, 100,000 Maya Indians murdered
1971-1979 : Uganda, 300,000 Christians and political rivals of Idi Amin murdered
1975-1979 : Cambodia, 1 million educated persons murdered
Genocide is only possible with Gun Control.
l'argument du genocide
extracts from the Libertarian Party platform:
Libertarians, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of our civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America's millions of gun owners are people too.
America's founders fought the Revolutionary War to throw off British tyranny. Most of the revolutionaries owned and used their own guns in that war. After the war, in 1789, the 13 American States adopted the Constitution, creating the federal government. Before ratifying the Constitution, the people demanded a Bill of Rights to prevent our government from depriving them of their liberties as the British had done.
One of the most important protections we have against government tyranny is that we are presumed innocent of any crime until proven guilty, before a jury, in a proper trial.
But, gun control advocates would declare all gun owners guilty without trial, simply for owning guns. although millions of them have never used their guns to harm another person. Such blanket condemnation is immoral, unfair and contrary to the principles on which America was founded.
The Prohibition Lesson
Gun control advocates are much like the prohibitionists of the early 20th Century. By making liquor illegal, they spawned organized crime, caused bloody, violent turf wars and corrupted the criminal justice system. Today's war on drugs has exactly the same results.
Prohibition didn't stop liquor use; the drug laws can't stop drug use. Making gun ownership illegal will not stop gun ownership.
The primary victim of these misguided efforts is the honest citizen whose civil rights are trampled as frustrated legislators and police tighten the screws.
Banning guns will make guns more expensive and give organized crime a great opportunity to make profits in a new black market for weapons. Street violence will increase in new turf wars. Criminals will not give up their guns. But, many law abiding citizens will, leaving them defenseless against armed bandits.
Libertarians agree with the majority of Americans who believe they have the right to decide how best to protect themselves, their families and their property. Millions of Americans have guns in their homes and sleep more comfortably because of it. Studies show that where gun ownership is illegal, residential burglaries are higher. A man with a gun in his home is no threat to you if you aren't breaking into it.
The police do not provide security in your home, your business or the street. They show up after the crime to take reports and do detective work. The poorer the neighborhood, the riskier it is for peaceful residents.
Only an armed citizenry can be present in sufficient numbers to prevent or deter violent crime before it starts, or to reduce its spread. Interviews with convicted felons indicate that fear of the armed citizen significantly deters crime. A criminal is more likely to be driven off from a particular crime by an armed victim than to be convicted and imprisoned for it. Thus, widespread gun ownership will make neighborhoods safer.
Guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished.
Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.
Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America's founders knew that. It is still true today.
Par Turion, sous Armes, le 2004-01-27