‘The Shotgun’ A Cautionary Tale Of Homeowners Without Rights

by Mike

A pump-action shotgun, popular for home defense

I grew up in the UK in the 50s and 60s, when the population had not been completely disarmed, when farmers could still see off intruders with a blast of birdshot, and when police constables did not need to be armed. Several decades of even stricter gun laws, ever increasing crime as the usual side effect of PC leftist government, and the people are now at risk of prosecution for defending themselves, while the police NEED to be armed. Way to go Britain!
H/T Susan Olsen for this story, which is circulating fairly widely, but is true true, not apocryphal – Now read on:

The Shotgun

You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble. For in your country, most guns were outlawed years ago, and the few that are privately owned now are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for first-degree murder and illegal possession of a firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry, because authorities will probably reduce the charge to manslaughter.

“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask. “Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing. “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times. But the next day’s headline says, “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.”

The story takes wings as the national media pick it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney reports the thief is preparing to sue you and will probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you are said to have told a neighbor that you would be ready next time, and the district attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

The charges haven’t been reduced, and you are painted as a mean, vengeful man. The jury takes little time to convict you and you are sentenced to life in prison.

The horrible thing about this story is that it actually happened. It wasn’t made up by the gun lobby.

The man’s name was Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, in England. The shooting occurred on August 22, 1999. By April, 2000, he had been convicted and is now serving a life term.

The British government began its control of firearms with the Pistol Act of 1903, which forbade sale of handguns to minors or convicted felons, and required owners to have a license. In 1920, licensing was extended to all weapons except shotguns.

In 1953 and 1967 the laws became stiffer, outlawing the carrying of any weapons by private citizens and requiring the registration of shotguns.

During the 1980s and ’90s, some shocking multiple murders occurred in England and Scotland, and the unstable perpetrators became the public image of the “gun owner.”

New policies went into effect that required all owners of firearms to turn them in to the authorities. Self-defense was no longer considered justification for firing at a threatening person.

As one police spokesperson is quoted, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”

People turned in their weapons by the thousands, and those who didn’t were visited to have them removed from their homes.

How did the authorities know where the guns were? Why, because they were all licensed and registered, of course.

As Americans listen to their president and congress making noises about “gun control,” they had better be vigilant and involved. By steps, each one of which can sound reasonable, the Constitution can be ignored as we move toward disarming the populace.

The Second Amendment was regarded by our founding fathers as the “teeth” that the people have to secure their rights against tyranny. We’d better be awake to the danger of having our teeth pulled.

========================

A mostly honest BBC story about the farmer here.

A long piece on the theft of their “Rights as Englishmen”, the very thing our founders fought for!

Time to stand firm!

Like it? Share it!

Leave a Comment

  • http://www.GraniteGrok.com/ Rick Olson

    I read extensively on this when I wrote my blog, http://granitegrok.com/blog/2013/01/the-right-of-self-defence-in-the-uk on 5 January….You have to wonder when the UK citizens will say enough is enough?

    • http://granitegrok.com/author/mike Mike Rogers

      Apparently there are now some gun rights organizations, but there simply may not be enough non-sheeple to make an impact. Baaaaaa!
      The continued atrophy of rights and any semblance of a real citizenry are the reasons why I won’t return except to visit relatives.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kbcraig Kevin Craig

    While this was a true story when written, Tony Martin is not “now serving a life term.” His conviction was reduced to manslaughter upon appeal, and he served three years in prison. He was released on July 28, 2003.

    There was considerable public backlash to the prosecution, and Fearon’s use of legal aid funds to sue Martin. After he was caught and photographed engaging in athletics and shown to not be disabled, plus having been arrested again, both he and Martin dropped their suits against each other.

Previous post:

Next post: