Fed up with the declining security situation in the UK, many Britons are choosing to travel to the continent and arm themselves--illegally.  But is this the criminal class choosing to arm itself--gangsters, thugs, and thieves?  On the contrary, British customs and Scotland Yard identify these transgressors as “respectable people worried about their security” and  “ law-abiding people, often young couples."  Under the conventional wisdom of gun control, not being in compliance with the law makes you a criminal.  Not the actual commission of criminal acts.  They are taking a big risk to practice their fundamental rights and even larger risks to actually exercise them.  

The right to self-defense is the most fundamental of our rights upon which all others rest.  A government that doesn’t recognize the primacy of an individual's right to self-defense has no incentive to respect other tertiary human rights such as speech, property, religious freedom, etc.

As more and more of the law-abiding middle class of England become technical criminals, hopefully the government will come to its senses and decriminalize the right to self-defense.  A more likely outcome will be ill-conceived buybacks and indemnity programs which will just disarm more law-abiding citizens or give criminals an easy way to get rid of evidence. 

At least this is the position Todd Kim, the Washington DC solicitor general is taking on their interpretation of the Second Amendment in the ongoing Parker case.  They are currently appealing the 2004 decision where a lower level DC judge said DC residents do not have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  This case is particularly interesting because no state jurisdiction over DC law so the suit will directly define the rights protected by the Second Amendment.  If they win, DC citizens will once again be able to enjoy the RKBA.  Either way, if the SCOTUS agrees to hear any appeal on the matter, it could potentially settle the issue once and for all.