Firstly a caveat. I'm no sort of a lawyer and I'm not qualified to comment on this kind of thing. The wise course of action would probably be to shut up, but I'm a blogger so wise courses are not par for the course. I'm relaying something I came across on a forum for criminal solicitors called, um, criminalsolicitor.net, which must rank as one of the most interesting threads I've read.

It was started by a solicitor whose client was accused of carrying an ASP - apparently a kind of extending truncheon. He had been seen with it by police, who had responded when he telephoned them after a bin had been thrown through his window and he had been verbally threatened. While he was acquitted, the exposition of the relevant law was fascinating. (Of course, whether it is a correct exposition is another matter).

Some of the positions made on the thread are:

• Common Law, and its declaration in the Bill of Rights of 1689 allowed ordinary citizens to carry weapons.
• For the law-abiding citizen at least, this position was not changed by the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which was only intended to prevent criminals from carrying weapons. This is confirmed by the Hansard record on the Parliamentary debate of the time.  There is also a clue in the title of the Act.
• The PCA 1953 did not repeal the Bill of Rights explicitly. Subsequent case law has shown that the BoR, as a constitutional act, cannot be repealed implicitly.
• PCA 1953 did, however, reverse the burden on proof, requiring the accused to show prove their innocence using one of the available defences of "lawful authority" or "reasonable excuse". It is argued that "lawful authority" refers to the common law right to carry a weapon which is declared in the Bill of Rights.
  
• Most defences under PCA 1953 have used "reasonable excuse". Case law has shown that carrying a weapon on the offchance of attack is not reasonable. If you are threatened, however, it is.
• The "lawful authority" argument has been untested by the courts, apart from some non-binding comments in a "reasonable excuse" case which argued that it referred to police and military carrying of weapons.
  
• The term "lawful authority" is not defined in the act. This being the case, the question is asked "Where does a policeman derive his lawful authority to carry a truncheon?". There is no legislation conferring this authority. It is argued that the only place it can come from is the Bill of Rights/common law and the duty to preserve the peace - ie the same place as everyone else. Again this seems to be confirmed by the Hansard record in which it is explained that it refers to the common law duty to preserve the peace.
  

So, if they are right, ordinary citizens are allowed to carry arms. Indeed one of the commenters claimed to do so as a matter of course. He said that he'd never had any trouble with the police either.

I can't help but think back to the guidance on self-defence issued by the Home Office a couple of years ago which was a masterpiece of obfuscation. If they'd said it's alright to carry a truncheon for your defence, all would have been clear. 

But is it right?