US federal laws that wouldn't work in the UK?

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
5,614
Location
Somewhere
In the UK the vast majority of people don't even have access to a gun. This is why mass shootings are so much more rarer here than in the US. So thanks, but not thanks. We don't want or need US style guns laws.
If we were to become the legitimate 51st state of the USA then we would most likely be automatically afforded the rights and protections under the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and its amendments. Therefore whether we want or need guns becomes pretty much irrelevant. That being said, states and local governments in the US do control how easy (or hard) it is to obtain (legal) firearms and carry permits and whether you can carry them in public or not.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
12,625
Isn’t that from 1980 to 2018? So an average of something like 48 deaths a year.
The 1851 is a 2018 number, but is not all firearms related. Unfortunately The spreadsheet isn’t working properly on this device so I can’t tell what the actual number is.
 

Cowley

Established Member
Associate Staff
General Discussion
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
8,137
Location
Devon
The 1851 is a 2018 number, but is not all firearms related. Unfortunately The spreadsheet isn’t working properly on this device so I can’t tell what the actual number is.
Ok thanks. Probably not my strong point.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
17,661
Location
0035
3)lower speed limits- not really the case, it's pretty much 75mph on interstates now everywhere.
We have been on driving holidays in America for the past few years (east of the Mississippi except for a few days in Arkansas last summer) and I don’t think I ever saw a road above 70mph; which seems to match up with the map posted by someone above. I did notice that the speed limits permitted on various roads of all types were also largely lower than the equivalent roads would have been in the UK. The speed limits were by and large rigidly stuck to by all drivers despite the fact they have barely any fixed speed cameras; but there were a lot more marked police vehicles either on patrol or parked up looking for bad drivers.

One thing I found that probably wouldn’t work here is their obsession for elections and just how many positions are elected rather than appointed! People had posters up in their front gardens proclaiming their support for all sorts of individuals standing for public office; Judge, Sheriff, School board, various types of Attorneys and even a Tax assessor (who from my limited research seems to be the office that assess what rate of the equivalent of council tax you pay) elections were taking place in various locations we passed.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
4,704
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
If we were to become the legitimate 51st state of the USA then we would most likely be automatically afforded the rights and protections under the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and its amendments. Therefore whether we want or need guns becomes pretty much irrelevant. That being said, states and local governments in the US do control how easy (or hard) it is to obtain (legal) firearms and carry permits and whether you can carry them in public or not.
Luckily we will not become the 51st state any time soon.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
1,823
May be worth approaching this from a different angle - what federal laws would work here? (ok, there..I'm in the US right now). The UK and US are two different planets in terms of the way we live.


We have been on driving holidays in America for the past few years (east of the Mississippi except for a few days in Arkansas last summer) and I don’t think I ever saw a road above 70mph; which seems to match up with the map posted by someone above.
I have fond memories of Hwy 130 between San Antonio and Austin. Limit was a very strictly enforced 85mph - don't know if that's changed in recent years but it was a buzz to go that fast legally.
 

SteveP29

Member
Joined
23 Apr 2011
Messages
847
Location
Chester le Street/ Edinburgh
with people saying to the government "hold on,you're preventing us from defending ourselves"....we've tried to run away and tell teacher like you told us to and they keep coming after us.
As thick as some people are in this country, I'd like to credit them all with the intelligence to realise a good guy with a gun is just as bad as a bad guy with a gun (paraphrasing Trump) is ridiculous and just escalates things.

And thankfully, incidents like London Bridge are few and far between in this country, allowing the population to carry guns because of it, is an overreaction

It could be done. But very expensive, and prepared for over a period well over a decade.
Like a certain suicidal situation this country is going through right now?
 

AY1975

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
752

Gostav

Member
Joined
14 May 2016
Messages
110
If we were to become the legitimate 51st state of the USA then we would most likely be automatically afforded the rights and protections under the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and its amendments. Therefore whether we want or need guns becomes pretty much irrelevant. That being said, states and local governments in the US do control how easy (or hard) it is to obtain (legal) firearms and carry permits and whether you can carry them in public or not.
About firearms control.
In Continental Europe, the public also has the right to have the license and firearms, especially in Eastern Europe.
 

Grecian 1998

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2019
Messages
62
Location
Bristol
I thought the death penalty in the USA was a State matter rather than a federal matter. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States
Not entirely - it depends on the type of crime. Certain crimes are tried at a federal level, not a state one. The death penalty can be levied by the federal government for crimes committed in states which have abolished the death penalty.

This BBC news article provides a brief summary towards the end:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50499770

The vast majority of executions in the USA are carried out at a state level, particularly by Texas and to a lesser extent Louisiana and Florida. However the federal government can certainly impose the death penalty for certain crimes carried out for which it has jurisdiction.
 

AY1975

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
752
Not entirely - it depends on the type of crime. Certain crimes are tried at a federal level, not a state one. The death penalty can be levied by the federal government for crimes committed in states which have abolished the death penalty.

This BBC news article provides a brief summary towards the end:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50499770

The vast majority of executions in the USA are carried out at a state level, particularly by Texas and to a lesser extent Louisiana and Florida. However the federal government can certainly impose the death penalty for certain crimes carried out for which it has jurisdiction.
Then if someone in the UK were to commit a federal capital offence, then presumably the US Federal Government would have to decide whether to carry out their execution on UK soil or escort them over to the mainland US to be executed.
 

AY1975

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
752
Any UK government suggesting it would be committing political suicide.. Imagine the fuss over Brexit vs. Remain, and the protests would be at least 1000 times worse -- the thoughts of us being subservient to the likes of Trump or Pence (vice President) would horrify almost everybody.
Agreed, I don't remember the Leave campaign saying take back control from Brussels and then surrender it to Washington DC, but that is precisely what could in effect happen if Boris signs us up to a post-Brexit UK-US trade deal.

I don't think Leave would have won if they had said that. Then again, I suppose some might argue that at least the Americans speak English (albeit a different form of English) and that our culture and our way of life is more similar to that of the US than to any other European country.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
21,456
Location
Scotland
Then again, I suppose some might argue that at least the Americans speak English (albeit a different form of English) and that our culture and our way of life is more similar to that of the US than to any other European country
It is not. Despite the language difference, we are much more European in our outlook on the world than we are American. The very idea of British exceptionalism no longer exists in anything like that of American exceptionalism does.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
1,823
I'm not so sure about that. It was said that the reason the sun never set on the British Empire was god didn't trust the British in the dark.
Hah, that's excellent. I think my US friends and colleagues here would appreciate that one.
 

AY1975

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2016
Messages
752
It is not. Despite the language difference, we are much more European in our outlook on the world than we are American. The very idea of British exceptionalism no longer exists in anything like that of American exceptionalism does.
Agreed, but it still exists in the mind of many Brexiters who are convinced that because of our unique history (i.e. we used to have a vast global empire) and because we are (or were) the world's fifth richest country we ought not to have to depend on any other countries for our prosperity: we ought to be perfectly capable of standing on our own two feet. They refuse to accept that we have to choose between staying closely aligned to Europe and aligning ourselves more closely to the USA: they think we can simply "go it alone".
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
3,602
We could easily be non-aligned, or we can choose to align with various countries on various issues.
 

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
2,600
Agreed, but it still exists in the mind of many Brexiters who are convinced that because of our unique history (i.e. we used to have a vast global empire) and because we are (or were) the world's fifth richest country we ought not to have to depend on any other countries for our prosperity: we ought to be perfectly capable of standing on our own two feet. They refuse to accept that we have to choose between staying closely aligned to Europe and aligning ourselves more closely to the USA: they think we can simply "go it alone".
I certainly know Brexiters who think that all we have to do is bring back "Commonwealth Preference"
 

TrafficEng

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2019
Messages
417
Location
North of London
Where trade is concerned a country has to align their production standards with the standards of their customers.
Why? It is cheaper to produce if you are only producing to one set of technical standards, but it remains possible to produce to a range of different standards depending on where the customers are based.

If JCB were only producing to EU standards they would be unable to export their plant globally. The UK (as a whole) doesn't have to align its standards to Zimbabwe so JCB can sell diggers there, JCB just need to ensure what is built for that market conforms to the standards Zimbabwe requires.

Wider alignment (e.g. employee rights) might be required if it is made a condition of a trade deal, but trade deals are optional. They aren't something a country "has" to do.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
21,456
Location
Scotland
It is cheaper to produce if you are only producing to one set of technical standards, but it remains possible to produce to a range of different standards depending on where the customers are based.
Which...is...aligning to your customer's standards, no? I really don't get the point you are trying to make.
 

DerekC

Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
1,128
Location
Hampshire
Why? It is cheaper to produce if you are only producing to one set of technical standards, but it remains possible to produce to a range of different standards depending on where the customers are based.

If JCB were only producing to EU standards they would be unable to export their plant globally. The UK (as a whole) doesn't have to align its standards to Zimbabwe so JCB can sell diggers there, JCB just need to ensure what is built for that market conforms to the standards Zimbabwe requires.
The area of standards is very complex and the world has been going through a long, slow process of harmonising them through a cooperative process facilitated through the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). It's interesting that you have picked diggers. These are a subset of "Earth Moving Machinery" as far as the ISO is concerned. I am absolutely not an expert in this technical area, but a quick internet search reveals that the British Standards Institution (BSI) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) quote exactly the same international standards for many of the basic requirements - so for example ISO 20474 covers safety requirements for all the different kinds of machinery (dozers, loaders, backhoes etc). All of the 229 standards in the BSI list are either from ISO or are EN standards (from the EU). Zimbabwe doesn't seem to have a very well developed standards organisation, judging by its website, and I think it's almost certain that diggers to ISO and EN standards would be acceptable there. I appreciate that diggers and Zimbabwe are just examples, but they illustrate rather well the idea that leaving the EU will give us some kind of additional freedom in manufacturing standards terms is very largely fiction.

JCB will continue to manufacture to international standards as it always has, and if we were to join the US as a 51st state* I doubt if it would make much difference to them (at least in standards terms).

*PS - I am voting NO at that referendum.
 

Top