In Australia we are denied the legal right to armed self defence, no guns, no capsicum spray & no tasers. People are getting raped, bashed, robbed & killed every day, & yet our government expects us to defend ourselves with our fists!!!
What is it going to take to make the majority of Australians stand up for other Australians & say enough is enough?!
John Barilaro Deputy Premier Minister for Regional NSW Minister for Skills Minister for Small Business Wednesday 22 November 2017 REFERRAL TO LAW AND SAFETY COMMITTEE The Deputy Premier and Minister for Regional NSW .
John Barilaro today wrote to the Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety to request it inquire into the operation of the Firearms Act 2016 in relation to people to reasonably believe they are proportionately responding to a threat to them or their family. The Committee has since published the terms of reference which also include:
· The adequacy of protections for victims of a home invasion in responding to a threat;
· Previous incidents involving a response to a threat which resulted in the suspension of a firearm license; and
· The current awareness of firearms license holders of their rights and responsibilities.
Mr Barilaro said the referral to the Law and Safety Committee stems largely from an incident involving a Bungowannah Farmer David Dunstan. Mr Dunstan used an unloaded rifle to scare an intruder who came to his back door at 3AM on 14 September 2017 armed with a block of wood and a knife. His wife Andrea and their three children were at home asleep at the time. Mr Barilaro said that after meeting David and his wife Andrea in Albury on Monday 25 September 2017, he felt compelled to take action. “As a father of three daughters, David and Andrea’s story struck a nerve with me, as it did with so many people,” Mr Barilaro said. “The case raised a number of serious questions about one’s ability to defend their home and family,” he said. “I have referred this matter to the Committee and asked it to look at whether current legislation does enough to protect the victims of home invasion. “There is a lot of confusion about what our rights are to defend our homes and families from intruders, and this case has highlighted the need for the laws to be examined,” he said. Mr Barilaro said Mr Dunstan told him how upon seeing the intruder, he retrieved his unloaded rifle from the gun cupboard, and then encouraged the intruder into the passenger seat of his car. Mr Dunstan says when he drove up his driveway he was soon met by a police car which had been in the area investigating a similar incident. As part of the police investigation the offender was charged and remanded in custody. The next day police officers also seized all of Mr Dunstan’s guns and suspended his firearms license. On 3 October 2017 Andrea Dunstan also received a letter from the Licensing and Permits Authorities at the Firearms Registry, stating that her license would be subject to a special condition that prohibited her from storing or possessing firearms at their residential address or any address where her husband (Mr Dunstan) resides or frequents. MEDIA: Ellie Laing | Deputy Premier | 0427 066 603
The right of self-defense (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for people to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one’s own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.
If a defendant uses defensive force because of a threat of deadly or grievous harm by the other person, or a reasonable perception of such harm, the defendant is said to have a “perfect self-defense” justification. If defendant uses defensive force because of such a perception, and the perception is not reasonable, the defendant may have an “imperfect self-defense” as an excuse.
As far as I can tell, no country is listed for restricting the natural, civil and human right to self-defense. So, it appears Human Rights Watch doesn’t care that people are prevented by their governments from protecting themselves.
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.
It’s time to get serious about empowering the public by letting them have the opportunity to defend themselves, and end this useless and dangerous obsession with denying people the basic means and right to practical non-lethal and licenced lethal forms of self-defence, in the name of ‘muh public safety’.
9 Right to life (1) Everyone has the right to life. In particular, no-one may be arbitrarily deprived of life.
11 Protection of the family and children Note Family has a broad meaning (see ICCPR General Comment 19 (39th session, 1990)). (1) The family is the natural and basic group unit of society and is entitled to be protected by society. (2) Every child has the right to the protection needed by the child because of being a child, without distinction or discrimination of any kind.
18 Right to liberty and security of person (1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
Part 3B Limits on human rights 28 Human rights may be limited (1) Human rights may be subject only to reasonable limits set by laws that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (2) In deciding whether a limit is reasonable, all relevant factors must be considered, including the following: (a) the nature of the right affected; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the relationship between the limitation and its purpose; (e) any less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose the limitation seeks to achieve.
There is nothing in this human rights document that actually states that we have a right to defend ourselves or our families. The United Nations says that we have NO right to defend ourselves or our families against harm!
https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/38055974/gang-of-thieves-attempt-to-run-down-mum-baby-after-stealing-car/ The government claims we do not need guns for self defence. I beg to differ!!! It is even illegal in Australia for law abiding citizens to purchase or carry pepper spray or tasers. I say forget about the pepper spray & tasers, we want to be legally allowed to purchase & carry firearms for the purpose of self defence & for the defence of our families. This is a human right that we Australian citizens are being denied by our government.
Gun confiscation was never anything to do with the safety of Australian citizens, the fact that there have been no mass shootings since the Port Arthur massacre has nothing to do with it. People are killing other people with knives, such as the massacre in China, & the terrorist attack in London, no guns were used in these killings. But we NEED to be able to use a gun for our defence, do you really want to have to get into a knife fight or defend yourself with just your fists against a bigger person? This is not sensible or practicle.
On election day 25th November 2017, either the 600,000 licenced shooters of Queensland will work together, to put Labor, LNP and Greens at the bottom of the voting ticket and pro firearm ownership candidates at the top, and giving the forces against us the biggest electoral defeat since Barrie Unsworth (NSW) in March 1988, or we will be further tyrannised for another 25 years. We have been waiting for this golden opportunity for a quarter of a century. If we cannot do it this time we do not deserve another chance. Get Political for Two Weeks and Make a Difference to Our Future.
Never have the forces of evil been in such disarray. Never has it been so open and shut, we either work to put the minor pro shooting parties and independents in a coalition to improve our plight, or follow your family voting pattern, (vote LNP or Labor or Green) then hand your guns in, or go live in New Zealand. You are either with us, or against us.
Now, is the Time. Now is the Time to get political, even if you have to miss out on a few shooting events. Firstly, and most importantly contact candidates and check their credentials. Ask them to convince you that they will persistently work to achieve
A. The end of long arm registration,
B. For the individual right of law abiding citizens to own firearms (semi autos, pumps hand guns) as of right and suitable for their needs,
C. For the individual right of all law abiding citizens to use firearms to defend their lives, family and property.
If you do nothing else, that small effort of canvassing candidates will cause change, as that will alert candidates to which issue they won or lost the election.
Secondly, chose a candidate to assist, put some signs out for them, offer to hand out how to vote cards for them. Write letters to the editor of local papers, they should be swamped with letters, share all pro gun articles on social media and most importantly ‘verbalise’, speak out, to all your friends and family about the importance of voting the right way. Explain to all, the importance of filling out every square on the voting paper, as this is full preferential voting, this gives the minor parties and independents the best opportunity of gaining seats.
First Past the Post system of voting gives the major parties an advantage as in a five candidate election a party with 22% of the vote can have a majority and 78% of the electorate can hate his guts. When second and third preferences are counted if the candidate does not get over 50% of the first preferences that does not happen and a candidate that is more suited to most of the peoples ideas wins.
If LNP, Labor or Greens gain power we will have another four years of the Queensland Police making policy to suit themselves from their ivory tower that is built on our backs, paid for by the impositions of fees and charges for our innocence under their dogmatic indolence.
When deciding who to put last out of Labor, LNP and Greens, you have to punish the sitting member out of the three by putting them last as they will have the chance of needing your preference.
The LNP have to be counted as in Coalition with Labor. They Vote with Labor, so they are Labor. In an article printed in several Queensland newspapers where in a meeting with LNP Members of Parliament, Tony Perrett MP (our local member) and Dr Christian Rowan MP for Moggill and Shadow Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection I was correctly quoted as stating,
“Most of the shooters will not vote for them (LNP) anyway” the article did not include the reasons why shooters will not vote for the LNP, which had been the subject intensely discussed at this meeting with Tony Perrett MP and Dr Christian Rowan.
Furthermore to the John Howard “Great Firearm Theft of 1996/7 and the Hand Gun Theft of 2003”, which were implemented by the National Party, Russell Cooper and Tim Fischer where both voted with Labor. Again Tim Nichols LNP has recently twice voted with Labor to oppose primary producers’ rights to own Category H firearms then voted again to support the Labor party’s Weapons Legislation (Lever Action Shotguns NFA) Amendment Regulation 2017.
If the LNP votes with Labor, if they have mutually beneficial deals with Labor they are part and parcel of Labor, we have to deal with them the same way we deal with Labor, we vote against them.
Admittedly, our local member, Tony Perrett, was a champion and at the above mentioned vote on October 11th on the NFA, he crossed the floor and voted with the Katter Party and One Nation Party. We all here in Gympie, hoped that he would have stood as an Independent for the forthcoming election, but he has chosen to remain with the LNP and as his party has caused so much pain for law abiding firearm owners, we cannot vote for the LNP, or Labor, or the Greens. I admire Mr Perrett for crossing the floor and would always want to count him as one of my friends, but cannot help him, as that would assist the LNP who will always betray firearm owners.
The Great Carrot. On November 2, 2017 LNP Shadow Minister for the Environment Christian Rowan MP announced in Gympie that the LNP would grant a lease of the land in the Curra State Forest, and provide $150,000 grant to the Cooloola Range Complex Association Inc to progress this facility. (Since that time One Nation has given the Association a written pact that if they have the balance of power Cooloola Range Complex Association would get the range complex site and $500,000 to build a world class facility.) As I am the president of the Cooloola Range Complex Association Inc this announcement was made at the Owen Guns business premises, with Mr Perrett in attendance. Of course, as the campaign to regain our centrefire shooting range in Gympie has been a 25 year battle, I was very pleased to hear that news and told them so, but also reminded them that their LNP government had been in power several times during the last 25 years and last time in 2012, the minister had even given an Agreement in Principle, but continually delayed and procrastinated, preventing the project from proceeding. We also are fully aware that the only reason that we are getting this promise after 25 years is that the ‘One Nation party’ is now a real threat to their seats in the house of parliament. Without the rise of One Nation the promise would not have been forthcoming. This promise is only on the proviso that the LNP wins the forthcoming election.
Betrayal. I reminded Mr Perrett and Dr Rowan that as the LNP had betrayed the firearm owners yet again and had twice voted with the Labor Party to impose further impositions on law abiding firearm owners their chances of re-election were greatly reduced and that as we spoke the firearm industry and shooting associations were raising a million dollars to ensure their electoral demise.
The Nurenberg Defence. Dr Rowan suggested that in politics everything was a trade-off, a compromise and that he felt that even though he knew what they were voting for was wrong, the LNP was a better alternative than Labor and to do some good he had to stick with the LNP.
I reminded him that what he had described was in legal circles called the Nuremberg defence, where German Nazi SS soldiers admitted to knowing that they had done wrong, but blamed their superior officers for making the decisions.
That defence failed at the Nuremberg trials and those soldiers were hanged, under the ‘common law principle’ that if you know you’re doing wrong then you are a part of it and share the guilt.
Mr Perrett knew that further impositions on law abiding firearm owners was against the wishes of his electorate and blatantly diametrically opposed to the LNP’s own firearm policy so he took the correct course and became the first and last LNP member to cross the floor of the 55th Parliament.
The rest of the LNP members followed the party dictates, followed the orders in the same way as those German soldiers and like them have to accept the consequences.
Let us hope on the evening of the 25th November that the consequences of following the party orders ‘knowing they committed a wrong’, results in a loss of seats and losing government. As they will remember this mistake for the rest of their lives.
Is Firearm Ownerships a Right or Responsibility? As at times we all have to debate the reasons for Firearm Ownership with people who for many reasons have only had emotional negative thoughts about firearms so we need to identify the correct logic in our philosophy so we can properly communicate to people who have had no experience with firearms. A friend of mine raised the issue as a question,
Is Firearm Ownerships a Right or Responsibility?
A Right, or a Responsibility? I believe it is Both.
Because it is in the same way that Day follows Night.
If not a Right, it is certainly a Responsibility,
as if you do not believe that you have a Right to defend your own life, you may Wrongly allow someone else to choke you to death.
That cannot be Right so the opposite has to be Right.
So if you have a Responsibility to defend your life and to defend the lives of others such as your children, or your aged parents, and not to go quietly into the night, in the gas chamber queue.
So it would be wrong, for someone to prevent you from carrying out your Responsibilities so it is a Right. Surely people can see that a country has a Right to defend itself. If it does not, a foreign enemy could commit genocide on the whole population. The government, or the leaders of that nation have a responsibility to defend their nation in the same way that a father has the responsibility to defend his family. Once that conclusion is made then its is only a choice in how that defence is carried out.
Do we believe that our Defence is instantly available via a mobile phone? NO!
Do we really believe that Assistance is only 15 minutes away? NO! (when you could be dead in 15 seconds)
Does the State have a Responsibility to Defend You? NO!
Does the Police have a Responsibility to Defend You? NO!
Do Gun Free Zones have a Responsibility to Defend You? NO!
Does the Church have a Responsibility to Defend its parishioners? NO!
Does the Cinema or Mall or Café have a Responsibility to Defend You? NO!
Do the people have a Responsibility to defend themselves? YES!
Who Ultimately has the Responsibility to defend you? ONLY YOU!
Your life is a precious gift, and just like any precious gift, you have the Responsibility to care for that and treat that life with the proper respect.
We all know that initiating violence is not an appropriate thing to do, violence when used in defence of self or others, is not only Right, but a required Responsibility.
‘Ethics’ hallow the principle of self-defence as both a right and an obligation, a responsibility. ‘Ethics’ also stress our moral duty to defend others against violent attacks.
To be sure, guns may be misused to injure or kill innocent people, but evil doers have killed and injured since time immemorial and did not need guns, after all, Cain killed Abel with his bare hands! In Biblical times, the slogan might well have been, “Swords don’t kill people. People kill people.” Swords were used to commit genocide, wipe out the populations of entire countries. Of course guns can do the same, but the main difference is that before the firearm was invented the strongest person with the axe or sword won every confrontation but when the equaliser, the firearm became available it made all equal, strength was no more the massive advantage. Now, firearm ownership can and will overcome brute strength.
Crime Rates Fall As Firearm Ownership Increases.
Australia 2.02 million licences and 6.03 million firearms is increasing annually by 27.5 %, while crime rates fall?
Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (You Read it Right, We Are Criminals Registered and Counted by a Commission with a responsibility for Listing know Criminals.
Knives like some guns are banned, but criminals still use them! The only ones disadvantaged are the law abiding citizens. AND, it is illegal for us to purchase & or carry ANYTHING that may be used for self defence!!! So who do you think the government cares about more, law abiding citizens, or the criminals?! Sounds ridiculous? I agree, but facts are facts.
Statewide man hunt ends in Tamworth pub after woman stabbed in face, and neck.
Yet another home invasion and the occupant left helpless to defend herself against a stronger attacker. In Australia it is now illegal to use a firearm in the defence of self and family. It is illegal to carry anything outside the home for self defence. The government would sooner citizens were murdered than attackers harmed or killed. Why is that?