Australian Spectator Op-Ed Calls for a British Second Amendment
An op-ed in the Australian edition of The Spectator argues that Britain needs a Second Amendment of its own. The author wants a statute that would act as a buffer against the police and a government that has, in the author's view, drifted too far left. Bearing Arms flagged the piece on November 10, 2026. The argument leans on medieval militia law, then runs through a century of British gun licensing. The author concedes the UK has no written constitution to amend. The author's answer: Parliament could pass a Second Amendment Bill on its own authority. Whatever you think of the politics, a columnist in another Commonwealth country just made the case for an armed citizenry from the British side of the Atlantic.
Key Details
The op-ed traces British arms law through a series of statutes. It presents them as a slow shift from a militia duty to a licensed privilege:
- Assize of Arms 1181 and Statute of Winchester 1285: subjects of suitable wealth and status had to keep weapons for the defence of the realm.
- Gun Licence Act 1870: introduced a revenue-based licence requirement.
- Pistols Act 1903: regulated the sale and possession of handguns.
- Firearms Act 1920: required a police certificate for many firearms and a legitimate reason for possession.
- Firearms Act 1968: consolidated the licensing system still used today.
- Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988: passed after the Hungerford killings. It banned most semi-automatic and pump-action rifles.
- 1997 Acts: passed after Dunblane. They effectively ended private handgun ownership.
On the economy, the op-ed blames deindustrialisation, green policy, and immigration spending. It says public debt as a share of GDP has almost doubled since 2010. The author's proposed remedy is a constitutional-style check that would outlast a single Parliament. Notably, the author argues that a statute alone is "better than nothing" but still vulnerable to repeal by a future majority.
Background
Britain never had a Second Amendment equivalent. It had a duty, not a right. The 1181 and 1285 laws required armed service for the militia. That is the "recognisable ancestor" the op-ed invokes. The closer constitutional precedent is the English Bill of Rights of 1689. It said Protestant subjects may have arms "suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law." That phrase ties the right to statute from the start. Parliament, not a written charter, set the limits.
The licensing ratchet tightened over the next century. Each major incident produced a new restriction. Hungerford, in August 1987, saw Michael Ryan kill 16 people. Dunblane, in March 1996, saw Thomas Hamilton kill 16 children and a teacher. Parliament answered both with broad prohibitions. The 1988 Act hit rifles. The 1997 legislation ended legal handgun ownership for private citizens. Those laws show what happens when a legislature wants to act fast. A statute can be written in a week and enforced for decades.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
The direct impact falls on British shooters. Certificate holders in England, Scotland, and Wales face a system built on police discretion. Under the 1920 model, the certificate depends on a police officer's view of "good reason." The op-ed's complaint about police immunity is a complaint about that discretion. Shotgun and firearm certificate holders should track any movement in Parliament closely. A pro-rights bill, if one appeared, would still need votes, a sponsor, and a government willing to spend capital on it. Right now none of that exists in the source.
American owners have a different lesson. The op-ed shows how a licensing regime starts as a revenue measure, adds a police certificate, then becomes a prohibition after a bad news cycle. Each step looked modest when it passed. US owners who watch state permit-to-purchase schemes, registration rules, or red-flag laws are watching the same pattern. Owners with UK family or travel plans should also know that importing or carrying firearms into Britain requires advance authorisation. Do not assume a US carry permit transfers.
DownRange Analysis
The op-ed's core point holds. A statute can be repealed by the next majority. The Second Amendment survives because a supermajority needs to ratify changes, and courts can strike laws that violate it. Britain has no such machinery. The Human Rights Act 1998 gives courts limited power to declare incompatibility, but Parliament keeps the final word. A UK "Second Amendment" would be a political promise, not a constitutional guarantee.
Bruen would not transfer cleanly either. The Supreme Court's 2022 test in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen asks whether a regulation fits the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. British courts do not run that analysis. For UK owners, the practical step is simple: join the shooting organisations that lobby Parliament, document every certificate refusal, and push for judicial review where discretion goes unchecked. For American owners, defend the Second Amendment as written. Reading the British story as a warning is the right use of it.
