Bahamas Rules For Firearms On Board

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Would you be paranoid if everybody were not against you?

Sometimes, I know I'm just being paranoid.
The rest of the time, I'm surprised how many people are out to get me.

My paranoia has reached absurd stages ...
I sneezed, in front of my laptop, and the anti-virus started a scan, on its own.
But, I am grateful that I am not as judgmental, as all those censorious, self-righteous people around me.

At other times, a paranoid narcissist.
I'm afraid no one's out to get me!

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Rowglide

Does the likelihood of small arms (locked up in predictable places)being on board American flagged cruising boats increase the odds of them being broken into when crew are not aboard?

I don't know; but, I do know that the American world view is much too self-centered.
For instance, on maps, they literally label their country "US."


They made a gun, in honor of US congressmen.
Sadly, just like the House, it doesn't work, and you can't fire it.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

You are describing a situation where use of a firearm is prohibited almost everywhere. The situations I talk about, you have the right to self defense, period.

In many countries firearms are not licensed for personal protection spec except in very specific circumstances

Secondly if you arrive by boat your unlicensed firearm ( not licensed in that country ) is effectively placed in bond aboard your boat. That means there are no legal circumstances in which you can even handle it much less use it.

Thirdly self defence laws are notoriously tricky and vary enormously depending on jurisdiction and the nature of the defence. Introducing a gun into the equation is even more confusing.

Since you are either abiding my the countries laws ( and declaring and bonding your firearms ) or you are not since you can’t pick and choose. This means in those countries you effectively have no recourse to the firearm

And burglars sue!

My point is that many countries do not expect or allow armed protection , this isn’t about gun politics it’s about practicalities.

[jerryf609]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The point is Bahamian law forbids the use of your unlicensed firearm while inside it’s waters , period. So why bother to bring it. What’s the point of having a firearm you cant legally touch.

I think the point is that you sail in from outside of the Bahamas and when you leave, you, well leave the Bahamas. While not in the Bahamas, you may find that you need to defend yourself and it you may be in an area in which it legal.

Speaking of rights to defend oneself (which does not necessarily mean with a gun), what reasonable governing authority would require you to stand still with your (biological) arms at your side while someone pummeled you about the face and body?

Defending oneself is a human right. Of course with only sufficient means necessary to get the job done. And this is a truth with respect to whatever threat or actual violence is upon you. It does not necessarily only apply to guns. Think fists, clubs, chairs, knives. And sometimes guns.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by jerryf609

... Defending oneself is a human right. .

Many people use natural rights and human rights interchangeably.
However, they are slightly different.

Self defence is first & foremost a natural right, whether, or not, an authority grants it as a human [or legal] right.

Natural rights exist, whether a government acknowledges them, or not.
Human rights are a government's acknowledgment of the rights their citizens should have, by virtue of being human.

All humans have the right to stay alive, and no government can ever take that right away. This right extends to the right to defend yourself, against people who would cause you harm. Most philosophers agree, that the right to life, is the most fundamental natural right.

[jerryf609]

Originally Posted by Shanachie

Damn, you gun people really go through life cowering in fear, don't you? It's a wonder you get out of bed in the morning.

I dont think of myself as a gun person anymore than i think of myself as a coffee person, although i drink coffee every morning. Nor do i have any abnormal sense of fear.

If i have a gun in my glove box it is just there. The same as my spare tire is just there. I am not in fear of having a flat tire but i do have a spare but rarely think about it. I rarely think about my gun in the glove box as well.

But I do have some friends who have an irrational fear of guns.

[jerryf609]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Many people use natural rights and human rights interchangeably.
However, they are slightly different.

Self defence is first & foremost a natural right, whether, or not, an authority grants it as a human [or legal] right.

Natural rights exist, whether a government acknowledges them, or not.
Human rights are a government's acknowledgment of the rights their citizens should have, by virtue of being human.

Ok. Thanks for the distinction. I guess I'm thinking and speaking of natural rights. But being a human, I tend to think of natural rights as human but i suppose in a constitutional or law sense there is a distinction.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jerryf609

Ok. Thanks for the distinction. I guess I'm thinking and speaking of natural rights. But being a human, I tend to think of natural rights as human but i suppose in a constitutional or law sense there is a distinction.

The Canadian Bill of Rights Section 1: “It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;(c) freedom of religion;”

The Bill of Rights makes no claim that the government have created nor granted the rights affirmed therein, but acknowledges that they “have existed and shall continue to exist”.



The rights to life, liberty, and security of the person have to include the right to defend one's person, or physical body, from harm. Otherwise these rights are of no effect. Since we have the right to the protection of the law, one cannot be found guilty of any offense for defending one's self. Simply, self defense is an action within the allowance of the law in Canada. When in another country though, such law may not exist.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

... The Bill of Rights makes no claim that the government have created nor granted the rights affirmed therein, but acknowledges that they “have existed and shall continue to exist”. ...

Both the Canadian Bill of Rights (1960), and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) are federal LAWS, passed by Parliament.

The Canadian Bill of Rights is a federal statute and bill of rights enacted by the Parliament of Canada on August 10, 1960. It provides Canadians with certain rights, at Canadian federal law, in relation to other federal statutes.
Canadian Bill of Rights S.C. 1960, c. 44
An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
➥ https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/.../FullText.html

The Canadian Bill of Rights, enacted in 1960, reflected the principle of parliamentary supremacy. As a federal law that was not entrenched in the Constitution, Parliament could modify the Bill of Rights, at its discretion. Moreover, the judiciary could not use the Bill of Rights to override other laws, which made the Bill of Rights ineffective in protecting human rights. These limitations prompted the call for the adoption of a bill of rights that could be entrenched in the Constitution.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, embedded in the Constitution Act, 1982, provided a solution.
The Canadian Constitution is the supreme LAW of the nation. Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that no other law can go against the rights that it protects. This same section gives the courts authority to invalidate legislation that is found to be contrary to constitutional principles. The adoption of the Charter means that Canadians rely on judges to interpret and enforce the human rights contained within the Charter, including striking down unconstitutional laws that violate the rights and freedoms that the Charter protects.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Both the Canadian Bill of Rights (1960), and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) are federal LAWS, passed by Parliament.

The Canadian Bill of Rights is a federal statute and bill of rights enacted by the Parliament of Canada on August 10, 1960. It provides Canadians with certain rights, at Canadian federal law, in relation to other federal statutes.
Canadian Bill of Rights S.C. 1960, c. 44
An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
➥ https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/.../FullText.html

The Canadian Bill of Rights, enacted in 1960, reflected the principle of parliamentary supremacy. As a federal law that was not entrenched in the Constitution, Parliament could modify the Bill of Rights, at its discretion. Moreover, the judiciary could not use the Bill of Rights to override other laws, which made the Bill of Rights ineffective in protecting human rights. These limitations prompted the call for the adoption of a bill of rights that could be entrenched in the Constitution.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, embedded in the Constitution Act, 1982, provided a solution.
The Canadian Constitution is the supreme LAW of the nation. Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that no other law can go against the rights that it protects. This same section gives the courts authority to invalidate legislation that is found to be contrary to constitutional principles. The adoption of the Charter means that Canadians rely on judges to interpret and enforce the human rights contained within the Charter, including striking down unconstitutional laws that violate the rights and freedoms that the Charter protects.

Yes, we have the Charter within the Constitution. But the Bill of Rights did not go away. The point was that there exists law that acknowledges that fundamental rights have existed and shall continue to exist. And the government makes no claim to have granted them. They just exist. To discover their origin, one would have to trace their history in western civilization. The preambles of the both the Bill of Rights and Charter do give some indication of origin. Even considering the Bill of Rights as a historical document, it predates the Charter, so rights affirmed in the Charter can be traced to the Bill of Rights.



"Most provisions of the Bill of Rights have been replicated and enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982. The Charter, beingentrenched in our Constitution, is the supreme law of Canada and applies to both federal and provincial acts of government. However, the Bill of Rights remains in force today and still has application to federal statutes." https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct...t/03-eng.shtml

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

In many countries firearms are not licensed for personal protection spec except in very specific circumstances

Secondly if you arrive by boat your unlicensed firearm ( not licensed in that country ) is effectively placed in bond aboard your boat. That means there are no legal circumstances in which you can even handle it much less use it.

Thirdly self defence laws are notoriously tricky and vary enormously depending on jurisdiction and the nature of the defence. Introducing a gun into the equation is even more confusing.

Since you are either abiding my the countries laws ( and declaring and bonding your firearms ) or you are not since you can’t pick and choose. This means in those countries you effectively have no recourse to the firearm

And burglars sue!

My point is that many countries do not expect or allow armed protection , this isn’t about gun politics it’s about practicalities.

I don’t think you understand the principle. The right of self defense deals with the legal concept of "justified" acts that might otherwise be illegal.

It means that when justification is shown, laws pertaining unlawful use of violence are not applicable. You can kill someone in self defense without being sentenced for murder. You can use anything at hand as a weapon when you are convinced you are about to be murdered.

[paul2884]

I know this is off topic but I come from the UK where virtually know one carried any sort of gun, we travel around Europe where many of the Police are armed but not the public.
British cruisers would not be allowed to carry any form of gun except perhaps in the far north where polar bears are a concern.

Is it normal for US cruisers to find it necessary to be armed?
How do un-armed cruisers from other nations manage if firearms are so necessary?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

The Canadian Bill of Rights Section 1: “It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;(c) freedom of religion;”

The Bill of Rights makes no claim that the government have created nor granted the rights affirmed therein, but acknowledges that they “have existed and shall continue to exist”.



The rights to life, liberty, and security of the person have to include the right to defend one's person, or physical body, from harm. Otherwise these rights are of no effect. Since we have the right to the protection of the law, one cannot be found guilty of any offense for defending one's self. Simply, self defense is an action within the allowance of the law in Canada. When in another country though, such law may not exist.

And such rights may be removed by due process of law !!

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

I don’t think you understand the principle. The right of self defense deals with the legal concept of "justified" acts that might otherwise be illegal.



It means that when justification is shown, laws pertaining unlawful use of violence are not applicable. You can kill someone in self defense without being sentenced for murder. You can use anything at hand as a weapon when you are convinced you are about to be murdered.

Sorry this is not a universal truth and there is a farmer in the U.K. who spent a long time in jail because he killed a burglar with a gun who attacked him

In Ireland an amongst identical case , became a cause celebre abd the farmer was freed after two years and new castle doctrine laws were enacted that protected people in their homes from being prosecuted for manslaughter even though they claimed self defence

Simply stating that self defence is a get out of jail clause is nonsense. Outside of a castle doctrine law , if you are attacked you actions must , as viewed in law, be proportionate.

In fact in many countries outside your home , if you have the ability to retreat you must take that option then then defend yourself.

Even when you do defend yourself you must do so proportional to the threat. If a criminal on the street punches you in the nose and you pull a gun and shoot him , in many jurisdictions you WILL face consequences often jail for man slaughter and or firearms license violations.

In the U.K. for example it’s not sufficient to believe you will be murdered it must past an objective test that such a fear was justified.

In Ireland post law changes, in your home , it’s now a subjective test, if you are mortally frightened you may respond with lethal force irrespective of objectively your fear was not justified.

However this protection does not extend to your boat or any other place.

Hence even if you are convinced you are in mortal danger this does NOT extend to a free pass legally to react in any way you please. You will be prosecuted if your actions were deemed excessive in an objective evaluation of the events, people are being sent to prison on a regular basis that were deemed to have overreacted.

Here , pulling a gun on someone outside of your home would instantly be regarded as an overreaction.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by jerryf609

I dont think of myself as a gun person anymore than i think of myself as a coffee person, although i drink coffee every morning. Nor do i have any abnormal sense of fear.



If i have a gun in my glove box it is just there. The same as my spare tire is just there. I am not in fear of having a flat tire but i do have a spare but rarely think about it. I rarely think about my gun in the glove box as well.



But I do have some friends who have an irrational fear of guns.

This is apples an oranges , a gun used in the context you describe is a weapon , a spare tire is not.

A weapon is designed to hurt or kill other human beings, depriving them of a fundamental right , the right to life.

To suggest a gun is like a wrench or done other tool is nonsense.