We the people, or at least the majority of people, have help create what we have today. Too many people are simply not satisfied with a simple life, they want more & more & more. Having got more, they now do not want to lose it, they don’t want to rock the boat, so we are stuck with a corrupt government who will continue to take from us more & more & more!
Ask yourself, what is wrong with a nation of people who allow their own government to profit from genocide being committed in Tibet & West Papua? You think that a government who can do this can be trusted to look after your own welfare? Take a look around you, take your heads out of the sand & SEE what is happening! Chinese corporations purchasing Australian farms, mining corporations ruining farm land & polluting our environment; our own government prioritising mining rights over farmer’s rights! Our pensions cut, & not only that but the pension age extended! Our pension rights are not welfare, we have worked all our lives to earn our pensions!
Council services have not increased, but the rates/taxes have! People are being evicted from their own homes & their homes sold. Aboriginal communities are being forced off their land to make way for mining companies. The water supply cut off & their dwellings bulldozed! Crime is rife & the government likes it that way because they can spread their terror campaign & gain more control over Australian citizens. Ask yourself, why was the massacre in Tasmania was allowed to continue so long? Why was the police sniper instructed not to shoot Man Monis in the Lindt Cafe seige? Why were police instructed not to arrest Dimitrious Gargasoulas when he was stuck in a traffic jam & so allowing him to kill people in Melbourne’s Bourke street mall?
I am sick & tired of seeing all these petitions by a variety of organisations attempting to achieve some form of justice for everything from domestic animals & the environment to human rights. As if petitioning a corrupt government will actually achieve anything! If all of these organisations were to band together & start legal proceedings to remove our government from office & set in place a new fairer system for all, then all the other problems would be resolved at the same time! But no, just like our government, they want to keep things rolling along as they are, creating new petitions every day. Is there a method in their madness? Do they in some way profit from this? Or are they just too stupid that they can’t see the wood for the trees?
I am one person in a minority, this minority can not change what is happening to Australia, we can not sack this corrupt & illegal government corporation on our own, & the majority that can accomplish this are doing nothing. YOU the majority are to blame for the unrest & corruption in Australia. YOU are to blame for the number of homeless people living on our streets. YOU are to blame for the crime rate & the number of people dying in our hospitals & those dying because they are not being admitted to our hospitals! YOU have the power, but you are too damned lazy, greedy & corrupt yourselves to use that power to make change for all Australian citizens. So if one day it all hits the fan, DO NOT come knocking on the doors of this minority of preppers, farmers, alternative lifestyle people or anyone else who is doing it hard right now, because we will not be opening our doors.
In legal terms, Australians have a right of self-defence. While some states rely on the common law and others have it enshrined in statute, the right itself is never questioned. Moreover, juries consistently refuse to convict those charged with serious offences whenever self-defence is made out.
What we don’t have is the practical ability to exercise that right. Possessing any object specifically for the purpose of self-defence, lethal or non-lethal, is a criminal offence. There are many women, raped and/or murdered, who would have been liable to prosecution had they been carrying anything that might have saved them.
The Pension Assets Test to be implemented on 1 January 2017.
So here’s fair warning to all politicians of any persuasion, this group of aged voters may be about to make the greatest impact on any Federal election in history, ignoring them may be the start of a changed political environment in this country.
Change the Entitlements I absolutely agree, if a pension isn’t an entitlement, neither is theirs. They keep telling us that paying us an aged pension isn’t sustainable. Paying politicians all the perks they get is even less sustainable! The politicians themselves, in Canberra, brought it up, that the Age of Entitlements is over: The author is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in Australia will have this message. This is one idea that really should be passed around because the rot has to stop somewhere. Proposals to make politicians shoulder their share of the weight now that the Age of Entitlement is over: 1. Scrap political pensions. Politicians can purchase their own retirement plan, just as most other working Australians are expected to do. 2. Retired politicians (past, present & future) participate in Centrelink. A Politician collects a substantial salary while in office but should receive no salary when they’re out of office. Terminated politicians under 70 can go get a job or apply for Centrelink unemployment benefits like ordinary Australians. Terminated politicians under 70 can negotiate with Centrelink like the rest of the Australian people. 3. Funds already allocated to the Politicians’ retirement fund be returned immediately to Consolidated Revenue. This money is to be used to pay down debt they created which they expect us and our grandchildren to repay for them. 4. Politicians will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Politicians pay will rise by the lower of, either the CPI or 3%. 5. Politicians lose their privileged health care system and participate in the same health care system as ordinary Australian people. I.E. Politicians either pay for private cover from their own funds or accept ordinary Medicare. 6. Politicians must equally abide by all laws they impose on the Australian people. 7. All contracts with past and present Politicians men/women are void effective 31/12/16. The Australian people did not agree to provide perks to Politicians, that burden was thrust upon them. Politicians devised all these contracts to benefit themselves. Serving in Parliament is an honour not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so our politicians should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work. If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people, then it will only take three or so days for most Australians to receive the message. Don’t you think it’s time? THIS IS HOW YOU FIX Parliament and help bring fairness back into this country!
The government is set on making Australian citizens totally dependent on their services. In some places they are trying to charge land owners for the use of their own dam water, in some towns rainwater collection is banned. This in a country as dry as ours! We live off grid, & yet we have to pay rates/taxes for services that they do not supply, nor do we want or need their services. We are even charged a fee for our use of our own compost toilets!!! Meanwhile the government still has disarmament of all civilians high on its list of restrictions. We have already lost so many of our rights & freedoms in the name of safety from terrorism!!!
There may come a time when we will have to go silent on the net. The local councils are corrupt & already know of people like us who are off grid, but we can at least do our best to lower our profile.
My thanks to Stephen M.C. for bringing this news video to my attention.
I can understand the need to stop illegal imports of firearms, & I can understand the need to stop the Black Market sales of firearms, but what I DO NOT understand is WHY the government is so determined to disarm law abiding Australian citizens. This to my suggests that for some reason they are afraid of us. So what are they planning that should require them to disarm us? Slowly but surely, through legislation without consultation or referendum, the government has been taking away our rights & freedoms. Gun violence by criminals & terrorists is being used against us, used as an excuse to legislate more restrictions on the public. Homes can be entered without any requirement to show just cause. Firearms confiscated. Protesters can be arrested & imprisoned. Does this sound like a democratic society to you? Where is all this going? Do the majority of Australians know this is happening & simply not care (she’ll be right mate!)? Gun control is NOT about public safety, it is about controlling the people, controlling law abiding citizens. Police officers come into my home to inspect my firearms safe keeping, but all the time they are assuming that I am guilty of some crime until I am proved to be innocent. They are looking for any excuse to charge me with a crime. I have been accused of not registering guns, guns that are antiques & do not require registration in NSW, & it is I who have to foot the bill, I have the expense of having to defend my rights as a law abiding citizen. The local police have informed me that I have no right to use a firearm to defend myself or my family unless I have first been shot! The police can not protect me or my family!
I pose a question to anyone out there with a knowledge of the law: Why do I have to lock my gun away in a gun safe when I am at home, & yet not have to lock my gun in a gun safe when I am away from home hunting for several days? What is the difference? In both cases I am physically there in charge of the firearm.
The Seismic Shift to Freedom Through Out the Western World.
Headlines like “Trump“, “The latest result of a populist wave that is set to upturn the political order”,
“2016 the Year that Changed Everything”, are not true, most of the changes, almost imperceptible changes, have occurred during the recent 25 year period. These changes are all part of the war, which is almost as old as human history, the war between ‘central control of the few’ versus ‘freedom for the people’.
We can all easily appreciate the recent great efforts of Brexit, David Leyonhjelm and the Liberal Democrats combined with the success of One Nation, the Trump Victory and just recently the Shooters Party victory in Orange NSW. The Nationals suffered a record 34 per cent primary vote swing against them in a seat they have held since 1947.
We all I hope, want freedom in our lifetime, or it would be nice to feel that our efforts would result in freedom for our children and our children’s children, but we are only going to get that freedom by making the correct decisions, and not have our efforts miss directed under the many false flag organisations that spring up and demand your support.
The Genie is Out of the Lamp, and that Lamp is now shining brightly into every nook and cranny of the international suppressive conspiracy. The mainstream media are horrified, they try to box it into words of containment, ‘revisionism’, or ‘populist’ desperately attempting to minimalize us all as a temporary phenomena.
With no facts to oppose us their only resort is to demean us.
The media cannot understand that their programming of human minds, their push polls and false stories are not working. Throughout the western world the internet, they call it social media but really we should call it Free Media is fuelling a revolution, but it is a new peaceful revolution, (up to date) in reaction to the impositions and controls that have inhibited the common person for too long.
Now, freedom parties in Europe such as Geert Wilders, who identifies it well and calls his party the Freedom Party of Holland, Nigel Farage led the Brexit Movement, Italy has the Five Star Movement and Marine Le Pen’s the National Front in France. The Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s with similar sentiment coming from Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic. These movements all have the same issues in common, not just anti immigration, or anti muslims they are movements that are concerned with rectifying suppression of individual freedoms, such as Freedom of Speech, Freedom to retain their livelihoods, their jobs, their property, their freedom to defend themselves and their freedom from international interference in their countries decision making. They all oppose big international banking, the UN and oppose the free trade agreements, which for all who go to the trouble of researching them find that they are not free at all. They are designed to turn all people on earth equality to compete for the lowest wage, that is set by the central banking system. Work for nothing, or starve, country by country is the Free trade outcome, that they want. Any one who opposes the international disarmament treaty or the free trade treaties, or international control on climate change, or any of the controls over our freedom are treated by the political and media establishment as being so disreputable that we don’t have a right to exist.
We still have a long war to fight but now the Genie is completely out of the lamp, they can never close the lid and trap it again. They may try to kill Facebook, or control the internet, vet emails, but the populace of the western world has realised that the mainstream media is part of the problem, its authority is not just flawed, its been exposed as part of the chains that bind us down.
In the dark days of John Howard’s power trip in 2001 after he stole our rights, property, jobs and our avocations in 1997 and before he did it again in 2003, when he stole our pistols, closing shops, collectors, disarming even security guards accept his own people, I wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper. It was too extreme for them so like hundreds of other letters they did not print it, but here are some extracts.
Regaining our Freedoms will be a Long Term War -2003.
“To answer the many questions, as to why our freedoms cannot be regained for many years, is complex but it is ultimately due to the huge contrast of power between the few people within the academics/ politicians/banks who control the mainstream media and ourselves, hundreds of thousands of voiceless individual people.
We can understand that the same few who control the media also control the parliaments, and huge tools of coercion, the public service, the Police and the Defence forces, but fortunately in our system all that can be replaced by the re-direction of the one single, main power the ‘Media’.
The establishment demands more central control and the people demand individual freedoms. We are going to win this war but it is not going to end with one election victory, one battle, it will take many victories. Neither in theory, or in practice can the weak win against the strong, or the few win against the many. There will be an ebb and flow, it is part of the natural law of the universe every action will have an opposite and equal re-action. We think that obviously what is big and powerful now can always suppress the weak, but there is another huge factor, ‘Time’ and its ability to change the factors in the coming battles. In history very often the small progressive country conquerors the larger country with more people and more resources. Usually, the progressives have technological advantages, time takes its place and the progressive empire gets complacent and then there is a ‘revision’.
In our present case, the enemy, the Anti Gun members John Crook, Rebecca Peters, John Howard with the media building their credibility and regurgitating their every utterance makes them very strong and if we are not vigilant there is a danger that we will lose everything. It is not all bad news though, the enemy has its shortcomings as well. They have the media but no numbers and no people on the ground in electorates, we have advantages as well. We have to use our advantages to remove their advantages and remedy our own shortcomings. So we can win final victory and avert total civilian disarmament, defeating this central power movement that seeks to choke the individuals to death.
Since our enemies have only one advantage, media power and shortcomings in numbers and we have only one disadvantage no media outlets and are only advantage is power in numbers, this has resulted in putting the Anti Gun people in a dominating position, we know that the battle ground has to be fought with the media tools, or we will always be in this inferior position of Subjugation (Slavery by another name).
The establishments power is so strong and ours so weak at present it is very difficult for our own supporters to see that the enemy have any shortcomings, but they will become more apparent as we become more proactive on the media battle grounds. We will lose more battles, but gain experience, we will be further from absolute defeat and nearer to victories as time goes by. As we have the numbers and even without the internet we can talk to one another, we have the telephone, we are getting comment on talk back radio, we are communicating and educating the up and coming generations, so they can resist this huge power grab by the anti gun elements within the major political parties. If we employ correct tactics to increase firearm ownership, to increase members of our clubs and train these people to be pro active in communicating their resistance to the government impositions, letter writing, petitions, articles, meeting, emails we can exploit our best advantages and expose their worst shortcomings. Then there will be a continual change in comparative strengths, we will get stronger and they will get weaker. As yet we have not fundamentally weakened them, they know we are here, but they marginalise us and call us conspiracy theorists to box us in.
History shows that disarmament does not work and where ever there is a vacuum other powers will seek to employ it.
Crime will continue to grow. Before John Howard’s disarmament, home invasion was unheard of, now its on everyone lips. To our north are countries that need our natural resource, yet do not need our small western population. Our defence forces are weak, the little island of Singapore could invade us and hold us. As time goes buy Australians will buy target and hunting rifles without mentioning the real reason, their fear in defending their families. They will enjoy their sport, but keep their rifles close. This, we have to encourage as our numbers increase, and they can appreciate the impositions we live under, this will bring even more power to our cause, not only in our voting power but in creating our own media channels. We will have to sustain some losses but as international troubles increase so to will our numbers increase, we will not win quickly, but eventually we win in this long prolonged war. If we do nothing we may well lose everything.” …………… Of course our opposition, those few who through there academic and media power state ‘they are fighting for freedom, by freeing their society from the threat of firearm owners’. We cannot question their right to have free speech, and their right to have a free opinion, but I can question their hypocrisy of using the banner of Freedom by denying freedom to the two million licensed firearm owners in Australia who own property.
We, on the other hand deny none of their rights, yet they continually oppose our rights to free speech and the right to own property. This establishment quango, which is one small anti gun group, has used its power to systematic coerce another much larger group, the firearm owners. We are all supposed to be citizens of Australia, our police are citizens, our defence forces are citizens, the government employees are all citizens with supposedly the same rights as ourselves, but we are treated similar to slaves. These elite few dictate that government employees can have firearms to defend themselves and politicians, but not us, we the common working people are the downtrodden, the peasant peons who have no rights and no freedoms.
Check out who they vote with and if they do really support firearm owners?
Who Do we Trust, Which Party? The Answer. “Know Them By Their Fruits“.(View their past records)
We are in a long protracted war for freedom, this war will be won in three stages, we have been on the defensive during this early period, but now we are approaching the middle stage where we can have much more offensive action, (non violent of course) with a large part of our community now doubting all information from mainstream media and nothing that is spoken by the major party politicians. The main stream media and their masters have lost a lot of their power and we are gaining leaps and bound using internet sights, youtubes and facebook to communicate almost instantly, with the evidence plain for all to see. For the first time we are seeing some of there advantages weaken. We have lots of minor parties, as we have mentioned above, the Shooters, Fisher and Farmers Party, One Nation, the Liberal Democrats and the Katter Party. In this second stage of the our protracted war we have to discern and investigate to find which party, in our area, is going to be the most proactive and keen to remove the huge impositions and protect the law abiding citizens from the henchmen of the establishment. We have to remind each party that per the Crimtrac Annual Report for 2015/16 which has licensed shooters numbers at 1.98 million, that’s a squidgeon under two million and nearly 6 million licensed firearms, a national increase of 37 %. 14 million Australians voted at the last general election, 22 % voted against the major parties, so which policy is going to do the most for shooters. We all have to ask them, each and every one of us has to contact these parties. Ask them for a copy of their Firearm Policy. Then we decide. Then we can support the best of them, in every way that we can.
Never Ever Again, We Now Want Them Back With Interest.
The third and final stage of our prolonged war, and this part might be the hardest part, as when we get them elected and in power, we then have to ensure that they carry out the instructions of those whom they represent and not betray us like the Liberal and National Party did in 1996. I have no doubt that we will win our freedom again, I just hope I live long enough to see it happen.
Welcome to the Firearms Owners Association of Australia Website. The FOAA aim is to protect all the rights of firearms owners in Australia and to remove the impositions currently breaching those rights. Our Members uphold the Bill of Rights1688, which is law in Queensland today. (excerpt) The Subject’s Rights.
In my opinion this is how it should be. Australian citizens get hospitalised & murdered because they do not have a legal right to own a gun for reasons of self defence. Guns are being imported illegally into Australia & sold on the Black Market to criminals, yet we have to keep ALL our guns locked in a gun safe where we can not access them in time to defend ourselves. I understand the need for gun security, I understand that there is still a chance however small that guns can be stolen from private residence, but it seems to me that there should be some compromise between maximum protection of life & the minimum chance of having firearms stolen. Handguns are restricted to use on pistol club ranges only, this includes archaic firearms such as matchlocks, wheellocks, snaphaunce & flintlocks. It is about time that the government started showing some concern for people’s safety & stop the bullshit & the scaremongering that they use to make ignorant Australians toe the line & back their draconian gun laws.
Last night I watched the Australian movie “Tomorrow When The War Began” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efHGC2YoTiIfor the second time, & it made me wonder just how Australian citizens were going to be able to defend themselves IF this survival situation was ever to really happen.
This primitive pistol can only be legally used on a pistol club range!!!
TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL
Table of Contents
MYTH 1 — Public opinion polls
MYTH 2 — The purpose of a handgun
MYTH 3 — Armed citizens don’t deter crime
MYTH 4 — Licensing and registration
MYTH 5 — Foreign gun control works
MYTH 6 — Crimes of passion and guns
MYTH 7 — Semi-autos should be banned
MYTH 8 — No `right’ to own a gun
MYTH 9 — Concealed carry laws are dangerous
MYTH 10 — Gun control reduces crime
Ten Myths About Gun Control
“We will never fully solve our nation’s horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons.” –USA Today, December 29, 1993
“Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership?. .. (W)ho can still argue compellingly that Americans can be trusted to handle guns safely? We think the time has come for Americans to tell the truth about guns. They are not for us, we cannot handle them.” –Los Angeles Times, December 28, 1993
These editorial opinions expressed by two of the nations most widely read newspapers represent the absolute extreme in the firearms controversy: that no citizen can be trusted to own a firearm. It is the product of a series of myths which–through incessant repetition–have been mistaken for truth. These myths are being exploited to generate fear and mistrust of the 60-65 million decent and responsible Americans who own firearms. Yet, as this document proves, none of these myths will stand up under the cold light of fact.
MYTH 1:”The majority of Americans favor strict new additional federal gun controls.”
Polls can be slanted by carefully worded questions to achieve any desired outcome. It is a fact that most people do not know what laws currently exist; thus, it is meaningless to assert that people favor “stricter” laws when they do not know how “strict” the laws are in the first place. Asking about a waiting period for a police background check presumes, incorrectly, that police can and will actually conduct a check during the wait. Similarly, it is meaningless to infer anything from support of a 7- or 5-day waiting period when respondents live in a state with a 15-day wait or a 1-6 month permit scheme in place. Asked whether they favor making any particular law “stricter,” however, most people do not. Unbiased, scientific polls have consistently shown that most people:
Oppose costly registration of firearms.
Oppose giving police power to decide who should own guns.
Do not believe that stricter gun laws would prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns.
In 1993, Luntz Weber Research and Strategic Services found that only 9% of the American people believe “gun control” to be the most important thing that could be done to reduce crime. By a margin of almost 3-1, respondents said mandatory prison would reduce crime more than “gun control.” This poll, unlike many others, allowed respondents to answer more honestly by using open ended questions without leading introductions. The result was an honest appraisal of the attitude of the American people: “gun control” is not crime control.
One clear example of a poll done which used biased questions and flawed procedures was conducted by Louis Harris Research Inc. (LHRI) in the summer of 1993. The poll reported unprecedented levels of gun abuse by high school students. However, after examining the poll, Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University, the nation’s leading scholar on crime and firearms, called the findings “…implausible, being inconsistent with more sophisticated prior research.” Prof. Kleck found the Harris findings of students who had been shot at or who had actually shot at someone to be insupportable by crime and victimization statistics as reported by the Department of Justice: “Even if the percent of handgun crime victimization had doubled from the average for the 1979-1987 period, the LHRI results would still be overstated by a factor of 100.” In the end, he labeled the LHRI poll “advocacy polling.”1
A more direct measure of the public’s attitude on “gun control” comes when the electorate has a chance to speak on the issue. Public opinion polls do not form public policy, but individual actions by hundreds of thousands of citizens do. For example, in 1993, the voters of Madison, Wisconsin, were presented with a referendum calling for a ban on handgun ownership in that city. Pollsters predicted an overwhelming win for the gun banners. When Second Amendment rights activists rallied opposition and educated the electorate on the facts about gun ownership, the referendum was defeated. In the 1993 gubernatorial elections, the incumbent governor in New Jersey and the front-runner in Virginia made “gun control” a central theme of their campaigns. Both candidates lost to opponents who stressed real criminal justice reforms, not “gun control.” In November 1982, Californians rejected, by a 63-37% margin, a statewide handgun initiative that called for the registration of all handguns and a “freeze” on the number of handguns allowed in the state. Again, pre-elect ion pollsters reported support for the measure. That initiative was also opposed by the majority of California’s law enforcement community. Fifty-one of the state’s 58 working sheriffs opposed Proposition 15, as did 101 chiefs of police. Nine law enforcement organizations, speaking for rank-and-file police, went on record against the initiative.
Increasingly, the American people are voicing support for reform of the criminal justice system. The NRA also actively supports initiatives calling for mandatory jail time for violent criminals. In 1982, the residents of Washington, D.C., enacted an NRA-endorsed mandatory penalty bill, actively opposed by the anti-gun D.C. City Council, that severely punishes those who use firearms to commit a violent crime . In 1988, the residents of Oregon approved, by a 78-22% margin, an NRA-supported initiative mandating prison sentences for repeat offenders after the state legislature and governor failed to act on the issue. In 1993, the residents of Washington state overwhelmingly approved the “three strikes you’re out” initiative calling for life sentences without parole for anyone convicted of a third serious crime. NRA’s Crime Strike program was instrumental in collecting the needed signatures to put that question on the ballot.
In 1993, the Southern States Police Benevolent Association conducted a scientific poll of its members. Sixty-five percent of the respondents identified “gun control” as the least effective method of combating violent crime. Only 1% identified guns as a cause of violent crime, while 48% selected drug abuse, and 21% said the failure of the criminal justice system was the most pressing cause. The officers also revealed that 97% support the right of the people to own firearms, and 90% said they believed the Constitution guarantees that right.
The SSPBA findings affirmed a series of polls conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police of every chief and sheriff in the country, representing over 15,000 departments. In 1991 the poll discovered for the third year in a row that law enforcement officers overwhelmingly agree that “gun control” measures have no effect on crime. A clear majority of 93% of the respondents said that banning firearms would not reduce a criminal’s ability to get firearms, while 89% said that the banning of semi-automatic firearms would not reduce criminal access to such firearms. Ninety-two percent felt that criminals obtain their firearms from illegal sources; 90% agreed that the banning of private ownership of firearms would not result in fewer crimes. Seventy-three percent felt that a national waiting period would have no effect on criminals getting firearms. An overwhelming 90% felt that such a scheme would instead make agencies less effective against crime by reducing their manpower and only serve to open them up to liability lawsuits.
These are the only national polls of law enforcement officers in the country, with the leadership of most other major groups adamantly refusing to poll their membership on firearms issues.
1 Kleck, “Reasons for Skepticism on the Results from a New Poll on: The Incidence of Gun Violence Among Young People,” The Public Perspective, Sept./Oct. 1993.
MYTH 2: “The only purpose of a handgun is to kill people.”
This often repeated statement is patently untrue, but to those Americans whose only knowledge of firearms comes from the nightly violence on television, it might seem believable. When anti-gun researcher James Wright, then of the University of Massachusetts, studied all the available literature on firearms, he concluded: “Even the most casual and passing familiarity with this literature is therefore sufficient to believe the contention that handguns have `no legitimate sport or recreational use.’ “
There are an estimated 65-70 million privately owned handguns in the United States that are used for hunting, target shooting, protection of families and businesses, and other legitimate and lawful purposes. By comparison, handguns were used in an estimated 13,200 homicides in 1992 –less than 0.02% (two hundredths of 1%) of the handguns in America. Many of these reported homicides (1,500-2,800) were self-defense or justifiable and, therefore, not criminal. That fact alone renders the myth about the “only purpose” of handguns absurd, for more than 99% of all handguns are used for no criminal purpose.
By far the most commonly cited reason for owning a handgun is protection against criminals. At least one-half of handgun owners in America own handguns for protection and security. A handgun’s function is one of insurance as well as defense. A handgun in the home is a contingency, based on the knowledge that if there ever comes a time when it is needed, no substitute will do. Certainly no violent intent is implied, any more than a purchaser of life insurance intends to die soon.
MYTH 3:”Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime.”
This myth, stemming from a superficial “study” of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2
Gross errors in this and similar “studies”–with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good–include: the assumption that a gun hasn’t been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the “family” or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland’s experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3
The “guns in the home” myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place–ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done–and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: “It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide.” Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, “Indeed the point is stronger than that: ‘reverse causation’ may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann’s data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion.”5
Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:
81% agreed the “smart criminal” will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of “handgun predators” had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of “handgun predators” were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.
Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in “excusable self-defense” or “justifiable” shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.
Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.
2 Rushforth, et al., “Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, ” 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).
3 Rushforth, et al., “Violent Death in a Metropolitan County,” 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).
4 Kellermann, et al., “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home,” New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).
5 Polsby, “The False Promise of Gun Control,” The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.
6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).
7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993.
MYTH 4:”Honest citizens have nothing to fear from gun registration and licensing which will curb crime by disarming criminals.”
“Gun control” proponents tout automobile registration and licensing as model schemes for firearm ownership. Yet driving an automobile on city or state roads is a privilege and, as s uch, can be regulated, while the individual right to possess firearms is constitutionally protected from infringement. Registration and licensing do not prevent criminal misuse nor accidental fatalities involving motor vehicles in America, where more than 40,000 people die on the nation’s highways each year. By contrast, about 1,400 persons are involved in fatal firearm accidents each year.
Registration and licensing have no effect on crime, as criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Indeed, a national survey of prisoners conducted by Wright and Rossi for the Department of Justice found that 82% agreed that “gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens; criminals will always be able to get guns.”
Further, felons are constitutionally exempt from a gun registration requirement. According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Haynes v. U.S., since felons are prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, compelling them to register firearms would violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. 8 Only law-abiding citizens would be required to comply with registration–citizens who have neither committed crime nor have any intention of doing so.
Registration and licensing of America’s 60-65 million gun owners and their 200 million firearms would require the creation of a huge bureaucracy at tremendous cost to the taxpayer, with absolutely no tangible anti-crime return. Indeed, New Zealand authorities repealed registration in the 1980s after police acknowledged its worthlessness, and a similar recommendation was made by Australian law enforcement. Law enforcement would be diverted from its primary responsibility, apprehending and arresting criminals, to investigating and processing paperwork on law-abiding citizens.
In the U.S., after President Clinton, Attorney General Reno, and others announced support for registration and licensing, police response was immediate and non-supportive. Dewey Stokes, President of the Fraternal Order of Police said … I don’t want to get into a situation where we have gun registration.” Other law enforcement officers responded even more strongly. Charles Canterbury, President of the South Carolina FOP said, “On behalf of the South Carolina law enforcement, I can say we are adamantly opposed to registration of guns.” Dennis Martin, President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police reported, “I have had a lot of calls from police chiefs and sheriffs who are worried about this. They are afraid that we’re going to create a lot of criminals out of law-abiding people who don’t want to get a license for their gun.
Finally, a national registration/licensing scheme would violate an individual’s right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment and establish a basis upon which gun confiscation could be implemented. More than 60,000 rifles and shotguns were confiscated in April, 1989 from honest citizens who had dutifully registered their guns with the authorities in Soviet Georgia (Chicago Sun-Times, April 12, 1989, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, May 21, 1989). Could that happen in America? Gun prohibitionists in Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington, D.C., have already proposed using registration lists for such purposes. And, since 1991, New York City authorities have used registration lists to enforce a ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Avowed handgun prohibitionist Charles Morgan, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office, in a 1975 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Crime stated: “I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that kind of a record-keeping procedure is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another.”
Reasonable fears of such confis cation lead otherwise law-abiding citizens to ignore such laws, creating a disrespect for law and a lessened support for government. In states and cities which recently required registration of semi-automatic firearms, estimates of compliance range from 5 to 10%.
8 Haynes v. U.S., 309 U.S. 85 (1968).
“Stiff `gun control’ laws work as shown by the low crime rates in England and Japan, while U. S crime rates continue to soar.”
All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries. It is impossible to draw valid conclusions without taking into account differences in each nation’s collection of crime data, and their political, cultural, racial, religious, and economic disparities. Such factors are not only hard to compare, they are rarely, if ever, taken into account by “gun control” proponents.9
Only one scholar, attorney David Kopel, has attempted to evaluate the impact of “gun control” on crime in several foreign countries. In his book The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?, named a 1992 Book of the Year by the American Society of Criminology, Kopel examined numerous nations with varying gun laws, and concluded: “Contrary to the claims of the American gun control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations.” He noted that Israel and Switzerland, with more widespread rates of gunownership, have crime rates comparable to or lower than the usual foreign examples. And he stated: “Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America. Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America. Foreign gun control…postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos.”10
America’s high crime rates can be attributed to re volving-door justice. In a typical year in the U.S., there are 8.1 million serious crimes like homicide, assault, and burglary. Only 724,000 adults are arrested and fewer still (193,000) are convicted. Less than 150,000 are sentenced to prison, with 36,00 0 serving less than a year (U.S. News and World Report, July 31, 1989). A 1987 National Institute of Justice study found that the average felon released due to prison overcrowding commits upwards of 187 crimes per year, costing society approximately $430, 000.
Foreign countries are two to six times more effective in solving crimes and punishing criminals than the U.S. In London, about 20% of reported robberies end in conviction; in New York City, less than 5% result in conviction, and in those cases imprisonment is frequently not imposed. Nonetheless, England annually has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before adopting its tough laws. Despite tight licensing procedures, the handgun-related robbery rate in Britain rose about 200% duri ng the past dozen years, five times as fast as in the U.S.
Part of Japan’s low crime rate is explained by the efficiency of its criminal justice system, fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects than exist in the United States. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay “home visits” to citizens’ residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is over 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Association has said that the Japanese police routinely “…engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions.” Neither the powers and secrecy of the police nor the docility of defense counsel would be acceptable to most Americans. In addition, the Japanese police understate the amount of crime, particularly covering up the problem of organized crime, in order to appear more efficient an d worthy of the respect the citizens have for the police.
Widespread respect for law and order is deeply ingrained in the Japanese citizenry. This cultural trait has been passed along to their descendants in the United States where the murder ratef or Japanese-Americans (who have access to firearms) is similar to that in Japan itself. If gun availability were a factor in crime rates, one would expect European crime rates to be related to firearms availability in those countries, but crime rat es are similar in European countries with high or relatively high gun ownership, such as Switzerland, Israel, and Norway, and in low availability countries like England and Germany. Furthermore, one would expect American violent crime rates to be more sim ilar to European rates in crime where guns are rarely used, such as rape, than in crimes where guns are often used, such as homicide. But the reverse is true: American non-gun violent crime rates exceed those of European countries.
9 Wright, et al ., Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America (N.Y.: Aldine, 1983).
10 Kopel, “The Samurai, The Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?’ (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992), 431-32.
MYTH 6: “Most murders are argument-related `crimes of passion’ against a relative, neighbor, friend or acquaintance. “
The vast majority of murders are committed by persons with long established patterns of violent criminal behavior. Acc ording to analyses by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, the FBI, and the Chicago, New York City, and other police departments, about 70% of suspected murderers have criminal careers of long standing–as do nearly half their victims. FBI data show that roughly 47% of murderers are known to their victims.
The waiting period, or “cooling-off” period, as some in the “gun control” community call it, is the most often cited solution to “crimes of passion.” However, state crime records show that in 1992, states with waiting periods and other laws delaying or denying gun purchases had an overall violent crime rate more than 47% higher and a homicide rate 19% higher than other states. In the five states that have some jurisdictions with waiting periods (Georgia, Kansas, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia), the non-waiting period portions of all five states have far lower violent crime and homicide rates.
Recent studies by the Justice Department suggest that persons who live violent lives e xhibit those violent tendencies “both within their home and among their family and friends and outside their home among strangers in society.” A National Institute of Justice study reveals that the victims of family violence often suffer repeated problems from the same person for months or even years, and if not successfully resolved, such incidents can eventually result in serious injury or death. A study conducted by the Police Foundation showed that 90% of all homicides, by whatever means committed, in volving family members, had been preceded by some other violent incident serious enough that the police were summoned, with five or more such calls in half the cases.
Circumstances which might suggest “crimes of passion” or “spontaneous” arguments, such as a lover’s triangle, arguments over money or property, and alcohol-related brawls, comprise 29% of criminal homicides, according to FBI data.
Professor James Wright of the University of Massachusetts describes the typical incident of family violence as “that mythical crime of passion” and rejects the notion that it is an isolated incident by otherwise normally placid and loving individuals. His research shows that it is in fact “the culminating event in a long history of interpersonal viole nce between the parties.”
Wright also speaks to the protective use of handguns. “Firearms equalize the means of physical terror between men and women. In denying the wife of an abusive man the right to have a firearm, we may only be guaranteeing he r husband the right to beat her at his pleasure,” says Wright. 11
11 Wright, “Second Thoughts About Gun Control,” 91 [The] Public Interest, 23 (Spring 1988).
MYTH 7:”Semi-automatic firearms have no legitimate sporting purpose, are the preferred weapon of choice of criminals, and should be banned.”
Use of this myth by gun prohibitionists is predicated purely on pragmatism: whichever “buzzword” can produce the most anti-gun emotionalism–“Saturday Night Special,” “assault weapons,” and “plastic guns”–will be utilized in efforts to generate support for a ban on entire classes of firearms.
Examples of this anti-gun legislative history abound. A Saturday Night Special” ban bill enacted in Maryland establishes a politically appointed “Handgun Roster Board” with complete authority to decide which handguns will be permitted in the so-called “Free State”– any handgun could therefore be banned. Federal legislation aimed at the nonexistent “plastic gun” would have banned mil lions of metal handguns suitable for personal protection. In the 1994 crime bill, Congress did ban semi-automatic “assault weapons,” based on their cosmetic appearance. After passage, however, not even the virulently anti-gun Washington Post pretended the ban would have a crime fighting effect, labeling it “mainly symbolic.”
Criminals and law-abiding citizens both follow the lead of police and military in choosing a gun. Criminals generally pick as handguns .38 Spl. and .357 Mag. revolvers, with ba rrels about 4″ long and retailing (an unimportant matter for criminals) at over $200. Only about one-sixth fit the classic description of the so-called “Saturday Night Special”–small caliber, short barrel and inexpensive. While criminals are unconcerned with the cost of a firearm, the law-abiding certainly are. A ban on inexpensive handguns will have a disproportionate impact on low income Americans, effectively disarming them. This is particularly unfair, since it is the poor who more often must live an d work in high crime areas.
As more and more police departments, following the lead of the military, switch from revolvers to 9 mm semi-auto pistols, criminals and honest citizens will both follow suit. Indeed, semi-auto pistols have risen from one -fourth of American handgun manufacturing in the 1970s to three-fourths today. Criminals rarely use long guns and, when they do, are more apt to use a sawed-off shot- gun than a semi-automatic rifle, whether military style or not. In America’s larg est and most crime ravaged cities, only about 1/2-3% of “crime guns” are military-style semi-autos. As military establishments adopted medium-velocity rifles with straight-stock configuration, target shooters, hunters, and collectors have acquired the sem i-automatic models of these firearms.
While not all guns incorrectly attacked as “preferred by criminals” are popular for hunting, many are, but hunting is not the only valid purpose for owning a firearm. Small handguns, which may be ill-suited for hunting or long-range target shooting, are useful for personal protection, where the accuracy range rarely needs to exceed ten feet. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are suitable for hunting a variety of game. Semi-automatic, military and military-sty le rifles, including the M1 Garand, Springfield M1A, and the Colt Sporter, are used in thousands of sanctioned Highpower Tournaments each year and the National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio. Hundreds of thousands of individuals use these rifles for recreati onal target shooting and plinking.
The Second Amendment clearly protects ownership of firearms which are useful “for the security of a free state” and semi-automatic versions of military arms are clearly appropriate for that purpose. It was the cle ar intention of the Framers of our Constitution that the citizenry possess arms equal or superior to those held by the government. That was viewed as the best deterrent to tyranny, and it has worked for over 200 years. It was also the intention of the Fou nding Fathers that citizens be able to protect themselves from criminals, and that doesn’t necessarily require a gun suitable for hunting, target shooting, or plinking. All modern firearms may be used for such protective purposes.
MYTH 8: “The righ t guaranteed under the Second Amendment is limited specifically to the arming of a `well-regulated Militia’ that can be compared today to the National Guard.”
The Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the se curity of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In contrast to other portions of the Constitution, this Amendment contains no qualifiers, no “buts” or “excepts.” It is a straightforward statement affirming t he people’s right to possess firearms.
The perception that the Second Amendment guarantees a “collective right” or a “right of states to form militias” rather than an individual right is a wholly inaccurate 20th-century invention. Historically, the term “militia” refers to the people at large, armed and ready to defend their homeland and their freedom with arms supplied by themselves (U.S. v. Miller, 1939). Federal law (Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code) states:
“The militia of the Unit ed States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age….” Moreover, historical records, including Constitutional Convention debates and the Federalist Papers, clearly indicate that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to guard against t he tyranny that the Framers of the Constitution feared could be perpetrated by any professional armed body of government. The arms, records and ultimate control of the National Guard today lie with the Federal Government, so that it clearly is not the “mi litia” protected from the federal government.
The Supreme Court recently affirmed this virtually unlimited control of the Guard by the federal government in the case of Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990). The Court held that the power of Congr ess over the National Guard is plenary (entire, absolute, unlimited) and such power is not restricted by the Constitution’s Militia Clause. The Second Amendment was not even mentioned by the Court, undoubtedly because it does not serve as a source of powe r for a state to have a National Guard.
In The Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton argued that the army would always be a “select corps of moderate size” and that the “people at large (were) properly armed” to serve as a fundamental check against the standing army, the most dreaded of institutions. James Madison, in The Federalist No. 46, noted that unlike the governments of Europe which were “afraid to trust the people with arms,” the American people would continue under the new Constitution to possess “the advantage of being armed,” and thereby would continually be able to form the militia when needed as a “barrier against the enterprises of despotic ambition.”
A 1990 Supreme Court decision regarding searches and seizures confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, held by “the people”–a term of art employed in the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments referring to all “persons who are part of a national community” (U.S. v. Verdu go-Urquidez, 1990).
The case of U.S. v. Miller (1939) is frequently, though erroneously, cited as the definitive ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is a “collective” right, protecting the right of states to keep a militia rather than the i ndividual right to possess arms. But that was not the issue in Miller, and no such ruling was made; the word “collective” is not used any place in the court’s decision.
While such a decision was sought by the Justice Department, the Court decided o nly that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was constitutional in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The case hinged on the narrow question of whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use, and its ownership by individuals thus protected b y the Second Amendment.
The Court ruled that: “In the absence of (the presentation of) any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relati onship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice–common knowledge, that need not be proven i n court–that this weapon is any part of the military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
Because no evidence or argument was presented except by the federal government, the Court was not made aware that some 30,000 short-barreled shotguns were used as “trench guns” during World War I.
The Supreme Court has ruled on only three other cases relating to the Second Amendment–all during the last half of the nineteenth century. In each of these cases, the Court held that the Second Amendment only restricted actions of the federal government, not of private individuals (U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876) or state governments (Presser v. Illinois, 1886, and Miller v. Texas, 1894). The Court also held, in Presser, that the Firs t Amendment guarantee of freedom of assembly did not apply to the states; and in Miller v. Texas, it held that the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure did not apply to the states, since the Court believed that all the amendm ents comprising the Bill of Rights were limitations solely on the powers of Congress, not upon the powers of the states.
It was not until two generations later that the Court began to rule, through the Fourteenth Amendment, that the First, Fourth, and other provisions of the Bill of Rights limited both Congress and state legislatures. No similar decision concerning the Second Amendment has ever been made in spite of contemporary scholarship proving that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was t o apply all of the rights in the Bill of Rights to the states.12 That research proves that the Fourteenth Amendment was made a part of the Constitution to prevent states from depriving the newly freed slaves of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights , including what the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision referred to as one of the rights of citizens, the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
The only significance of the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a challenge to the hand- gun ban imposed by Morton Grove, Illinois, is that the Court will still not rush to apply the Second Amendment to the states. The refusal to hear the case has no legal significance and, indeed, it would have been very unusual for the Court to make a decision involving the U.S. Constitution when the Illinois courts had not yet decided if Morton Grove’s ban conflicted with the state’s constitution.
12 Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1984).
MYTH 9: “A person in a public place with a gun is looking for trouble.”
Gun prohibitionists use this myth to oppose legislative proposals to allow law-abiding citizens to obtain permits to carry concealed firear ms. In spite of this opposition, numerous states have adopted favorable concealed carry laws over the past few years. In each case, anti-gun activists and politicians predicted that allowing law-abiding people to carry firearms would result in more deaths and injuries as people would resort to gunfire to settle minor disputes. Shoot-outs over fender-benders and Wild-West lawlessness were predicted in an effort to stir up public fear of reasonable laws.
This tactic–seeking to frighten people into s upporting desired positions–is employed more and more frequently by gun prohibitionists. Prof. Gary Kleck explains the reasoning thus: “Battered by a decade of research contradicting the central factual premises underlying gun control, advocates have apparently decided to fight more exclusively on an emotional battlefield, where one terrorizes one’s targets into submission rather than honestly persuading them with credible evidence.”13
When the concealed carry laws were passed and put into pract ice, the result was completely different from the hysterical claims of the gun prohibitionists. In Florida, since the concealed carry law was changed in 1987, the homicide rate has dropped 21%, while the national rate has risen 12%. Across the nation, states with favorable concealed carry laws have a 33% lower homicide rate overall and 37% lower robbery rate than states that allow little or no concealed carry.
Gun prohibitionists have also acted to penalize and discourage gun ownership by imposing mandatory prison terms on persons carrying or possessing firearms without a license or permit, a license or permit they have also made impossible or very difficult to obtain. Massachusetts’ Bartley-Fox Law and New York’s Koch-Carey Law are premier exampl es of this “gun control” strategy. Such legislation is detrimental only to peaceful citizens, not to criminals.
By the terms of such a mandatory or increased sentence proposal, the unlicensed carrying of a firearm–no matter how innocent the circum stances–is penalized by a six-to-twelve month jail sentence. It is imposed on otherwise law-abiding citizens although in many areas it is virtually impossible for persons to obtain a carry permit. It is easy to see circumstances in which an otherwise law -abiding person would run afoul of this law: fear of crime, arbitrary denial of authorization, red-tape delay in obtaining official permission to carry a firearm, or misunderstanding of the numerous and vague laws governing the transportation of firearms.
The potential for unknowingly or unwittingly committing a technical violation of a licensing law is enormous. Myriad legal definitions of “carrying” vary from state to state and city to city, including most transportation of firearms–accessible o r not, loaded or not, in a trunk or case. And out-of-state travelers are exceedingly vulnerable because of these various definitions.
One need only examine the first persons arrested under the Massachusetts and New York City “mandatory penalty” law s for proof that such laws are misdirected: an elderly woman passing out religious pamphlets in a dangerous section of Boston and an Ohio truck driver coming to the aid of a woman apparently being kidnapped in New York City.
In New York City–prior to the enactment of the Koch-Carey mandatory sentence for possession law–the bureaucratic logjam in the licensing division, combined with a soaring crime rate, forced law-abiding citizens to obtain guns illegally for self-protection. In effect, citizens admitted that they would rather risk a mandatory penalty for illegally owning a firearm than risk their lives and property at the hands of New York’s violent, uncontrolled criminals. Honest citizens feared the streets more than the courtrooms.
By contrast, the city’s criminal element faces no similar threat of punishment. A report carried in the March 1, 1984, issue of the New York Times says it all: “Conviction on felony charges is rare. Because of plea-bargaining, the vast majority of those arrested on felony charges are tried on lesser, misdemeanor charges.” In one year, according to the Times, there were 106,171 felony arrests in New York City, but only 25,987 cases received felony indictments and only 20,641 resulted in convictions, with impr isonment a rarity. This condition persists, the New York Times reported again on June 23, 1991: in 1990 felony indictments were resolved by plea bargains in over 83% of cases. Only 5.7% of cases ended with a trial verdict, with only 3.8% ending in convict ion. Not surprisingly, with just 3% of the nation’s population, in 1992 New York City accounted for 12% of the nation’s homicides.
In championing New York’s tough Koch-Carey Law, then Mayor Ed Koch said contemptuously of gun owners, “Nice guys who own guns aren’t nice guys.” No such rancor was expressed about the city’s revolving-door criminal justice system where the chances of hardened criminals being arrested on felony charges are one in one hundred. Later, the Police Foundation study of New Yor k’s Koch- Carey Law found that it failed to reduce the number of guns on the street and did not reduce gun use in rape, robbery or assault.
Such legislation invites police to routinely stop and frisk people randomly on the street on suspicion of fi rearms possession. In fact, the Police Foundation has called for the random use of metal detectors on the streets to apprehend people carrying firearms without authorization. In disregarding the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures, police would be empowered under the Police Foundation’s blueprint for disarmament to “systematically stop a certain percentage of people on the streets… in business neighborhoods and run the detectors by them, just as yo u do at the airport. If the detectors produce some noise then that might establish probable cause for a search.”
While admitting that such “police state” tactics would require “methods… that liberals instinctively dislike,” government researchers James Q. Wilson and Mark H. Moore called for more aggressive police patrolling in public places, saying: “To inhibit the carrying of handguns, the police should become more aggressive in stopping suspicious people and, where they have reasonable grounds for their suspicions, frisking (i.e. patting down) those stopped to obtain guns. Hand-held magnetometers, of the sort used by airport security guards, might make the street frisks easier and less obtrusive. All this can be done without changing the law.” (The Washington Post, April 1, 1981) Note, they said “people,” not criminals.
13 Kleck, “Reasons for Skepticism on the Results from a New Poll on: The Incidence of Gun Violence Among Young People,” The Public Perspective, Sept./Oct. 1993.
MYTH 10: “Gun control reduces crime.”
This is perhaps, the greatest myth that is perpetrated today by national gun ban groups. No empirical study of the effectiveness of gun laws has shown any positive effect on crime. To the dismay of the prohibitionists, such studies have shown a negative effect. That is, in areas having greatest restrictions on private firearms ownership, crime rates are typically higher, because criminals are aware that their intended victims are less likely to have the me ans with which to defend themselves.
If gun laws worked, the proponents of such laws would gleefully cite examples of reduced crime. Instead, they uniformly blame the absence of tougher or wider spread measures for the failures of the laws they
advocated. Or they cite denials of applications for permission to buy a firearm as evidence the law is doing something beyond preventing honest citizens from being able legally to acquire firearms. They cite Washington, D.C., as a jurisdiction where gun laws are “working.” Yet crime in Washington has risen dramatically since 1976, the year before its handgun ban took effect. Washington, D.C., now has outrageously higher crime rates than any of the states (D.C. 1992 violent crime rate: 2832.8 per 100,000 resi dents; U.S. rate: 757.5), with a homicide rate 8 times the national rate (1992 rate 75.4 per 100,000 for D.C., 9.3 nationally.) No wonder former D.C. Police Chief Maurice Turner said, “What has the gun control law done to keep criminals from gettin g guns? Absolutely nothing… [City residents] ought to have the opportunity to have a handgun.”
Criminals in Washington have no trouble getting either prohibited drugs or prohibited handguns, resulting in a skyrocketing of the city’s murder rate. D.C.’s 1991 homicide rate of 80.6 per 100,000 population was the highest ever recorded by an American big city, and marked a 200% rise in homicide since banning handguns, while the nation’s homicide rate rose just 11%. Since 1991, the homicide rate has remained near 75 per 100,000, while the national rate hovers around 9-10.
Clearly, criminals do not bother with the niceties of obeying laws–for a criminal is, by definition, someone who disobeys laws. Those who enforce the law agree.
In addition, restrictive gun laws create a “Catch-22” for victims of violent crime. Under court decisions, the police have no legal obligation to protect any particular individual. This concept has been tested numerous times including cases as recent as 1993. In each case the courts have ruled that the police are responsible for protecting society as a whole, not any individual. This means that under restrictive gun laws, people may be unable to protect themselves or their family from violent criminals.
T he evidence that restrictive gun laws create scofflaws is evident to anyone willing to look. In New York City, there are only about 70,000 legally-owned handguns, yet survey research suggests that there are at least 750,000 handguns in the city, mostly in the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens. In Chicago, a recent mandatory registration law has resulted in compliance by only a fraction of those who had previously registered their guns. The rate of compliance with the registration requirement of Cali fornia’s and New Jersey’s semi- automatic bans have been very low. The same massive noncompliance–not by criminals, whom no one expects will comply, but by people fearful of repression–is evident wherever stringent gun laws are enacted.
FACTS WE CAN ALL LIVE WITH
Laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. After adopting a mandatory penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime in 1975, Virginia’s murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 1 1% in 15 years. South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990 with a similar law. Other impressive declines were recorded in other states using mandatory penalties, such as Florida (homicide rate down 33% in 17 years), Delaware ( homicide rate down 33% in 19 years), Montana (down 42% 1976-1992) and New Hampshire (homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992).
The solution to violent crime lies in the promise, not the mere threat, of swift, certain punishment.
Our challenge: To reform and strengthen our federal and state criminal justice systems. We must bring about a sharp reversal in the trend toward undue leniency and “revolving door justice.” We must insist upon speedier trials and upon punishments which are commensurate with crimes. Rehabilitation should be tempered with a realization that not all can be rehabilitated, and that prisons cost society less than the crime of active predatory criminals. NRA is meeting that challenge with its CrimeStrike division, establish ed to advance real solutions to the crime problem while protecting the rights of all honest citizens. Working in states across the nation, Crime Strike has worked for passage of “truth in sentencing laws” which require that criminals actually serve at leas t 85% of time sentenced, “Victim’s Bill of Rights” constitutional amendments, and “Three Strikes You’re Out” laws. The job ahead will not be an easy one . The longer “gun control” advocates distract the nation from this task by embracing that single siren song, the longer it will take and the more difficult our job will be. Beginning is the hardest step, and the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action has taken it.
Join the NRA. Support ILA. Work with us. We need your help.
FINAL WORDS FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS ON THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people…. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them…. ” –George Mason
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ” –Thomas Jefferson
“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion . . . in private self-defense. ” –John Adams
“The Constitution s hall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. ” –Samuel Adams
” . . arms discourage and keep invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. … Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived of the use of them. ” –Thomas Paine
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…[where] the government s are afraid to trust the people with arms.” –James Madison
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms…To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike…how to use them.” –Richard Henry Lee
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” –Amendment II, Constitution of the United States
Copyright October 1994, NRA Institute for Legislative Action. This is the electronic version of the “10 Myths of Gun Control” brochure distributed by NRA. To obtain paper copies of this brochure, please call NRA Grassroots at 800/392-8683.
So tell me, how does this reasonable force self defence work? If we are not legally permitted to carry anything for our own defence, just exactly how was this woman supposed to defend herself against a hammer attack? She is lucky to be alive!
Has Minister of Police Rene Hidding, been misinformed, is he a power mad anti gunner, or does he have the intellect of an amoeba ?
Thoughts For The Week. Action Needed. The old ‘news’, but it was good news, was that 25% of the 15 million voters at the Federal election did not vote for the major Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dummer parties and instead voted for Independents and small (more independent) parties. Two million licensed shooters 14% of the voting population helped to make that difference.
The new ‘news’, which is bad news is that we now face the greatest threat to our shooting, collecting, hunting, competition, sport and way of life since John Howard used a media knee jerk reaction to impose his un-informed Gun laws.
Thank goodness, the good old news has placed our oligarchy (lib lab and Green) in its weakest position in forty years, for the first time we have a say. They are weak and we are strong.
The latest news this week was, “The ban on lever-action shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than five rounds was due to expire on August 7, but Justice Minister Michael Keenan said on Friday it would be extended until a review of the National Firearms Agreement is completed and the agreed outcomes put in place. The review of the agreement is due to be considered by commonwealth, state and territory ministers later this year.” AAP.
The worst News. A Freedom Of Information request was denied by Stephen Bouwhuis, Assistant Secretary at the Attorney-General’s Department from Dr Samara McPhedran, (Senior Research Fellow at Griffith University’s Violence Research and Prevention Program,) who submitted a FOI in March 2016 to access the documents mentioned in a News.com.au article that the government has been circulating since November 2015. Mr Bouwhuis confirmed the document existed, however refused to disclose it. He said in a letter to McPhedran,
“I do not consider that it would be in the public interest to disclose this document”. “The information contained in the document was communicated to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department by or on behalf of state or territory governments on a confidential basis, for the purposes of discussions about the proposed agreement,”
The Dangerous Document. Well it seem the cat is out of the bag and the dangerous document is from the Tasmanian Police Minister, who is either a genuine certifiable nit wit, or a cold calculating power hungry potentate. The Tasmanian Minister of Police Rene Hidding, MP said,.
Violence & Mayhem Australia Today. Random Thoughts.
Why are we seeing so much mayhem in Australia, it seems that every day now there is another report of murder, stabbings, king hits, rape, home invasions & more. Obviously this is not right, not excusable, but can it be understood?
Let’s take a look at what our own government is doing. It has prioritised mining over farming; some farmers have given up fighting & have committed suicide. Protesting has been banned, made illegal so if the people try to back the farmers & “Lock the Gate”, they can now be arrested & charged. The police are now a law unto themselves, & unless someone records their crimes on video, then they get away with it. The people did not vote for mining to be prioritised over farming, why would they? They did not vote to have protests banned, made illegal, why would we? There was no referendum, no one was asked, does this sound like democracy or dictatorship?
I am not saying that all this mayhem & violence is happening because we have a corrupt government who is in itself committing crimes, & that the people who have a tendency toward violence & crime see this as a green flag to do what ever they want, but it is something to think about.
Why are Australian citizens allowing this government to “rule” us in this way? Why are they allowing the degradation of our environment & the loss of many of our rights? Our own constitution is being ignored by this government, a government by the way that is in fact a registered company in the USA! We have two main political parties, neither are better than the other, so when it comes to voting, we are stuck between a rock & a hard place. This year, 2016 the people showed their displeasure by voting independent, & what happened? The Liberal party got in yet again!!!
So, voting for your/our preference does not work, it changes nothing. The same corrupt government is still in power & the Australian people are doing NOTHING about this. Why? In other countries the people simply do not allow this corruption to continue, they rally their numbers & sack the government. We NEED change, we need to sack this government & the whole corrupt system & put something in place that allows the people to have a voice, to have a choice. What is it going to take to make the Australian people say “NO MORE, ENOUGH”?
There are crook police officers committing crimes & there are good police officers that are not prepared to blow the whistle on these bad cops, why? Because if a good cop blows the whistle on a bad cop, he loses his job. He will not be sacked, but he/she will be shunned by all other police officers Australia wide. He/she will be forced to quit the police service. This needs to change, but how do we change this? I do not have an answer for this, but this is the big problem with the whole government system. People are for ever saying “Don’t allow this” “Do your own thing”, but it is not that easy. We are a minority who care, but a minority has no power. We have to pay the ever increasing local council rates/taxes despite the fact that many of us receive no or few services for those rates, because if we refuse to pay, the council will actually evict us from our own homes & sell our property.
I realise that services & road maintenance have to be funded, but should there not be some check & balance? If a retired couple can not afford to pay the rates on their own home, why should they be forced to sell the home that they worked so hard for? After all the years of working & scrimping & saving they are now forced to live in a city or town & pay rent? Does this make any sense?
So we ask ourselves why is there so much crime, so much violence. Why is there so much sadness & depression? I think our society is starting to break down. We are losing human rights every day. New police powers take away citizens rights. They may have been introduced in order to maintain order, but in fact there is no check & balance here, the innocent are affected as well as the criminal element. Did banning certain firearms stop crime or even reduce crime? NO! Yet again the law abiding citizen pays the price. Who has these banned firearms now? The criminals have these firearms because they did not hand them in, they are NOT licensed, they are NOT listed in the gun registry!
So where are we heading? Less farms, less farmers, less food, less rights. Slowly but surely we are being herded into a position where eventually we will not be able to resist even if the majority of Australians grew a spine & decided to do something! Some people say “well if you are not happy with the way things are, why don’t you move somewhere else?” My answer to that is, that there is no better place to move to, no place that has the potential that Australia has for being a great place to live in. We have the room, we have the space. We have less people than anywhere else in the world given the size of Australia, but we need to regain our rights, our freedoms. Yes there must be law & order, but it must be tempered with common sense & research. Knee jerk reactions by the government to certain incidents have to stop. We need to have some professionalism introduced into the making of legislation. We have The Greens who appear to be promoting drugs & at the same time recommending that law abiding Australian citizens should be disarmed! How crazy is that?! Do they think that much of the crime is not linked to drugs & illegal gun use? Right now ignorant people are making these decisions for us, & it is not sensible, it is not right or fair & above all it is bloody stupid!
The new laws now allow police officers – without permission from a court – to issue “public safety orders” banning individuals who police claim are a “risk to public safety” from attending specified public places for 72 hours.
Tougher eligibility rules force thousands off the disability pension and into financial hardship.
The Federal Government’s welfare-to-work reforms are pushing thousands of people off the disability pension and into financial hardship. Welfare rights organisations say their work is increasingly taken up with these cases.
Please feel free to investigate and do your own due diligence of our website – especially the documented evidence.
We have verified information concerning:
* How all the Prime Ministers and all the Politicians appointed within Australia since 1919 have been invalid and their positions illegal and that most of these politicians have known this fact, but hidden the truth from the nation.
* Why every Australian Federal & State Politician, Judge, Magistrate, Defence Force Personnel, Federal & State Police Officer, Sheriff, Local Mayor have all been committing Treason against the Australian people.
* Why the appointments of the past Governors-General since 1919 have been invalid.
* Why Queen Elizabeth II has NO legal authority or power over the government’s of Australia, Canada or New Zealand (and in reality, very little over Her own government).
* Why most of the Australian politicians and judges have continued for decades to defraud the people of Australia.
* How the Australian Taxation Office has no legal authority to collect taxes.
* Who really owns the Reserve Bank of Australia?
* Why the Australian Banking system is ripping off the Australian people and deliberately profiteering from their financial misery.
* Why politicians in countries like Australia, love complicated Tax Systems.
* What is a Debits Tax, what it would mean to the average person and why the Government avoids discussing it?
As we will be continually updating our information, we recommend that you constantly refer back to our website.
The eternal war between the Individual and the State ebbs and flows with the same regularity as the oceans tide. Last week, on 23rd June (Britains Independence Day) the individuals stood up and voted to break away from the tyranny of the European Parliament. The little guys won, the smaller more independent parties finally beat the media/bank/big political party machine. Lets hope its not a one off.
We are living in a vary exciting time, due to many factors, one large one being the internet, facebook and twitter the individual are competing with mass media. Mass media, due to its reduction in advertising revenue is in decline, not quite like a falling star, but faster than anyone could have envisaged five years ago. The Trump phenomena is still tied to big party Republicans politics, but the died in the wool Republicans hate him, as he is financially & morally independent of them all. They cannot control him and he has successfully used his ‘one liners’ to set up the main stream media to rail against him, knowing that his ‘one liners’ are irrefutable to the common man and woman, ‘the individuals’. We are the people who are fed up, with Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dummer politics, we will be the people who cause the revival of individual power. No longer are we going to be the meat in the sandwich with left wing buying votes for immigrants and right wing importing cheap labour, at the cost of higher GST to pay the ‘fly in’ welfare bill. Australia still needs a Nigel Farage UKIP, or a Trump to unify the middle ground, but as we go to the poll next Saturday we have for the first time lots of choices, Martin Turnbull (turncoat) who is very acceptable to all the major bankers like Goldman Sachs and Bill Shorten who is acceptable to left wing unions, both are smiling as they re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, just hours before it hits the iceberg. Both are glancing forwards to see the Independent imminent iceberg slowly but surely approaching. Look hard the smiles are only a façade to cover their fear.
We Should All Know Who To Vote For. Have you Contacted your Local Candidates Yet. Lots of readers, of this Bulletin have contacted me asking for advice on who to vote for, some have asked me to print a suggested ballot paper out, but they do not realise that this humble message goes to 10,000 shooters in ever State and electorate in Australia, even Tasmania, as there are so many variations it is impossible and would only confuse the issue. So to simplify, just keep this loud and clear in your minds and please pass this on to all of your friends and families. All major parties, in all states are fully aware and concerned about the growing resentment against them by Australia’s middle ground, added to this is there concern that the 2 million licensed shooters in Australia which equated to 15 % of the voting public is a larger factor than the traditional middle ground swinging voters.
This Has Held Back The New National Firearm Agreement. Twice this past year the Police Ministers from every State have met with the Commonwealth Justice Minister and they have adjourned the decision on a new altered NFA. The Commonwealth Government has refused FOI requests from Dr Samara McPhedran, (Senior Research Fellow at Griffith University’s Violence Research and Prevention Program,) submitted a FOI in March 2016 to access the documents mentioned in a News.com.au article that the government has been circulating since November 2015. The FOI request was denied by Stephen Bouwhuis, Assistant Secretary at the Attorney-General’s Department. Mr Bouwhuis confirmed the document existed, however refused to disclose it. He said in a letter to McPhedran, “I do not consider that it would be in the public interest to disclose this document”. “The information contained in the document was communicated to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department by or on behalf of state or territory governments on a confidential basis, for the purposes of discussions about the proposed agreement,” he said in the letter.
“Following consultations with the relevant state or territory government agencies, a majority of agencies objected to the disclosure of the document on the basis that it would disclose information provided to the Commonwealth in confidence.”
Blind Freddy can understand from Stephen Bouwhuis statement that the major parties have a bad plan for us, that they don’t want to announce before the election because they fear a huge backlash at the ballot box from the shooting community. Even the process is obviously corrupt as it is a case of ‘Caesar judging Caesar’, the Justice Department runs the COAG meetings and the FDA and it also controls all Freedom of Information requests. So its no surprise that Caesar won’t allow us to see the document.
If the major parties have a huge cut in there vote percentages they will not have the guts to rip a new FDA into the Australian shooters. On the other hand if one of them has a huge majority we can dig a big hole and get ready to bury your tears. So no one has an excuse, so do your duty vote against the big four.
Vote instead for the Shooters Party, or Liberal Democrats, (Senator David Leyonhjelm) or Katters Party, or One Nation, or Liberal Alliance, or any sympathetic Independent. We all should be on the telephone, or on the email asking all of these parties, even our traditional enemies, Liberal Labour, Nationals and the Greens what improvements are they going to make for licenced shooters, don’t be discouraged by the long silence as every time they are asked and answer in a negative, or lie, they know they are losing votes, the bad guys are not known for their silence, they will never publically support us, but they will complain to their party henchmen and blame their losses on the shooters, so please get motivated and annoy them at this crucial time. They won’t listen again, like this for four years.
History of Treason in Parliament. Many shooters have emailed in references to Section 44 of the Commonwealth Constitution and asked why we have Muslims in parliament who give their Allegiance and Adherence to a foreign power, the political orientation of Islam when section 44 states, Disqualification. 44. Any person who- (i.) Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, How can they honestly take the Oath of Allegiance? I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!
These issues of ‘Allegiance’ are the product of the Bill of Rights and were codified there in the Oath of Allegiance followed by, “That the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons being the two Houses of Parlyament should continue to sitt and with their Majesties Royall Concurrence make effectuall Provision for the Setlement of the Religion Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome soe that the same for the future might not be in danger againe of being subverted. That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.”
As you can see the problem that they were addressing was very similar to what we now face in all countries of Western civilisation. Infiltration and subversion from leaders whose real interest is in a religious ideology that has its own separate political agenda to Australia. In the days when the Bill or Rights was written it was ‘Popery’ and today it is Islam. That document the Bill of Rights is also relevant to shooter in Australia due to its other provisions,
“Disarming Protestants, &c. By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.”
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
That document is also our Bill of Rights and it is the Bill of Rights that the Americans copied into their Bill of Rights which are included as amendments to their Constitution and in our case are acknowledged under the Coronation Oath which every Monarch submits to. As power of assent to all laws flows from the Crown the Governors and Governor Generals should not give assent to laws that are in breach of those Constitutional documents such as the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta that limit the Crown powers.
So why won’t our Parliament disqualify the Muslim members of parliament, why won’t our Parliamentary members uphold the provisions of the Bill of Rights? Same reasons for both problems. Just look at the next provision in our Commonwealth Constitution Section 45.
“Vacancy on happening of disqualification. 45. If a senator or member of the House of Representatives-
(i.) Becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section: or
(iii.) Directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth, or for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State: his place shall thereupon become vacant.”
As all party politicians take an honorarium and are paid election expenses after pre-selection by a political party, which is paid to them on the basis that they render a service to the Party once they are elected, they should all be Disqualified. This provision was thoughtfully placed in the Constitution by our founding fathers Henry Parks and Sir William (Good Iron Mac) Mc Millen to prevent Party control of our Australian Parliament. They wanted our representatives to represent the individuals not Political Parties. So on the basis of “Those that live in Glass Houses should not throw Stones” our party politicians will never complain as they have to so we the people have to accept treason as a daily occurrence in our halls of government. That does not mean we just walk away from it, we have to tell everyone we know about it, we have to keep striving to change things and regain our freedoms. Its not much of a choice its simple either Vote for Liberty or Tyranny.
Questions to Ask Your Anti Gun Friends?? On Facebook every time we have a published massacre, ( I say that as there are many massacres that occur every day, forty or fifty dead in a third world country, but if they are not in a Gay Brothel, or a Gun Free zone we never hear about them) we are inundated by anti gunners full of Hoplophobia zeal. I have over the last forty years had to deal with them personally or in letters to the editor and I have found that best way is to ask them nicely to answer a few questions and then your will answer theirs. I have put the questions on this site so you can easily cut and paste them into a facebook post.
We have decisions to make and the 2 Million licenced Shooters in Australia are now 10% of the population. We together, can make the difference, but what difference do we want. Australia has ‘sleepwalked’ into a continuous Nightmare. We all accept that the traditional LIB LAB GREENS are greedy, deadbeats, we all accept that none of them even want to improve the economy. If we really think hard about it, we know that none our traditional leaders really want to fix unemployment. We all know that huge entities that put the donations into the party coffers, whether they be Unions, Banks, Oil Companies, Chemical companies all want cheap labour, so want unemployment, or want massive immigration for left wing votes, who have to vote their way to keep their flow of benefits that are paid for by the ever reducing number of tax payers. Our traditional leaders want a One World Wage, they want us, All to be Poor Consumers. The want their New World, where people are just cogs in a gear box, as fortold by Aldous Huxley in his book ‘Brave New World’, or George Orwell’s ‘1984′.
We are trained to think that one side is better than the other, if we pick Party Lib, or Party Lab that helps to reduce the pain, but really we all know that neither of them is any good. None of them hold out any hope for the future of Australia. They have been systematically looting our country since both parties agreed to the Lima Agreement in 1974 where they agreed to remove tariff protection and send billions of our tax dollars to third world countries to build our competitors.
Why would they do that you might say, the answer is power and money, if they had refused the donor’s would not have put the money into these parties and power and money would be lost. So now Union Carbide, or Sony (Standard Oil New York) or Dow Chemicals can have its products made with the cheapest labour and freely exported to the planet. Why did the Unions not scream the house down and demand the re-introduction of the ‘White Australia Policy’ and tariff protection for industries as it had in the early 20th Century? The answer, is that in the early part of the 20th Century the unions were motivate by their members and now they are motivated by big money interests who use the unions to control the donations to the Labour Party.
Our World Turned Up Side Down. Alice in Wonderland or Just another Nightmare?
When I was a teenager during the 1960s, several cultural revolutions occurred, notable ones were the Chinese Cultural Revolution which was responsible for the death of twenty, or sixty million people and in Britain there was a musical revolution that turned into a peace movement. On reflection that peace movement left untold millions to die, in places like Vietnam, Nigeria, Cambodia and South America all due to Western civilisations search for peace. So for some time we have had beginnings of the Alice in Wonderland topsy turvy, upside down decay of our Western civilisation, but now are we living the Alice dream or is our world turned into a nightmare? For just a brief example. ‘When a street-corner preacher mentioned to a passing shopper that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. That comment got him thrown in jail. A homosexual policeman contended that since Dale McAlpine’s remark was loud enough to be overheard, he had broken the Public Order Act of 1986. Police carted McAlpine off, and he spent seven hours in a cell for causing “harassment, alarm or distress.’
At about the same time. After an Israeli official gave a lecture at a University and was attacked by pro-Palestinian Muslim protesters. Police responded to this provocation by escorting the official from the premises in a police car. The protesters climbed onto the hood of the vehicle and tried to break the windshield. They were not prosecuted. Apparently this is “protected free speech.”’
Our Upside-Down World Is confusing for voters as it is a world where truth is trashed and lies are lauded. Where the honourable are despised and the depraved are empowered. Where sound morals and strong character are relentlessly mocked—while immorality is praised, paraded and protected.
This is what it is like in Australia, a country with a totally corrupt government. We are not allowed to own a gun for self-defence or the defence of our family, & if we harm an intruder we can be charged with assault or worse. Our government wants to disarm Australian citizens. If this happens, some citizens will have inadequate defence against home invasion.
Chief Justice Tom Bathurst warns of threat to basic legal rights.
This is how it is with legal gun owners. Any suspicion on the part of the Police is automatically transferred to guilt on the part of the law abiding citizen, & it is the legal gun owner who has to prove his innocence.
Maidstone stabbing: Grandfather fighting for life after coming to aid of wife outside home.
Self-defence in Australia is frowned on by the government & authorities. Self-defence is not a legal reason for owning a firearm. If your house in invaded, the government advises that you should leave your home by the nearest exit. This is NOT always possible, & once you are outside, your family is an easy target. The Australian government does NOT care about a citizen’s safety, & would rather see women raped & the whole family killed rather than allow a law abiding citizen to use a firearm to protect his/her family.
Do we work for Parliament, or does Parliament work for us? Who is the slave and who is the Master? Questions to Provoke Thought and Action. Personal liberty is the birthright of all persons and our Constitutional documents recognize that liberty is personal and cannot be sacrificed by a majority vote of representatives, but only by individual consent? What would change if powers given in our Constitutional documents no longer limited parliament but were actually used as a justification to extend parliamentary authority over every realm of human life? What if our Monarchs, first Minister in Australia, Prime Minister Turnbull made himself a Monarch? What if the Prime Minster assumed that everything he did was legal just because he has the numbers in the House of Parliament? What if he could interrupt your regularly scheduled radio and TV programming for a special message from him? What if he could declare war on his own? What if he could read your emails and your texts without a search warrant? What if the violation of the right to privacy is a gateway to all other government violations of personal liberty? What if the High Courts, Justices no longer looked to the Constitutional documents to determine the authority of a law, but rather simply to what other Justice’s who preceded them thought about it? What if the rights and principles guaranteed in the Constitutional documents were so ignored that our grandparents would think they were living in the old Soviet Union? What if the States were mere provinces of a totally nationalized and fully centralized government. What if the Constitution was amended stealthfully; not by Constitutional amendments dully ratified by the people in a referenda but by the constant and persistent expansion of the Government’s role in our lives? What if our parliaments decided that its own powers were above the Constitution? What if the Constitutional document were no longer the Supreme Law of the Land? What if you believed that our Constitutional documents represented the moral principles of our forefathers who valued our rights and freedoms at a higher in price than the parliament powers to interfere with them? What if those who wrote the Constitution believed that personal liberty is the default position and parliament power the exception? What if the Constitution means that our rights should be maximum and governments control minimum? What if the greatest right protected by the Constitution is the right to be left alone, the right to be oneself, the right to answer only to one’s own free will? What if our parliament is essentially the contradiction of that liberty?
What if you needed a license from the government to speak, to assemble or to protest against the government? What if the government didn’t like what you planned to say and so it didn’t give you the license? What if the right of law abiding firearm owners to defend their families and homes, their property only applied to government employees! What if parliament considered the police an adequate dispenser of justice and removed your recourse to a Trial by Jury and the Rule of Law? What if the Police looked and acted like troops and you couldn’t distinguish the military from the police?
Today I was asked by Fox News in London to comment on whether or not Australia’s firearms laws work to stop crime in light of the decision by President Obama to reform American gun laws.
Our advocacy is being internationally recognized and it is about time that law abiding firearms owners get a fair go.
The show will air soon and we will get a copy of the segment as soon as we can get our hands on it.
In the meantime, here are my thoughts as an Australian law abiding firearm owner:
As President Obama attempts to reform America gun laws, the issue of gun control and violence is yet again in the spotlight. My thoughts and sentiments on this are not centred around American gun control or gun culture per se, but rather the Australian experience.
It is deeply disturbing that every time the issue of gun control is debated in America or other jurisdictions for that matter, Australian guns laws are hailed as the gold standard – a benchmark for leaders to achieve. Well, they are not.
As a starting point, we are not America, we do not have a constitutional right to bear arms, and in fact our constitution does not afford ordinary citizens many rights at all. Instead, what we have is an array of draconian and impractical state and national firearms laws, underpinned by a ‘Howard’ mentality that somehow regulating law abiding people will deter crime.
But the facts and evidence fly in the face of many of these ‘anti-gun’ lies and misinformation.
In late 2015, following intensive discussions with Robert Brown and I, the NSW Deputy Premier and Police Minister, Troy Grant, rightly pointed out what the Shooters and Fishers Party have been saying for over 20 years, “Greater than 97% of all firearms incidents reported in NSW relate to unregistered, or unbranded, or unmarked firearms… NSW has an illegal firearm problem”.
This has been the reality in Australia for decades. The vast majority of firearms crimes committed are done so with the use of an illegal or unregistered firearm by an unlicensed individual.
Logic dictates then, does it not, that the Government should focus the vast majority of its time and resources on curbing the illegal firearms trade and tough sentencing measures? Rather, successive governments have spent over a billion dollars on targeting law abiding firearms owners through failed registration schemes, confiscation and pointless “tough gun control” measures.
Further, independent and statistical research indicates that the regulation, including banning, of firearms, has little to no causal effect on the rate of crime. The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research published a working paper on The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths, which ultimately concluded that the NFA did not have large or long-term effects on reducing firearms homicide or suicide rates in Australia.
Our gun laws are nothing to be proud of. In fact, they represent one of the most vile and draconian attacks on personal freedoms and culture. They have been formed, and continue to be formed, on lies, political mileage and misinformation.
In 1996, the Howard Government decided that we couldn’t be trusted with semi-automatic rifles and pump action shotguns anymore, yet it seems criminals didn’t get the message?
Even today, the ordinary Australian citizens cringes or questions me when I tell them I love shooting and hunting. I don’t blame them though. I blame the collective efforts of politicians like John Howard, anti-gun groups like The Australian Greens and Gun Control Australia, and most of the media. This atmosphere of paranoia and ignorance was created by them. It is our job to unwind the damage and further our rights in the process.
Licensed firearms owners are among the few classes of people that are acknowledged and endorsed as fit and proper persons. Criminals are not allowed to obtain firearms licences period. Ownership and use of a firearm is a highly held privilege. With that privilege we have the right not to be associated with or disadvantaged by the action of senseless cowards. Relaxing firearms laws to make it easier and more practical for law abiding citizens to enjoy their sport and cultural pastimes is not going to result in a mass shooting or spike in gun crime.
To my fellow law abiding firearm owners, and to anyone who truly values personal freedoms and fact based decision making, I say this: The fight for the roll back of these firearms laws will be a generational struggle, but united, we have a strong and growing voice that will not be silenced!
Constitution for the people of Earth, January 01 2016. Draft one. We, the inhabitants of earth at this point of the 21st century. having been wearied by constant war and subjugation to authority, do hereby by virtue of birth claim our sovereignty and right to self determination. we declare that no king, lord, minister or chieftain is above any individual. We resolve that no one be left behind or exploited. That the power resides in the individual, and it is our right to express that power and our own minds without handing power over to representatives, councils or centralised authorities. This constitution lays out the foundation for a confederated series of Autonomous communities. The provinces/prefectures/nodes are to be determined. But each zone represents a community. These communities are independent and join the overall confederation by choice not by force of arms or economic pressures. The people are the only source of authority, every voice has the same value. None shall be put above others. Each person will be protected by the common law/rights and bound by the responsibilities laid out below. Nothing else is a law. I General principles Article 1 This constitution represents a clear social contract between all the people of a new confederation. The Preamble is an integral part of the constitution. Article 2 a- Authority resides with and emanates from the people having a direct vote on all issues that affects their community. b- No community can influence, attend or vote on any resolutions that do not directly affect their determined zones. Article 3 a. The sovereignty of a person comes first, then the sovereignty of a community second. No individual shall be penalised by the power of democracy in their own home. No local resolution shall be upheld where it can bypass this constitution. b. The constitution must evolve with humanity. Every 10 years its must revaluated by all members of the confederation c. Changes to this constitution require a more than 71% yes vote across all members of the confederation. The Structure of governance in the Autonomous communities Article 4 The power resides in the individual and must be expressed by the individual. The means of collating that will is direct democracy. Either by electronic means or traditional means. The means must be structured for fairness and checked regularly for those who would try to game the system or find loopholes to exploit. Article 5 The administration of all social services is to be arranged at the local level either by appointment of managers, or by cooperative bodies. Article 6 All persons and communities are equal in the eyes of the law and in rights and responsibilities. Recognition exists only for persons, this constitution no longer allows recognizance for corporate entities or body politic that exist beyond the laws of Article 7 Any community may choose to join this confederation by adopting the methods enclosed to govern themselves. Article 8 All Autonomous Communities are founded upon the principle of local selfgovernment. Communities may freely represent their own will and may pursue their rights insofar as it does not contravene the articles of the Constitution. Article 9 There are no official languages. Each region will have its own “mother tongue” but all communities should endeavour to express languages more than their own local dialect. Efforts should be made to resurrect dead languages and save and store any currently languages being lost by cultural obfuscation. Article 10 The Autonomous Communities shall not interfere in the domestic affairs of other states/communities, and it shall safeguard its relations with neighbouring states, resolving any conflicts peacefully. Offensive War is expressly forbidden to all future generations. Article 11 While Flags, anthems and emblems are seen as archaic remnants of imperialism. Communities shall have the right to vote on and choose for themselves if any of these symbols shall be used. It is not forbidden, and it is not forced. Article 12 The Autonomous Communities form an independent and sovereign contract outside of the legal basis of any existing “state”. The laws and contracts of preceding states are repealed and this document replaces the supreme authority of a nation state with direct democracy for all people. II Basic Principles Article 13 There shall be a separation of powers between the individual, community and confederation. Article 14 The Autonomous Communities shall seek to implement a framework of transitional justice measures. It shall take steps to redress the legacy of discriminatory State policies, including the payment of reparations to victims, both individuals and communities. Article 15 The communities agree to a single unified emergency services to be filled at the local level with both volunteer and/or paid service persons. These are managed at community level, but communities may lend or volunteer assistance to other communities for extreme emergencies. All citizens will have a basic understanding of self-defence for their region, and each community shall maintain an armoury for defence. Citizens will maintain a specified level of proficiency and safety with any defence protocols Article 16 The Constitution guarantees the rights of the youth to participate actively in public and political life. Article 17 Communities may pass edicts for anti-social rectification previously called statute law. Only specific actions against this constitution are to be referred to as illegal or criminal. Article 19 The system of taxation and other fiscal regulations are defined by each community but the wealth of each community is to be pooled and shared equally between all communities to administer their social services, infrastructure and wellbeing. Article 20 The Constitution holds as inviolable the fundamental rights and freedoms set out in international human rights treaties, conventions and declarations. Article 21 Each community may issue its own debt free currency. Usury is an offence. No human shall ever be enslaved by chains or debt. III Rights and Liberties Article 22 The Constitution incorporates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as other internationally recognized human rights conventions. Article 23 All international rights and responsibilities pertaining civil, political, cultural, social and economic rights are guaranteed. Article 24 a – Everyone has the right to express their ethnic, cultural, linguistic and gender rights b – Everyone has the right to live in a healthy environment, based on ecological balance. Article 25 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; including freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Freedom of expression and freedom of information may be restricted having regard to the security of the Autonomous Communities, public safety and order, the integrity of the individual, the sanctity of private life, or the prevention and prosecution of crime ONLY by vote of all community members Article 26 a- Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. b- All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. c- Prisoners have the right to humane conditions of detention, which protect their inherent dignity. Prisons shall serve the underlying objective of the reformation, education and social rehabilitation of prisoners. Article 27 Every human being has the inherent right to life. No one within the jurisdiction of the confederation shall be executed. Article 28 Women have the inviolable right to participate in political, social, economic and cultural life. Article 29 Men and women are equal in the eyes of the law. The Constitution guarantees the effective realization of equality of women and mandates public institutions to work towards the elimination of gender discrimination. Article 30 The Constitution guarantees the rights of the child. In particular children shall not suffer economic exploitation, child labour, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and shall not be married before attaining the age of majority. Any violation of children will be considered a violation of the entire community. Article 31 All persons have the right 1. to personal security in a peaceful and stable society. 2. to free education to a tertiary level. 3. to adequate housing at as close to zero cost as possible. This domicile is of the persons choosing, and is required to be off grid or only community grid It must Generate its own water or recycle its water use and no external force may legislate how a person may live. 4. to protect the motherhood and maternal and paediatric care. The rights of parents to retain their children and be worked with by the community in times of crisis. Retention of the family as a single unit is the preferred option. Children shall not be removed from parents forcibly, except by order of mediation specialists and with open transparency in the community for the safety of the child. 5. to adequate health and social care for the disabled, the elderly and those with special needs. Decentralised hospitals and community health centres with a set per capita number of beds. Respite and community care for the aged citizens, or support for families to look after their own elderly. Article 32 Everyone has the right to freedom of worship, to practice one’s own religion either individually or in association with others. No one shall be subjected to persecution on the grounds of their religious beliefs. Article 33 a)- Everyone has the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to establish and freely join any political group, association, trade union and/or civil assembly. b) – In exercising the right to freedom of association, political, economic and cultural expression of all communities is protected. This serves to protect the rich and diverse cultures of the peoples of the Autonomous Communities. Article 34 Everyone has the freedom to obtain, receive and circulate information and to communicate ideas, opinions and emotions, whether orally, in writing, in pictorial representations, or in any other way. This right pre-empts any trade or commerce based agreements and is understood to be an end to patent and copyright Article 35 Everyone has the right of peaceful assembly, including the right to peaceful protest, demonstration and strike. Article 36 Everyone has the right to freely experience and contribute to academic, scientific, artistic and cultural expressions and creations, through individual or joint practice, to have access to and enjoy, and to disseminate their expressions and creations. Article 37 Everyone has the right to vote or not to vote on an issue as they choose. Article 38 Everyone has the right to seek political asylum. Persons may not be deported. Every individual is afforded the protection of this constitution by virtue of being within the borders of one of the confederate members. Article 39 All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal opportunities in public and professional life. Article 40 Natural resources/forces, located both above and below ground, are the public wealth of society. Extractive processes, management, licensing and other contractual agreements related to such resources shall not be in the hands of individuals or partnerships. Where allowed, the profits of this kind of resource refinement/extraction/use is the wealth of all humankind and must be shared equally as part of the combined assets of the confederated communities. Article 41 All buildings and land in the Autonomous Communities are the property of all. No one can profit from or sell land or buildings. New buildings must be agreed upon by all members of the community and parcels of land allocated. Once allotted, a usage right is commenced for an indefinite period that may not be extinguished while that person or their family resides in that allotment. All previous title is extinguished and common title now exists in the community. No external persons are permitted to use any parcels of land when not living in that community. If a person leaves a community they pass back rights of use for their allotment to that community Article 42 Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of allotted property. No one shall be deprived of this property use without payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest and only after community direct democratic resolution. Article 43 The economic system in the provinces shall be directed at providing general welfare and in particular granting funding to arts, science and technology. It shall be aimed at guaranteeing the daily needs of people and to ensure a dignified life. Monopoly is prohibited by law. Labour rights and sustainable development are guaranteed. No one shall exploit another, or by action/inaction allow someone else to be exploited Article 44 Everyone has the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence within the Confederation of Autonomous Communities. Article 45 The enumeration of the rights and freedoms set forth in Section III is non-exhaustive. The Democratic Self-rule Administration Project IV Local governance Article 46 Each region shall enable all citizens to have direct access to vote on issues. At no point shall there be a representative or voting bloc. Article 47 Any citizen can submit a resolution to any issue that affects them or their community. Where more than one community is affected, each citizen of each community shall have an equal vote. Those communities shall output a binary yea or nay to resolutions. There is no limit to the number of communities that may be affected by suggested resolutions. It must be clearly stated before any further discussion begins. Article 48 Every person who has reached the age of eighteen (16) years is eligible to vote. They must undergo a ceremony, initiation or acceptance of adulthood and an agreement to the terms of this constitution. These ceremony may be cultural or secular in nature but MUST contain a clear expression of agreement to this social contract as set forth. By agreement the citizen is protected and bound by this document Article 49 No person, groups, unions or communities shall bypass any segment of this constitution. No one may be set apart from the law. No one shall be immune. Article 50 Electronic networks shall be established inside communities, preferable at domicile level, to enact direct democracy. Direct democracy via electronic network must be protected and administered by a similar method to blockchains in bitcoin. Anonymous but every part of the process can be checked for authenticity. Article 51 Any community network must be open source. It must be checked regularly. Exploitative code must be reported via some means. And ALL citizens must be notified immediately. Article 52 Each community has the right to its own media. Media may not be owned by any persons or partnerships. Media constitutes all previous medium, print, television, radio and internet. And also is to include any future means of mass communication of entertainment or information. Article 53 The right of the people to be free from propaganda is enshrined. This is to be extended to advertising where warranted. Article 54 Each community may elect a diplomat where required for negotiations with external communities or states. No community has a right to represent another. Social services: 1- Autonomous Communities are able to enact local resolutions and budgets for social services internally. These may not be outsourced or privatised. They may not make a profit. They may employ local people only to positions of service. 2- The powers and duties of the services are to be laid out in founding local charters for these groups. It must clearly state the objective of the service. The conditions of its allocation and the boundaries of its duty. 3- it is the responsibility of each citizen to ensure these service charters are fair and equitable and at ALL TIMES are not an authoritative body. 4- each community must ensure each of its citizens has the following available at all times. i) Food security. At least 3 months of food resources in emergency ii) Continuity of utilities via at home, or local grid generation (renewable/natural not fossil fuel). The right to electricity and open free internet is enshrined as law. iii) Adequate housing or allotment of land for all to live as they choose (including transient or tent dwelling, non-traditional domicile) iv) Water. Recycled and/or sourced from the air, collected, desalinated or other processes not yet discovered. Every person must have access to clean water for drinking and sanitation. There must be a permanent supply established either at home or community level. Part VI The Judiciary/Mediation Article 55 The independence of the mediation/judiciary is founding principle of the rule of law, which ensures a just and effective resolution of incidents by competent and impartial processes. Mediators/judges must be elected by their community but may never serve in that community. They must fulfil their service in a community they have no blood relations or ties to. They must be impartial and above reproach. There must be no gathering of power to this role, it exists purely to mediate disputes between people and uphold this constitution. Article 56 Everyone charged with a criminal offence (constitutional breech) shall be presumed innocent until and unless proved guilty by a competent and impartial process. They may not be forced to testify against themselves. Article 57 All institutions of the mediation/judiciary must be composed of at least fifty per cent (50%) of either sex. Article 58 The right to defence is sacred and inviolable at all stages of an investigation and trial. Article 59 The removal of a mediator/judge from office requires a 51% decision from the community they service Article 60 Judgments and judicial decisions are issued on behalf of the people. Article 61 Failure to implement judicial decisions and orders is a violation of law. Article 62 No civilian shall stand trial before any military court or special or ad hoc tribunals. No foreign state may hold a citizen of any confederation community. All communities must band together to return their citizens to the confederation community of origin. Article 63 Searches of houses and other property must be done in accordance with a properly executed warrant, issued by a not less than 2 mediators/judicial members. Article 64 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public process by an independent and impartial method, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Article 65 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. Article 66 Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention or otherwise suffered damage or harm as a result of the acts and omissions of public agents has an enforceable right to compensation. Article 67 The judiciary/mediation is established by confederation of the communities. Article 68 The Constitution applies within the Autonomous Communities. Article 69 The Constitution shall be laid before all people for review and ratification. Article 70 The Constitution sets out the framework through which decrees, and states of emergency shall be formally implemented. Article 71 All administrative bodies, institutions and committees shall be made up of at least 50 percent (50%) of either sex. Article 72 The Constitution guarantees the protection of the environment and regards the sustainable development of natural ecosystems as a moral and a sacred national duty. Article 73 Education within the Autonomous Communities rejects prior education policies based on imperialism and capitalism. Founded upon the values of reconciliation, dignity, and pluralism, a new system must be agreed upon by the communities a)- The new educational curriculum of the communities shall recognize the rich history, culture and heritage of the peoples of all Communities. b)-The education system, public service channels and academic institutions shall promote human rights and direct democracy. c)-The education system must strive to produce functional citizens not just academic education. Emotional, academic, humanities and environmental subjects must be covered Article 74 a)- The Constitution enshrines the principle of separation of religion and State. b)- Freedom of religion shall be protected. All religions and faiths in the Autonomous Communities shall be respected. The right to exercise religious beliefs shall be guaranteed, insofar as it does not adversely affect the public good. c)- religion is to be considered a form of commerce and wealth must be contributed to the community via the agreed means of taxation Article 75 a)- The promotion of cultural, social and economic advancement by administrative institutions ensures enhanced stability and public welfare within the Autonomous Communities. b)- There is no legitimacy for authority which contradicts this constitution. Any community may declare a state of emergency and request support from other confederation members. No military/police force may be deployed to resolve internal conflicts among confederation members. This is the role of mediation/judiciary Article 76 The Constitution shall be published in all available media.