Firearm Owner’s Freedom at the Cross Roads.

Click here to view the original post.

Thoughts For The Week.

Firearm Owner’s Freedom at the Cross Roads.

The NEW ‘NFA’ will impose the worst restrictions on our rights since the 1996 Un informed debacle of John Howard’s implementation of the UN. 23 point Civilian Disarmament Treaty. Yet, we the law abiding firearm owners have never been so well equipped to oppose it, we have over 2 million licenced shooters in Australia, (only 13 million people voted in the 2016 Federal Election) we have the Internet, and Facebook which is our means of communication, a force that is now rivalling and taking precedence over the Foreign controlled mainstream media machine. Also, like the rest of the western world the voters are tired of Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum politics, tired of getting the same result from both mainstream parties. This has caused a fine line with no large majorities in any of the Australian Parliaments.

“There are more people on the waiting list to join the Melbourne Cricket Club than there are rank-and-file members in all Australian political parties put together.” (Cathy Alexander, 18th July 2013. https://gmggranger.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/quikstats-australian-political-party-membership/

“There are more members of the SSAA than there are rank and file members in all Australian political parties put together.” Ron Owen

As Party membership has dwindled the mainstream political parties have refused to make their membership figures public, but mainstream media themselves state that in 2013 the Liberal Party had 50,000 and Labor 43,000 and Greens 10,000 which by the 2016 Federal election results showed a further disinterest in the main parties and 22% voted for the minor parties.

So when the membership of our shooting associations which only 1 in 15 join (most remain hunting on rural property) are ‘mountains’ overlooking political parties of ‘mole hill’ proportion, why in a supposedly Constitutional Democracy are we dictated to by an elitist minority. Why do we have to resist and deal with politicians who seek to impose this NFA, National Firearm Agreement. We nor any representative from any shooting discipline, or association agreed, nor were we consulted. While our State and Federal Police Ministers met to unanimously vote to impose, not just a re categorisation of the Adler from A to B. All that was just part of the cover up ‘Flim flam’ creating the media ‘smoke and mirrors’ so it does not enrage the huge voting power of firearm owners.

Read if for yourself, its NOT just a Re Categorisation for the Adler Shotguns it has further impositions.

Find these in the Police Ministers, wish list.

AMMUNITION

54. Jurisdictions will legislate to allow the sale of ammunition only for those firearms for which the purchaser is licenced, and impose limits on the quantity of ammunition that may be purchased in a given period.

(This means that all sales will have to be recorded to whom and which licence another register, more public servants more taxes, more impositions)

55. On the purchase of ammunition, the relevant licence must be produced.

(d) the commercial transport of ammunition with firearms is prohibited

” This Agreement sets out minimum requirements in relation to the regulation of firearms. Nothing in this Agreement prevents jurisdictions from adopting additional, including more restrictive regulations.

Cat A

(c) Shotguns (other than semi-automatic, pump action or lever action)

Cat B

d) Lever action shotguns with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds

Cat D.

(c) Semi-automatic, pump action and lever action shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than five rounds

20. Heirlooms

(a) Jurisdictions agree that where the owner of an heirloom firearm is unable to establish a genuine reason for possession of that firearm and/or does not qualify for a collector’s licence, jurisdictions may issue the heirloom owner with a special category of licence. The requirements of that heirloom licence must be that:

i. before the licence is issued, the owner provides sufficient proof of inheritance of the heirloom

ii. the licence apply only to a single gun, or a matched pair or set

iii. all heirloom firearms be rendered permanently inoperable

iv. the licence not authorise the discharge of the heirloom firearm or firearms in any circumstance

Collectors

i. the firearms which are the subject of the collection should be of or above a defined age

ii. firearms in a collection which have been manufactured after 1 January 1946 must be rendered inoperable (whether or not they are otherwise only required to be rendered temporarily inoperable according to paragraph 19(b))

iii. collectors may not possess ammunition for a collection firearm

iv. any attempt to restore firearms in the collection to usable condition should be regarded as a serious offence and subject to severe penalties

v. all operating firearms which are owned by the collector under separate licensing arrangements should be subject to the same level of regulation as any other operating firearm

vi. for the purposes of the collection of Category H firearms, genuine historical collectors must

1. be a member of a state or territory accredited historical firearm collectors society

2 .have their licence application endorsed by an accredited historical firearms collectors society

3. comply with strict storage requirements

4. display a commitment as a student of arms in order to collect or retain post-1946 handguns.

.43. Jurisdictions agree that the issuing of a permit must be subject to a waiting period of at least 28 days to enable appropriate checks to be made on licensees in order to ascertain whether circumstances have occurred since the issuing of the original licence which would render the licensee unsuitable to possess the firearm or which would render the licensee ineligible for that type of firearm.

45. Jurisdictions should consider imposing greater storage requirements where multiple firearms are kept on the same property.

Firearm Owners Association of Australia will be installing these 5 meter long banners on the Bruce Hyw in Gympie, if you can use one in your area they are $250. each

All shooters and all of their families and friends must VOTE AGAINST the National Firearm Agreement.
Contact your local State and Federal MP ask him to move a motion in parliament to oppose the NFA. His response will quickly inform you as to which side he is on. If he will not oppose it tell him you will vote for any other party that will. There are elections coming in Queensland and it has not been through the parliament so cannot be imposed yet. Seek them out, don’t be insulting just tell them that if they vote against law abiding firearm owners they won’t get your vote or you friends and families vote. If they vote for the NFA they will never get your vote in the future. Do not leave it to your association or your membership to a political party, it needs all shoulders to the wheel. Ten minutes on the phone now could save you years of aggravation in the future.

Where does all this anti freedom, anti human rights, anti firearm owners come from?

Please read thoroughly about George Soros and his establishment of the Open Society, and its relationship with Rebecca Peters, Anti Gun Coalition, and Save the ABC and George Sorus investment in Channel Nine, our major Banks and his investments into Australia’s political landscape. Please read Edition Owen Guns Bulletin Dec Special Christmas Edition 127, 2016

“Curiously though since Peters left, the shooting massacres, of the same style, lone gunman, have ceased! And private firearm ownership and number of firearms have doubled. Since Peters has returned to the USA, they have been subjected to the lone gunmen syndrome ever since.”

These days, this international conspiracy is not a theory it is a fact established and accepted by mainstream media such as the Weekend Australian article. “Influence Of George Sorus on Western Politics.

and

This coming battle at the Cross Roads against the latest NFA impositions on ammunition purchasers and Collectors firearm arms might not be the last battle, but it will the best chance we have to turn firearm legislation around and to create some sort of future for individual freedoms.

Indonesia Elections. An Islamic Threat.

Click here to view the original post.
Right now the Australian government is sanctioning genocide in West Papua committed by the Indonesian government. Now there is an election in Jakarta with one of the candidates being pro Islamic. Indonesia has always posed a threat to Australia, but if Indonesia becomes a strong supporter of Islam, what then?
WHY is the Australian government supporting genocide in West Papua? WHY is the Australian government still paying millions of dollars to the Indonesian government? WHY is the Australian government trying to disarm Australian citizens (All semi-automatic rifles have already been confiscated http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/133198/FACT_SHEET_Firearm_Types_Oct_2012.pdf )?

WHY has the Australian government made it illegal for Australian citizens to carry anything that may aid them in defending themselves against violent physical attacks, rape & murder? WHY has the Australian government made it illegal in the new National Firearms Agreement for Australian citizens to use a firearm in defence of their lives in a home invasion!?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/indonesias-moderate-islam-is-slowly-crumbling/

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-19/jakarta-governor-elections-preview-ahok-agus-harimurtri/8192422

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2017-04-17/jakarta-election-tests-indonesias-moderate-muslim-reputation

http://www.aseantoday.com/2016/12/could-indonesias-2017-elections-led-to-the-rise-of-islamic-fundamentalism/

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/02/22/indo-f22.html



Australian Self-Defence Laws. Gold Coast police ‘too busy’ to answer domestic violence call for help.

Click here to view the original post.
How often have we heard it said, “you don’t need a gun, we have the police to protect us”. Well of course that is total bullshit, and the government knows it. Not only is it illegal in Australia for anyone to carry ANYTHING for the purpose of self defence, but now in the new “National Firearms Agreement” it states that it is illegal to use a firearm in defence of self and family in a home invasion. 
Our government is our worst enemy, they want us disarmed and defenseless, WHY?

Self defence laws put Australians at risk.

Click here to view the original post.
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?

Man Attacks Woman In Shopping Center With Axe. Australia Self Defense Laws!

Click here to view the original post.
She suffered horrific injuries in the attack. Photo: 7 News.


Another one, & no legal way of defending herself against axe attack! When are Australians going to demand the right to carry something with which to defend themselves?!!!

Have You Read The New National Firearms Agreement For Australia?!

Click here to view the original post.
I don’t think many people have noticed the changes to protection rights in the new 2017 NFA. It clearly states that using a gun for the defence of your family, friends or yourself is no longer considered a legal right! Bad enough that we have lost certain guns, bad enough that it is not legal to purchase a gun for self defence, but it was until now understood that if we had no other choice, we could under certain circumstances use a gun for defence of ourselves & our family.
What can it mean when a government wants to disarm citizens? What can it mean if it denies citizens the right to self protection against armed criminals? Practically every day in Australia people are being attacked, raped & murdered, & yet the government has now done all it can to stop us from protecting ourselves. Something is very wrong here!

Remote Area nurse Safety. Australia.

Click here to view the original post.

These nurses work alone, and as we all know it is illegal in Australia to carry anything for self defence. Gayle Woodford was raped and murdered whilst at work. We need new laws that will give people like Gayle and other citizens a better chance of survival when crime is on the increase in Australia. Allowing two nurses to work together is a start, but it is not enough. We need legislation allowing law abiding Australian citizens to carry guns for self defence and if necessary for the defence of others, such as family members. In cases where people do not wish to carry a gun, then tasers and capsicum sprays should be a legal option.

‘Gun Violence’ Never Happens in ‘Gun Free’ Australia. Except When it Does.

Click here to view the original post.
Now there’s a scenario for you: an unarmed defenceless father and five teenagers hiding from three intruders who’ve shown that they are ready, willing and able to use deadly force.

Thankfully, the home invaders left. They’re still at large. And Australians are still defenseless against armed criminals. Anyone care to repeat the Australian model of gun control here? The scary part? The answer to that question is yes.

Self Defense Laws in Australia.

Click here to view the original post.
Another Australian citizen is attacked and he has no way to defend himself from these thugs using machetes. It is against the law in Australia to carry anything specifically for use in self defence. We are not allowed to carry guns, knives, batons, pepper sprays, or tasers. Women are getting raped & murdered, men are being attacked and killed, but the Australian government will not do anything to help us protect ourselves, not on the streets, and not even in our own homes.

SurvivalRing Radio Talk -Survival, Preparedness, and Self Reliance – 02/10/2017

Click here to view the original post.

Here’s today’s episode of SurvivalRing Radio. Today’s Topic?  The Basics of Self Defense Techniques, What a nuclear attack on the USA might look like, FREE fallout shelter plans, putting in your own well, News & more…all things you need to consider in building YOUR situational awareness lifestyle. http://www.freedomizerradio.com/blog/2017/02/survivalring-radio-talk-survival-preparedness-self-reliance-02102017/ Survival…what it takes, what you need, and how to become […]

The post SurvivalRing Radio Talk -Survival, Preparedness, and Self Reliance – 02/10/2017 appeared first on SurvivalRing.

The Hunger Games. Could it happen?

Click here to view the original post.
Maintain that lifestyle, don’t rock the boat. Things are not perfect, but hey, they could be worse.


The Hunger Games. Could It Happen?!

I don’t know about the rest of the world, but in Australia right now we are seeing a lot of stuff going down that does not look good. In the cities people seem to be isolated from what is going down in the country areas; the banks taking farm land, mining companies taking farm land, now the government its self is seizing farm land because of a deal it has made with a foreign country to train its military troops. There are millions of dollars involved in this deal, but I doubt that the average Australian citizen will gain any benefit from this & over 70 farming families are about to lose their homes & livelyhood.

We have lost so much freedom & so many of our rights in the name of terrorism. The government uses the perceived threat of terrorism to pass more & more legislation that controls our lives. Rates rises on land means that some people can no longer afford to pay rates, so they are evicted & their land & house is sold. These people are now forced to live in the towns or cities & once again are now dependent on the government & the services they supply. People are being taxed for using their own water supplies & there has been talk of taxing people who live off grid & supply their own electricity!

Country people receive no backing from people living in the cities, this I realise is a broad statement, & I have no doubt that there are some city dwellers that do care, but on the whole the city is not where you will find rebels, it is a place where you will find people that do not want to rock the boat; they like conformity, they like order. They are content to bury their heads in the sand in order to maintain their present lifestyle. They are insulated from the troubles of the world & are content so long as they are making money & live a comfortable lifestyle.

Can you see where I am going here? Have you seen the Hunger Games? Think about the number of times country people have gone to the city to protest at the treatment they are receiving from the government, do you ever recall seeing city people coming out to back these protests? I don’t. Right now the Australian government is giving money to the Indonesian government; the Indonesian government are committing genocide in West Papua. Women are raped & murdered, children are murdered & of course the men are also being killed. These West Papuans were Australia’s allies in WW2, helping our diggers survive, carrying our wounded to safety. Now our government is sanctioning their genocide! Does this sound like a caring & benevolent government? They are doing this for greed, money & power. They do not care who has to suffer for them to get what they want. What makes you think that they care any more for you? My Father was a great believer in keeping your head down & looking after number one. Don’t draw attention to yourself; don’t get involved in other people’s problems. There is a great deal in favour of this attitude when it comes to survival, but what happens when you are those other people? What happens when after keeping your head down you suddenly realise that you have been manipulated. Whilst you were keeping your head down & thinking this will keep me safe, the government has usurped your freedoms & your rights as a citizen.

We in the country, & those like us in the cities, do not have the backing of the majority. We alone can’t stop this corrupt government machine from rolling right over us. Our farms are disappearing, & with them our home grown food supplies! Our countryside is being polluted by mining & big corrupt corporations are polluting our environment. Recently a Japanese fishing vessel was caught poaching in one of our reserves, will they go to prison? Unlikely, will their ship be confiscated? Unlikely. Yet our government is continuing to make more & more restrictive legislation on our freedoms & these laws if we rebel against them will make us criminals. The city people will not help us; the government are right now our biggest enemy. Whilst our politicians grow wealthy we find that we can no longer retire at age 60, we are slaves to the system & alone there is nothing we can do about it. We are expected to work in the future until we are 70, that is if we live that long. They don’t have to pay a pension to dead people. Now I hear that even our pensions are under threat, I thought that money was being extracted from our earnings all these years to pay for our pension entitlements, now I hear that the government has decided to keep some of that money for themselves!

I wish I had answers for you, but I don’t. My greatest fear is that this government & this whole corrupt system will eventually take more from us than we can bear. I guess that is exactly what has already happened with the farmers that have committed suicide. Will the police & military continue to do the government’s bidding even when they know it is wrong? Yes I think they will. That is what they are trained to do. All this has happened over time with such stealth that no one seems to have realised what was happening, & I don’t think it will stop there. I don’t like the way things are going in this country & none of it bodes well for our future. I think we will lose more of our rights, our freedom has already gone. We will be forced to pay more & earn less, our government is NOT leading, it is RULING, we have a dictator government. Gone are the referendums in the main, gone are our rights to protest. Gone are our rights to protect ourselves & our families by any means we think necessary. Gone are our rights to privacy as the police are now legally allowed to invade our homes at any time without a warrant & arrest the occupants. We are all seen as being guilty until proven innocent.

My hope is that one day the majority will wake up & sack our government & institute a new fairer government system where the people have a voice. Right now we are between a rock & a hard place, no matter who we vote for, we can’t win. Be very aware of further firearms legislation that will further control the ownership of firearms. Confiscation of all firearms from law abiding citizens will be a sign that the end is near. Already present gun control measures have made it difficult if not impossible to own certain firearms, that has made us vulnerable against criminals & government forces!

Take care everyone.

Malcolm Turnbull says Australians should be ‘very alert’ after IS call for lone wolf attacks.

Click here to view the original post.
An Islamic State propaganda magazine has called for ‘lone wolf’ attacks at locations in Sydney and Melbourne.

 Should this be taken seriously? Or is it just another ploy by the government to legislate more restrictions on Australian citizens in the name of terrorism? Since when have the government been seriously concerned with public safety?

An assault on our right to self-protection.

Click here to view the original post.
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.


How Concealed Carry Policies Can Keep You and Your Employees Safe

Click here to view the original post.

Unfortunately, in today’s society, there are times you may be confronted with violence at work, as illustrated by incidents such as the on-air shooting of reporter Alison Parker and photojournalist Adam Ward, the San Bernardino shooting and the Orlando nightclub shooting. An average of 551 workers a year are killed as a result of workplace-related homicides, according to the latest data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 2010, 78 percent of these homicides involved shootings. The risk of being shot at work raises the question of how concealed carry policy should be applied in the workplace. While gun control advocates may reject the idea that concealed carry has a place at work, preppers know that concealed carry may be your best defense against a disgruntled and armed employee or customer. If you’re considering implementing a concealed carry policy at your workplace, here are some guidelines for pursuing your policy safely.

Check Your State Laws

The first thing to do is check your state laws in consultation with your company’s legal team, since laws regarding concealed carry and an employer’s legal right to determine concealed carry policy vary by state. State laws seek to balance a citizen’s constitutional right to bear arms with an employer’s right to control policy on private property and their responsibility under OHSA to maintain a safe workplace environment. Some states prohibit retaliation against gun owners for bearing arms and limit an employer’s right to search employee vehicles. Others allow an employer to prohibit guns if they post certain notices.

As of June 2015, employers in Maryland were allowed to restrict concealed carry in parking lots and on premises, while those in California were not, and those in Florida were allowed to restrict concealed carry on premises but not in parking lots. Some states also allow exceptions to these rules. For instance, Utah allows employers to restrict concealed carry in parking lots and on premises, but there is an exception for federal and state workers.

Check to see what legal options are available to you under your state laws for determining your company concealed carry policy. Knowing your state’s laws can help you in formulating your policy by letting you know what options are legally excluded.

Consider Your Corporate Culture

Beyond legal considerations, your concealed carry policy towards your employees can also impact your brand reputation with your customers, points out the Society for Human Resource Management. One key issue that impacts your brand is whether the same policy you apply to your employees also applies to your customers. For instance, Starbucks has drawn criticism for asking customers not to bring guns into their stores even if they have a concealed carry permit. Similarly, businesses can draw criticism for restricting self-defense rights of employees.

Apart from concerns about criticism, there is the more fundamental issue of how your gun policy aligns with your corporate culture. How do your company’s vision, values and mission statement inform your gun policy? For instance, consider your company’s overall policy toward your employees and customers, and develop a gun policy that embodies this stance, communicating how allowing concealed carry advances the safety and well-being of your employees and customers.

Who Can Conceal Carry Guns?

The question of whether your gun policy towards your employees extends to your customers broaches the broader question of who can carry guns under your corporate policy. What about part-time employees? Independent contractors? Hired security personnel? Visitors? Are any categories of workers required to undergo any type of safety training to be allowed to carry guns at your business? Will you run any background checks on employees and contractors who may be carrying guns to ensure that you meet OHSA standards for maintaining a safe working environment? Also consider how you will handle employees who have been recently terminated or otherwise involved in workplace confrontations and may have guns on their person or in their vehicles as they are exiting the building in a bad mood.

Where Are Guns Allowed?

Another issue your policy should address is where guns are allowed. As noted, some states have different restrictions for parking lots and premises. Additionally, there may be areas of your premises that are not entirely owned by you and may be shared with adjacent businesses. Within the legal guidelines of your state laws, you should develop policies that clarify what is allowed in each of the areas of your workplace. This will enable you to respond to employees who ask where they can store their guns.

What Kind of Guns are Allowed?

Another question to consider is what kinds of guns and gun supplies are allowed, suggests workplace law firm Fisher Phillips. For instance, definitions of “assault weapons” vary from state to state, which has contributed to media and public confusion over this term. Clarifying what types of weapons fall under your gun policy can help you if you become embroiled in a public relations battle over an incident at your workplace. Likewise, you may want your policy to clarify your stance towards semi-automatic versus automatic weapons. If deer hunting is popular in your area, you might also want to lay out a policy for rifles. Similar considerations hold for ammunition and accessories for different categories of weapons that fall under your policy.

What about Other Weapons and Dangerous Objects?

Some company gun policies also address the use of other weapons and potential weapons. For instance, knives can be classified as weapons in some contexts, but if your business is a restaurant, you obviously need certain types of knives to operate. Other objects such as boxcutters are not designed as weapons but can be used as such. You may wish to consider how your gun policy addresses these.

Notifying Employees of Your Policy

After developing your policy, it’s also essential to make sure your policy is communicated to your staff and other relevant personnel. Develop training procedures to make sure that your staff is aware of your policy. Ideally, these should be part of broader training in workplace violence policy and management. If you require any firearm safety procedure training, include this in your policy. Check your state’s policy for your obligation to post signs and make sure you are in compliance with these requirements.

 

The post How Concealed Carry Policies Can Keep You and Your Employees Safe appeared first on American Preppers Network.

Survival, Then and Now.

Click here to view the original post.
Survival, Then and Now.

What do you think has changed  in the last 300 years regarding our survival needs? Anything? Whether it be long term wilderness living as it was for the New World settlers in the 17th and 18th centuries or whether it be a lost in the bush survival situation, I don’t see as though anything has changed. Our requirements are still the same, sensible tools, good survival provisions and primitive survival skills. Yet here we are in 2016, and people are obsessed with using dryer lint. stubby so called “bushcraft knives”, camo clothing, ferrocerium rods, pop-up nylon tents, RAT packs and freeze dried foods, special hiking boots, fuel stoves, battery operated equipment and no skills to speak of except invented ones like “battening”, making Vaseline cotton balls and other “homemade” fire starters and inventing new ways to lay a fire so they can take photos of it for their favourite forum!

300 years ago the main tools you needed to survive were the gun, the axe, the knife and flint and steel for making fire. You could even survive without the flint and steel if you had to because you could use the lock on your flintlock gun to make fire. You needed skills such as trap making and the knowledge of trapping. You packed only the essential equipment and provisions, and if you made mistakes in packing too much useless gear, then you ditched it along the track and learnt a hard lesson. Generally you asked experienced people for their advice, some ignored that advice to their own peril, and others profited by it. Today many so called survivalists and preppers also seek advice on internet forums, or at least they appear to. Most though have already made up their minds, and really all they want to do is share on the forum what they have chosen and carry. Giving correctional advice to these people is usually a waste of time, and in some cases you will be answered with rudeness and ridicule. Most of us, who have been there and done that, had a lot of experience in long term wilderness living simply ignore this and perhaps go to the persons profile and click the “Ignore” button. After all, we don’t have to put up with abuse, and the less people that survive after tshtf the better for us, less hunting and foraging competition.

For those of you that are serious about survival, and genuinely think that a shtf situation could arise in the future, here is my advice, take it or leave it: Think about your needs, think about the tasks you will be faced with if you have to survive in a wilderness situation. Choose you tools carefully. You will need a tool or tools for hunting, you will need an axe for cutting wood for shelter construction and trap making, you will need blades for skinning and butchering, camp chores and trap making, and perhaps a spare just in case. You need a hunting knife with a blade long enough to be used in self defence. You do NOT need a tool for skinning and butchering that was designed to cut wood, and you don’t want to have to cut saplings down with a knife! Each tool should have a specific purpose, don’t skimp on tools to save weight, you need the right tool for the specific job in hand.

Think sustainable, if you purchase something that is going to break, wear out or run out and you are unable to repair it, then it is just extra weight in your pack you don’t need, and it is going to compromise your safety. Carrying good sustainable gear may mean that you are carrying extra weight, and may mean that you will have to travel slower and take more breaks, but long term it will pay off.

Learn the skills you will need now. Having a good pair of hiking boots may help you initially, but what happens if they break or wear out? Do you know how to make a moccasin pattern? Do you know how to make moccasins? Do you know how to tan an animal skin to make leather? If you make a pair of moccasins now, then you will not only have learnt the skill, but you will have the moccasins and the pattern for another pair. This is the way you need to think. A modern firearm is great providing it remains functional, but what if it ceases to work? Can you fix it? How much weight in ammunition can you afford to carry? How much ammo do you use on an average hunting trip? You may shun primitive hunting tools such as the traditional bow, the crossbow and the muzzle-loading gun or rifle, but these tools have certain advantages over the modern firearm for long term wilderness living. By all means if you are travelling in company have someone carry a modern firearm, but make sure it is not the only hunting tool you are taking with you.

Keith.



New South Wales Authority Exposed.

Click here to view the original post.
23 August · 

PLEASE SHARE! – INNOCENT MAN Justin McMaster, shot by Police.

Justin McMaster was the victim of a home invasion but in the process of defending his family he was shot by police in a shocking case of mistaken identity. Justin now finds himself having to pay more than half a million dollars for Police court costs

Court of Appeal overturns $500k damages awarded to youth, Justin McMaster, shot by police

The highest court in NSW has overturned a $500,000 damages order against the NSW Police Force over the shooting of a Sydney teenager after a violent home invasion, finding that the officer who fired the shot was trying to protect his colleague.

Justin McMaster is also now facing a substantial legal bill after the court ordered that he pay the police force’s legal costs for the original hearing and the appeal.

Mr McMaster was shot in the stomach in the early hours of September 26, 2011, as he ran from his house at Holmes Street, Colyton, in Sydney’s west, holding a metal rod taken from a set of blinds.

He had been woken moments earlier by the screams of one of his sisters as two young men forced their way into the house and held a knife to her throat.

Mr McMaster, then 19, burst from the house and ran down the footpath in the direction of a group including police and his relatives in a bid to chase the attackers away.

Believing that the youth was in fact one of the home invaders, Constable John Fanning shot him in the stomach.

In December 2013, District Court Judge Phillip Mahony upheld a civil claim by Mr McMaster, finding that Constable Fanning had committed a “deliberate assault and battery and trespass to his person” and awarded him $512,450.

Mr McMaster’s two sisters, who saw the shooting, were awarded $89,910 and $132,430 respectively.

But NSW Police took the matter to the NSW Court of Appeal, arguing that, when the shot was fired, Mr McMaster was just metres from Constable Fanning’s colleague, Constable Natasha Kleinman.

On Monday, a three-judge appeal panel upheld this argument, overturning Judge Mahony’s decision and the damages awards and finding that the police were not liable for the shooting.

“In my view, Constable Fanning’s act in pulling out his service pistol when he first saw the man running out of No. 4 Holmes Street with what looked like a metal pole was reasonable in view of what he understood had occurred in that house, which also suggested that this man may have a knife,” Justice Anthony Meagher said.

“From that point, as the man got closer to Constable Kleinman’s position on the roadway, he presented, unless stopped, a threat of significant injury.

“This was not a case of a simple assault being resisted by use of a firearm. The threat to Constable Kleinman was believed to be serious injury or worse.

“Constable Fanning waited until the last moment. He did not see any indication that Constable Kleinman was going to use her Taser. At that point, he had no alternative course of action available to prevent the threat to Constable Kleinman, which he reasonably believed the man presented.”

In addition the court ordered that Mr McMaster and his sisters pay the police force’s legal costs. These are likely to run into the tens of thousands of dollars.

PLEASE SHARE. <<<<<

When shooting the victim becomes self-defence: (Marsdens Law Private & Group Session)
http://www.marsdens.net.au/…/when-shooting-the-victim-becom…

Self Defense Shooting In America.

Click here to view the original post.
A woman defends herself, her household & her property against three armed intruders.

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=efHGC2YoTiI  for 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.

Gun Control Myths.

Click here to view the original post.
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.

Woman beaten with hammer while waiting for a bus in Sydney, husband suffers broken arm.

Click here to view the original post.
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!



Australian Citizen charged with Murder for protecting his own family.

Click here to view the original post.

Father ‘using force to defend family’ charged with murder over death of intruder.


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.

Australian Gun Owners Fail To Support Each Other!!!

Click here to view the original post.



Well I guess all you gun owners better go out & purchase a bow, because if we can not be bothered to support each other in fighting gun control then we ARE GOING TO LOSE OUR GUNS!
I posted this petition about a month or so ago, & last time I looked, all I had was 262 signatures!!! 262; how many gun owners are there in Australia?
I advertised this petition on gun forums on Facebook, & on popular media outlets on the net, & 262 signatures is all I got. If this is any indication of how much we care about keeping our guns, then we are already lost. Oh but I forgot, SHE’LL BE RIGHT MATE!
https://www.change.org/p/members-of-the-legislative-assembly-of-new-south-wales-fair-and-sensible-firearms-legislation-for-muzzle-loader-users?recruiter=29128190&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

Detective Southall said Mr Valenti had a right to defend himself.

Click here to view the original post.

Detective Southall said Mr Valenti had a right to defend himself.
“Yes, everyone’s got a right to defend themselves and their property from a home invader… as long as the force used is reasonable in the circumstances,” hesaid.

Self defence for You and Your Home Without Owning a Firearm

Click here to view the original post.
self defense

From left to right a bokan,jo staff, tomahawk, hammer, cutlass, kukri and a couple of flashlights.

Self defence in many states is a bit of a problem.  For instance, I live in California which is one of the more restrictive states.  Now I am no expert on all the laws, but I have a rough idea of what you can use for self defense in this state.  So I am going to throw out a few ideas for people who can’t carry or possess a firearm.

Now in California, you can’t carry a firearm on you without a concealed weapons permit.  If you are carrying one in your vehicle without a permit, it needs to be locked up and out of your control as well as unloaded.  Concealed weapon permits are not the easiest things to get in many parts of the state.  I am sure that similar laws apply in some other states.

Then there is the portion of the population that can’t own a firearm for one of several reason, felony convictions or mental problems.  These reasons may not preclude you needing to defend yourself or your home.  Check on the laws where you live and find out what you can legally carry or possess.

For instance in California you can’t legally possess a billy club or nightstick, it is a felony even in your own home.  But you can own cutlasses, swords, spears or tomahawks.  If you carry a baseball bat or axe handle in your car for protection it can be prosecuted as a felony.  But if you have the same bat with a ball and glove and are carrying it to play baseball it is legal.  In this state, some police officers if they stop you and see something that could be used as a weapon they will ask you if you carry it for protection.  If you say yes, you may be prosecuted.  Be very careful what you say to the police.

In your home, you have more leeway.  I would strongly suggest that if you don’t have a firearm, that you keep one of the following next to your bed and maybe in other parts of your home.  These could include a baseball bat, cutlass, sword, large knife, tomahawk or even a hammer.  At night keep one of the new super bright flashlights with your choice of weapons.  Shining the light directly in someone’s eyes in the dark will effectively block their night vision and may even temporarily blind them.  This give you an advantage over someone who may be younger, faster and stronger than you.  It will only give you this advantage if you act.  Do not hesitate to defend yourself.  Strike quickly, hard and often.

Now some will say go out and study martial arts and I do not disagree with this advice.  In years past I have studied them myself.  If you can do this, it is great, but for some it is not practical.  This can be due to age or physical condition or even lack of time.  But still set up the best defense you can.  Don’t just quit.

Now I know that I have cited California as my example, but I am sure some other states have laws that are as ridiculous.  Know the self defence laws in your state and avoid violating them if at all possible.

Howard

 

The post Self defence for You and Your Home Without Owning a Firearm appeared first on Preparedness Advice Blog.

Guns or No Guns, It’s Your Choice.

Click here to view the original post.

Even so, self-defence is not accepted by the Firearms Registry as a genuine reason for owning a gun. If you do have a gun in your home you are legally bound to keep it locked in a gun safe!!! And if you do use it to protect your life & that of your family, then you must be ready to face the consequences. The police advise that in a home invasion that you leave by the nearest exit!!!

“WELL GET READY TO BELIEVE IN DEATH BECAUSE WE WON’T BE THERE FOR ANOTHER 15 MINUTES.”

PETITION: The right to carry firearms should be in place in open society. Australia.

Click here to view the original post.

Corrupt Government Bullshit BUSTED!!! Adler versus Coach Gun.

Click here to view the original post.

Adler A110 vs Coach Gun

With all the controversy surrounding the new “Rapid Fire” Adler A110, we decided to test out just how fast it really is by racing it against a double barrel coach gun.The results will surprise you…

Posted by Shooting Stuff Australia on Friday, 12 February 2016

Law-abiding people with proper training should be given the option to defend themselves with a firearm.

Click here to view the original post.
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.

Don’t Get Distracted From The Real Problems By BULLSHIT !!!

Click here to view the original post.

THIS WHAT PROPAGANDA MEDIA SOUND LIKE WHEN THEY TRYING TO DISTRACT YOU FROM REAL NEWS

Posted by Yacub Majeed on Thursday, 14 August 2014

Free Fire Friday (Gun Talk) 31 July 2015

Click here to view the original post.

Host Johnny Kempen broadcasts live from the wilds of Alaska about all things gun related. Call in using +1 (213) 943-3444 when the show is live every Friday at 6pm Pacific/ 9pm Eastern to ask questions and participate in the show. Call in and participate!

Click widget below to listen.

Check Out Politics Conservative Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Aftermath Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Free Fire Friday (Gun Talk) 24 July 2015

Click here to view the original post.

Host Johnny Kempen broadcasts live from the wilds of Alaska about all things gun related. Call in using +1 (213) 943-3444 when the show is live every Friday at 6pm Pacific/ 9pm Eastern to ask questions and participate in the show. Call in and participate!

Check Out Politics Conservative Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Aftermath Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Free Fire Friday (Gun Talk) 17 July 2015

Click here to view the original post.

Host Johnny Kempen broadcasts live from the wilds of Alaska about all things gun related. Call in using +1 (213) 943-3444 when the show is live every Friday at 6pm Pacific/ 9pm Eastern to ask questions and participate in the show. Call in and participate!

Check Out Politics Conservative Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Aftermath Radio on BlogTalkRadio

…and we’re back…News from Rich and SurvivalRing…

Click here to view the original post.

Hi folks, It’s been a while since my last post, although I’ve been in the backroom of SurvivalRing every day for months, keeping things tuned, tight, backed up, and secure. I’ve thought about posting a lot of things, and often I was poised and ready to add my thoughts to the blog, and at the […]

Free Fire Friday (Gun Talk) 10 July 2015

Click here to view the original post.

Host Johnny Kempen broadcasts live from the wilds of Alaska about all things gun related. Call in using +1 (213) 943-3444 when the show is live every Friday at 6pm Pacific/ 9pm Eastern to ask questions and participate in the show. Call in and participate!

Click widget below to listen.

Check Out Politics Conservative Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Aftermath Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Free Fire Friday (Gun Talk) 26 June 2015

Click here to view the original post.

Host Johnny Kempen broadcasts live from the wilds of Alaska about all things gun related. Call in using +1 (213) 943-3444 when the show is live every Friday at 6pm Pacific/ 9pm Eastern to ask questions and participate in the show. Call in and participate!

Check Out Politics Conservative Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Aftermath Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Free Fire Friday (Gun Talk) 19 June 2015

Click here to view the original post.

Host Johnny Kempen broadcasts live from the wilds of Alaska about all things gun related. Call in using +1 (213) 943-3444 when the show is live every Friday at 6pm Pacific/ 9pm Eastern to ask questions and participate in the show. Call in and participate!

Click widget below to listen.

Check Out Politics Conservative Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Aftermath Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Free Fire Friday (Gun Talk) 12 June 2015

Click here to view the original post.

Johnny is back after a few weeks on the Yukon River! Host Johnny Kempen broadcasts live from the wilds of Alaska about all things gun related. Call in using +1 (213) 943-3444 when the show is live every Friday at 6pm Pacific/ 9pm Eastern to ask questions and participate in the show. Call in and participate!

Listen below.

Check Out Politics Conservative Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Aftermath Radio on BlogTalkRadio