The right to self-defense, and by extension the right to bear arms, has a long and complex history in Britain. Today, many see strict gun control as a hallmark of British law, but this was not always the case. Indeed, Britain has a robust tradition of armed citizenry, rooted in common law, enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights, and eroded only in the modern era.
British society faces unprecedented strains, from mass immigration, rising crime and public disorder to distrust of the State, so it is worth re-examining whether Britain has moved too far from its historic principles.
The roots of Britain’s approach to bearing arms can be found in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The overthrow of King James II and the ascension of William III and Mary II resulted in the English Bill of Rights in 1689. Mostly focused on the abuses of State (Royal) power, it contained a clause declaring:
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.
Firearms Act of 1920, the first major piece of modern gun control legislation.
The Act required civilians to obtain a certificate from the police to purchase firearms or ammunition. Framed as a public safety measure, declassified documents later revealed that it was aimed primarily at preventing civil unrest, not at reducing crime. As the Home Office wrote privately at the time, “It is not in the public interest that firearms should be freely available.”
And so, gun ownership became a privilege granted by the State, rather than a right presumed by the individual. Naturally, further legislation followed:
- The Firearms Act 1937 consolidated earlier laws and expanded police discretion.
- The Firearms Act 1968 reorganized firearms legislation and introduced more stringent requirements.
- The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, passed after the Hungerford massacre, banned semi-automatic rifles and introduced registration for shotguns.
- The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, in the wake of the Dunblane school massacre, effectively banned all handguns.
These acts marked a profound philosophical shift: where the Bill of Rights enshrined the subject’s right to bear arms, modern Britain came to treat firearms as inherently suspect.
Britain now has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, but violence or disorder increases. Knife crime, particularly in London, has surged. Average citizens find themselves in a dilemma, for they are told to rely entirely on State authorities for protection while those authorities are overwhelmed, under-resourced, indifferent, or ‘selectively responsive.’
In cases of robbery or violent assault, Britons have a limited legal right to defend themselves. The prosecution of individuals like Tony Martin, a farmer jailed for shooting intruders, illustrates the lengths to which the State will go to assert its monopoly of force, even when applied in clear-cut cases of self-defense.
This state of affairs raises a fundamental question: if the State cannot guarantee protection, should it have the exclusive right to determine who may be armed?
The United States enshrines the right to bear arms in its Constitution. The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Despite opposition, this principle remains embedded in American culture, with an estimated 400 million civilian-owned guns, more than one per person.
Critics cite American gun violence statistics as evidence of failure, and the U.S. does have high levels of gun-related homicides, especially in urban areas with significant ‘socioeconomic’ challenges. However, the American model offers instructive lessons. Numerous studies suggest that defensive gun use is common in the U.S., even if underreported.
In many states, gun ownership entails training, legal knowledge, and safe storage, fostering a culture of responsibility among law-abiding citizens. States set their own policies, allowing experimentation and local governance over firearms rights and responsibilities. Britain opted for prohibition. The U.S. has opted for managed empowerment.
A more apt comparison for Britain, because of its unitary government, may be Switzerland, which maintains a system in which the citizen is expected to be armed. Swiss men are conscripted into military service and, upon completing their training, retain their issued rifles at home as part of the national militia system. Civilian gun ownership is widespread and culturally normalized. Importantly, Switzerland has low levels of gun crime, demonstrating that high rates of gun ownership can coexist with low crime when underpinned by a culture of responsibility and civic trust.
Given the erosion of public safety and the rise of systemic distrust, Britain would benefit from revisiting the question of civilian armament and cherry-picking the best of the US and Swiss models.
This could include background checks, psychological evaluation, and a demonstrated understanding of firearms safety and the law. As with the Swiss model, gun owners could be required to undertake regular training and recertification.
Importantly, the law must clearly state when force is justified and provide protections for those who act in good faith.
Local governance and police authorities could administer and review licenses, ensuring accountability, but subject to the provision that a citizen of good standing has the right to own a weapon, with the burden of proof on the authorities should they seek to deny that right. Law-abiding citizens of good character should not be denied the means of defending themselves.
Britain’s historical stance on arms has shifted from a nation that valued the armed citizen to one that views any such person with suspicion. Yet, this shift has coincided with increased crime, diminishing state efficacy, and growing public anxiety.
The time has come to reassert the 1689 principle: that citizens of good standing and proven responsibility should not be denied the right to bear arms for their defense. Both the United States and Switzerland offer models, different but instructive, on how armed citizenship can function in modern societies.
Reviving the right to bear arms in Britain could mean restoring a sense of dignity, responsibility, and security in an age where trust in institutions is faltering. When the State cannot be trusted, citizens must not be left defenseless. The case for responsible armed citizenship is not a historical curiosity; it is a contemporary necessity.
Image: A sportsman loading his gun by George Morland (1763-1804). Public domain.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.