I support this bill. Although I do not wish to make weapons more accessible, there should be more room for courts to be able to judge the actions of defendants as reasonable if they see fit. The current situation is problematic and offers punishments to those who do not require them and I will be voting for this if it goes to a vote.
At first glance, I do support this Bill - however, can I confirm that this not repeal Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 - i.e. does this Bill negate the use of deadly force as a last resort?
I fail to see why the authors think, given the notes, that killing a person fleeing (The Martin case) or leaving (the clegg case) should be defendable as appropriate force. Absolutely cannot support this in any form - the current restrictions requiring reasonable force are appropriate.
Aye - it should be perfectly legal to use deadly force when defending ones’ own property.
Could the Libertarian party have another crack at justifying this senseless piece of legislation?
Nay in its current form, my take on this issue was much better many parliaments ago.
Deadly force should not be exempted if one genuinely fears for the life of themself or others.
For those who agree with the principle of making it easier to defend one's property and wellbeing, are there better ways the authors could implement this bill?