I got your point, that was what I was trying to address. The right to property under the human rights convention is not an absolute right. States that have signed up to the ECHR can and do interfere with the right to property all the time, but, broadly speaking, the interference must be in pursuit of a legitimate goal in the public interest. Some of your examples go to prove this point - they are arguably in pursuit of a legitimate public interest (e.g Ivory - not retrospective, by the way, your existing ivory is not about to be confiscated).

I hope this is clear - there is no absolute right to property, but confiscation cannot be arbitrary.

The move from being legal to being illegal is absolutely standard, of course. One used to be able to not wear a seat belt, for example, or rape one’s wife. Just because it was once legal makes no difference to it being illegal now. You say ‘the goalposts have been moved’ - well yes. That is the way the law works.

As I said before, if you want to challenge the gun law, go right ahead, it is open to you to argue that it is not justified by being in the public interest.

For instance an ivory ornament. At one point perfectly legal to own but a change in the law makes it illegal so a persons possessions are removed because the goal posts have been moved.

It could happen with other possessions, blood diamonds, 4×4 vehicles etc. You could look further afield at the land grabs of Zimbabwee.

The pistols were taken away over ten years ago but are still being held without having been destroyed. I have a feeling this may be in case a legal challenge to their removal is feared and they have to be returned.

Your question is not related to Art 8 and possession at all. It isn’t even particularly analagous, but anyway…

States make objects illegal and take them away from their owners all the time, but, under the ECHR, there has to be a good reason why. The question that would have to be answered in an apparent breach of Protocol 1 Art 1 (right to property) is whether the deprivation is in the public interest, or general interest, and whether it is permitted by law.

If you want to mount a challenge to the firearms laws on that basis, go right ahead, there is nothing stopping you. There would seem to be a fairly clear public interest defence (whatever one might consider the be the practical effect of the Act).

In 1997 57,000 people had an object that it was perfectly legal for them to own.

The law was changed making that object illegal to own and the government confiscated all those that were on record as being owned.

I do not think it right that the state can just change the law and make an object illegal and take it away from its citizens.
The right to property under ECHR comes to mind.

The property in question is the pistols owned by sportsmen.

Light dawns, in all sorts of ways. You would have thought that a couple of years taking new enquiries from the public at large would have given me a hair trigger sensitivity, but there you go…

You are clearly furious about something, unfortunately I can’t quite penetrate the fog of fury to tell what it is. Can you give references to Truman, McDuff, McKenna? Or an outline of the case(s)? Why was this a human rights issue?

What was the Art 8 issue that the Court did not address in considering Art 8(2)?

If the UK judges were talking sense about the HRA, then the whole of the following means no more than “except such as is in accordance with the law”, and therefore that that long contiunation after those words must (by the implication of these jokers) be no more than meaningless redundant verbage:

“except such as is in accordance with the law AND is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

According to the UK courts (Lord Bingham apart) that lot means no more than “except such as is in accordance with the law full stop”. That is manifestly learned and honourable B.S.

Why do we bother paying these charlatans’ salaries? There can be few people with less real merit on which to base their conceit. We would get less pseudic justice by dragging rough sleepers in to give the judgments instead, and they might be less arrogant about it..