Bahamas Rules For Firearms On Board

[goboatingnow]

Natural rights are the debate of philosophers. Many have done so

Constitutions are merely agreements that peaceful societies make with themselves to set boundaries

Constitutions get regularly torn up or arbitrarily suspended. They have no independent existence.

There is no universal rights , merely societal agreement that states those “ rights “ will apply until such time as that society tears up such “ rights “

Rights of any kind have been largely gained by the application of swords and lately guns, and much spilling of blood.

In reality you as a person have no rights unless collectively those around you agree you should have them. That’s what history teaches us.

Nobody “ externally “ has given humans rights. It’s a collective decision and it’s extents differ around the world.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

The rule is measuring the diameter of the rim of the cartridge, not the diameter of the slug.

Incorrect. The measurement is immediately in front of the rim or the cannelure of the base of the cartridge.

Where I checked in they had a scale of .308 with a sign, "your ammo must be smaller than this".

A .50 cal or .3030 is bigger, an 9mm Lugar, and .45 ACP is smaller.

Don't overthink it.

Originally Posted by GrowleyMonster

Most people would regard a .45ACP as being smaller than a .308 in spite of it being a bigger bore. Just look at the two cartridges side by side. .44 Magnum or bigger sounds scary to non-gunners so they might be considered bigger and badder. Truth be, a .308 rifle, a 12ga shotgun, and basically any medium or large bore handgun should be about the biggest practical arsenal you would want to bother with, anyway. So any 3 gun rule would be moot. The .308 limit would be moot, for most persons.

I think I would try to get your questions answered through official channels, if I were you. Customs and Port State Control in general have a lot of wiggle room, anywhere in the world, in interpreting and applying the law. I am what you would call a gun nut, I suppose, but even I would give some thought to going unarmed. Or maybe a short tac shotgun, only. Weapons can be a big hassle on the boat in foreign ports and waters.

Tactical shotguns typically have a barrel length of 18 to 20 inches; the Bahaminan law prohibits smooth bore barrels of less than 20 inches.


PART III
PURCHASE AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN
FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
8. (1) This Part of this Act applies to all firearms as
defined in section 2 of this Act except the following
weapons and component parts thereof and accessories
thereto, namely —
(a) a revolver;
(b) a prohibited weapon;
(c) a smooth bore gun having a barrel not less than
twenty inches in length;
(d) an air gun, air rifle or pistol not being of a type
declared by the rules made under the provisions
of section 47 of this Act to be specially
dangerous:
Provided that subsections (7) and (8) of section 12
and section 13 of this Act shall apply to a revolver and to
ammunition therefor as they apply to any other firearm or
ammunition.
(2) This Part of this Act applies to all ammunition
as defined in section 2 of this Act, except for the following
articles, namely —
(a) cartridges containing five or more shots, none of
which exceeds nine twenty-fifths of an inch in
diameter;
(b) ammunition for an air gun or air rifle or air
pistol; and
(c) blank cartridges not exceeding one inch in
diameter.
(3) For the purposes of this section the diameter of a
cartridge shall be measured immediately in front of the rim
or cannelure of the base of the cartridge.



In cartridges, the cannelure is a band pressed into the case which helps prevents cartridge setback when the case mouth is properly crimped onto the cannelure.


All modern firearms will list the bullet chamber size either on the frame/receiver or along the barrel. On pistols, revolvers, and rifles made in the U.S. or Great Britain, that size will typically be listed in terms of 1/100th (hundredth of an inch), a portion deemed a “caliber.”

For instance, a firearm with a quarter-inch bore will be “.25-caliber.” For pistols, revolvers, and rifles made in areas that have long been on the metric system, the bore will be in millimeters.

This rule largely converts back and forth with such general examples as 5.56mm/.223-caliber, 6.35mm/.25-caliber, 7.62mm/.30-caliber, 11.43mm/.45-caliber, and so forth.

Metric cartridges will include the case length
Added to this in metric cartridges is typically the length of the cartridge’s case. For instance, an 11.43x23mm round has an 11.43mm (.45-caliber) bullet on a case that is 23mm long. On this side of the pond, rather than specify the bullet diameter and the length of the case, we typically just label a cartridge by caliber and who invented it.

For example, instead of 11.43x23mm, Americans would call the same round a .45ACP, with the abbreviation standing for Automatic Colt Pistol. Clear as mud?

.308 Caliber equals 7.82mm

Reference link: https://backfire.tv/caliber-mm-conversion-chart/

For example, the good old .308 Winchester is so named because the bullet is .308″ in diameter. Converted to metric, that’s 7.82mm, but most people would refer to it as a 7.62 because of its military distinction. The difference is that one measurement is the distance between the grooves (the cut out portions of the rifling in the barrel, and another measurement uses the measurement to the lands (the raised portion of the rifling). To make matters worse, the .308 is commonly referred to as a .30 caliber cartridge, which isn’t actually correct at all.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

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

True, but there is a degree of protection in regard to the Charter:


"Chief Justice Brian Dickson in R. v. Oakes set out the legal test for invoking Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which limits a right or freedom. The legislation (the law) limiting a Charter right had to meet the following test subsequently named the “Oakes test”:
(1) The objective of the law must be sufficiently important to justify the limitation;
(2) The law must be rationally connected to the objective;
(3) The law must impair the right no more than is necessary to meet the objective; and
(4) The detrimental effects of the law are proportionate to the beneficial objective of the law."


"The Oakes test is the same as the limitation tests set out in the COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS. For example, in order to limit freedom of expression under Article 19(3) of the COVENANT, the restriction must be:
1. Prescribed by law;
2. Necessary and Proportionate;
3. Limited only to the grounds of the rights and reputations of others, public order, public health, national security, and morality."


Human Rights in Canada
Canada and the COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
https://canadahumanrights.wordpress....09/oakes-test/





The burden of proof is on the government. And due process of law requires court action, not the creation of another law by the government. There is the danger of a judge ruling incorrectly. They can have biases and be subject to political sway. But at least there is a check on government abuse of power.


The Oakes test was created by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1986 case of R v Oakes.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

True, but there is a degree of protection in regard to the Charter:


"Chief Justice Brian Dickson in R. v. Oakes set out the legal test for invoking Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which limits a right or freedom. The legislation (the law) limiting a Charter right had to meet the following test subsequently named the “Oakes test”:
(1) The objective of the law must be sufficiently important to justify the limitation;
(2) The law must be rationally connected to the objective;
(3) The law must impair the right no more than is necessary to meet the objective; and
(4) The detrimental effects of the law are proportionate to the beneficial objective of the law."


"The Oakes test is the same as the limitation tests set out in the COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS. For example, in order to limit freedom of expression under Article 19(3) of the COVENANT, the restriction must be:
1. Prescribed by law;
2. Necessary and Proportionate;
3. Limited only to the grounds of the rights and reputations of others, public order, public health, national security, and morality."


Human Rights in Canada
Canada and the COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
https://canadahumanrights.wordpress....09/oakes-test/





The burden of proof is on the government. And due process of law requires court action, not the creation of another law by the government. There is the danger of a judge ruling incorrectly. They can have biases and be subject to political sway. But at least there is a check on government abuse of power.


The Oakes test was created by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1986 case of R v Oakes.

Again this is a specific countries interpretation, it is not universal nor even usual around the world.

[jerryf609]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

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

Not the right to protect one self from great bodily harm. There is no due process that would disallow you from protecting yourself. No respectable government would say you must sacrafice yourself to someone who has the intent or is actively harming you. Again, not specific to guns or any particular means. Just the right you have to live.

[GrowleyMonster]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

All of these anti gun posts miss the point.

My boat is not capable of instantaneous teleportation between the US, and other Caribbean countries.

When I've arrived in a patrolled port or marina with armed security, and local police, and surrounded by other tourists a gun is most likely not going to be needed.

But 100 miles offshore near countries in the middle of a civil war, the police aren't likely to come when called, and even more likely on the same side of the crooks.

That's why international law, and law of the sea recognize the right to carry arms on board a ship in international waters.

And every country has a procedure for checking in weapons while at port.

With the one limitation, the arms declared should be legal to own in your home port.

With a few countries adding additional caliber restrictions.

Not Mexico. Declare all you want. You are still going to jail. They suck about that.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Natural rights are the debate of philosophers. Many have done so

Constitutions are merely agreements that peaceful societies make with themselves to set boundaries

Constitutions get regularly torn up or arbitrarily suspended. They have no independent existence.

There is no universal rights , merely societal agreement that states those “ rights “ will apply until such time as that society tears up such “ rights “

Rights of any kind have been largely gained by the application of swords and lately guns, and much spilling of blood.

In reality you as a person have no rights unless collectively those around you agree you should have them. That’s what history teaches us.

Nobody “ externally “ has given humans rights. It’s a collective decision and it’s extents differ around the world.

Sadly, constitutions get pushed aside from time to time. But they are intended to be the supreme law of a country. No other law, policy, or practice is to conflict with them. Do we have constitutions, bills of rights, and charters just to hang on walls as props so that we can boast of how much superior we are to nations whose people suffer tyranny? Without such a standard, what is the use of a nation? Constitutions specify limits by which the people agree to be governed.

[Ndavies]

Play it safe - don’t take any. Stay away from Nassau and you won’t need any. Respect other country’s laws and cultures when visiting. And if you don’t like that - don’t go.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by jerryf609

Not the right to protect one self from great bodily harm. There is no due process that would disallow you from protecting yourself. No respectable government would say you must sacrafice yourself to someone who has the intent or is actively harming you. Again, not specific to guns or any particular means. Just the right you have to live.

Exactly, I have decided 3 times to stop posting here but it’s becoming absurd how people think governments have rights to your body & soul and seem to support that

[jerryf609]

Constitutions or laws permitting self defense?

Say you and your family are visiting a different country than your home country. You arw having a good time and people are friendly. You go to dinner and have a fun time.

You walk out of the restaurant and start walking back to your hotel or marina. Two men approach. They want your money and you give it to them hoping thats all they want. But your teenage son resists . They slap him around. You tell your son to be quiet and you tell them to leave him alone.

Now they turn to you and it gets serious. You tell your family to run while you do your best to defend yourself and your family trying to at least give them time to get safe and hooefully get help.

Now at what point do you scan your memory for what is Constitutionaly allowed or legally allowed in this country foreign to you.?

I doubt anyone of you would even think about it. You know you are an innocent. You know they are not. And you know they mean you and your family physical harm. Thats all you need to know.

Let the cops and lawyers figure it out later, if there is a later.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jerryf609

Constitutions or laws permitting self defense?

Say you and your family are visiting a different country than your home country. You arw having a good time and people are friendly. You go to dinner and have a fun time.

You walk out of the restaurant and start walking back to your hotel or marina. Two men approach. They want your money and you give it to them hoping thats all they want. But your teenage son resists . They slap him around. You tell your son to be quiet and you tell them to leave him alone.

Now they turn to you and it gets serious. You tell your family to run while you do your best to defend yourself and your family trying to at least give them time to get safe and hooefully get help.

Now at what point do you scan your memory for what is Constitutionaly allowed or legally allowed in this country foreign to you.?

I doubt anyone of you would even think about it. You know you are an innocent. You know they are not. And you know they mean you and your family physical harm. Thats all you need to know.

Let the cops and lawyers figure it out later, if there is a later.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Exactly, I have decided 3 times to stop posting here but it’s becoming absurd how people think governments have rights to your body & soul and seem to support that

Though some people have written some good posts, the predominance of defeatism is discouraging. I may soon retire from this thread. Seems to have run its course anyway. Eleven pages on the topic seems like more then enough.

[Wotname]

The good ship SV Off Topic has drifted onto the shoals of Irrelevance and floundered with all hands lost - the thread is accordingly closed.