A Bill to create Preservation of Life – Community Protection Australia (POL-CPA).  A statutory body funded by the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments through an Intergovernmental Agreement.

The function of POL-CPA is to develop a national policy on the development and enactment of legislation consistent with Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR ) signed by Australia in 1948. 

Article 3 “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.”

The UDHR falls under customary international law and is not set down in treaties or other documents. However, Australia later signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
This is a multilateral treaty and “security of the person” within the context of UDHR explanatory notes is a requirement upon the Australian Government to create appropriate legislation.

The two primary aspects considered by the Bill are: 

  1. the human right of the security of person, acts or omissions by the State; and  
  2. lawful right of self-defense – acts or omissions by a person.

Human rights and lawful rights are different but related concepts. The following is a conceptional presentation about strategies to preserve life, protect the community, strengthen democracy, and enhance the trust of the public in the justice system. 

Online Petition >>

Visitor statistics 15/06/2020: 4,043 visitors, 53% providing contact details in support, 12.7% shared, and 34.3% no details or did not share.


The middle class generally fluctuates between being able to afford a lovely holiday once a year to pay off a credit card. The poor can vary between paying bills and being out on the street. Between 20 and 30 percent of working-age people on welfare benefits are a possible outcome as Australia struggles to regain economic stability during the world-wide recession that may become a depression?

Amid rising unemployment and loss of jobs and businesses, finding employment will be difficult for all, in particular for aging adults.

Financial instability can be a breeding ground for chaos, violence, and civil unrest.

There is the individual, and there is the community— the poor need to feel secure; the rich can pay for gated communities and security guards, and some politicians have armed Police that stands nearby when delivering speeches in public about keeping us safe.

The following concept presentation is not just for Australians. The concept of community protection by citizens through a not-for-profit system is applicable everywhere. In particular, for countries where first world policing systems are financially prohibited, and the trust in the justice system has considerably diminished as a result of Government and Police Corruption.


Two of the following security firms are POL-CPA endorsed as meeting the not-for-profit security standard when specific community services performed:

  • There is a security business that is for-profit performing no community services provided – unendorsed.
  • There is a security business that is not for profit performing community services – endorsed.
  • The for-profit business allocates 10% of activities to approved community services – conditional endorsement. 

Advantages of POL-CPA Endorsement:

The advantages of endorsement include taxation concessions, promotional purposes, and legal protection under State-based “Good Samaritan Legislation” in specific circumstances. 

Victoria has good samaritan legislation, and Queensland has a Bill but no Act. A function of POL-CPA is to assist harmonising this type of legislation for the enactment of consistent legislation in all States and Territories. 

A function of POL-CPA is to create a not-for-profit security standard. The intent is to endorsed and provide incentives for security firms that meet or exceed the standard in providing specific security and consultation services to the community on a pro-bono basis. Those not meeting the financial criteria for these services may also access these services AT COST.

Pro bono “publico” is a Latin phrase for professional work undertaken voluntarily and without full payment. Unlike traditional volunteering, it uses the specific skills of professionals to provide services to those who are unable to afford them.

Not-for-profit-security firms comprising of young men and women mostly between the ages of 21 to 45 years working at the street level under the direction of older and wiser professionals from our aging adults in our community.

The Bill intends to encourage former police, military, security, and other professionals of mature age to step into the role of directing the operations of not-for-profit security and endorsed for-profit security firms that meet the POL-CPA standard and code of conduct requirements.

Not-for-profit Community services that met the expectations of POL-CPA include but are not limited to:

  • consultation services to prevent domestic homicide;
  • secure transit services to prevent domestic homicide;
  • safe area patrol services for the homeless;
  • call-by security patrol services for the elderly;
  • call-in coded mobiles for vulnerable persons;
  • social clubs (at risk terrorism targets) discrete protective services; and
  • churches, mosques, and other places of worship (at risk terrorism targets) open protective services.

Addendum 09/12/2020 – CovID:

Accredited training in contract tracing, isolation and support, and risk assessments.


A “calculator” for use by endorsed security firms that was developed after research by MIT subject matter experts that consider room size, ventilation rate, room air changes, the efficiency of the mask or respirator or no mask, number of people, level of physical exertion, etc. This tool can be used to help make a decision regarding risk and prepare a CovID management plan for businesses. 

Terrorism and Places of Worship:

Open protective service for places of worship using uniform security officers from non-denominational firms blended. The development of strategies that are preventive and protective. Terrorism has no religion but the religion of violence itself.

In June 2020 counter-terrorism raids across Sydney uncover a cache of illegal military-style weapons. Terrorism of soft targets is a threat.

Non-profit security officers and consultants work together and become a group of like-minded professionals. POL-CPA provides training annually, and the ongoing in-service education allows officers and consultants to respond and assess a wide range of security situations.

Hostile situations that these professionals may face incidentally as a result of their routine activities are no different from the police. However, the chance is less than that of the police because they are not triple zero responders. Therefore some of the training and education endorsed by POL-CPA is similar to the police. However, not-for-profit security officers may become specialists in areas that the police do not usually cover.

The initial training of security personnel of a POL-CPA endorsed firm is the successful completion of Certificate IV in Security and Risk Management (CPP40707).

See also the concept presentation of Sibannac Security >>


The questions, are we a society with a hidden layer of violence that permeates and pervades life to such an extent that we require paramilitary police and Napoleonic laws to protect us? Have those that advocate for authoritarianism chipped away at and eroded the pillars of Australia’s democracy? Has it made people afraid of doing much more than conforming, submitting, and surrendering?

Public confidence is fundamental to the operation of the criminal justice system. The system depends on the participation of victims and members of the public who participate as witnesses and jurors. Low levels of public confidence also lead to disrespect and dissatisfaction with those responsible for administering the system. The political debate surrounding dissatisfaction has become well established over the past decade. Given the centrality of public confidence, it is not surprising there has been intense interest […].

Cite Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 387. Read more, Australian Institute of Criminology >>

Why is there, dissatisfaction? The story of the toy seller, one example:

Demonizing non-criminals erodes the public’s confidence in the police.

Demonizing non-criminals erodes the public’s confidence in the Police.

Games of Conflict Played Fairly Results in Courageous people, not Fierce People. The choice, live in a society comprised of courageous people or fierce people?

Take, for example, the demonizing of Brad Towner, a seller of harmless colourful toy guns that are an alternative to the Nerf brand toys.

Brad Towner has built a successful business over several years, in full view of the NSW Police, selling colourful plastic toy guns that shoot a harmless gel ball at harmless speeds. These toys are an alternative to the well-known Nerf brand. Brad was charged for unlicensed firearms dealing and is facing severe penalties, including prison time if a court convicts him.

Brad’s case represents one battle in the cultural war being waged by some government agencies and politicians against anything that looks like a firearm and anyone who takes an interest in them.

In an interview with a journalist, Brad Towner said, “Most definitely not firearms. Under the law, these are certainly toys and from their previous investigations, the Firearm Registry also determined them as such. Prior to the serving warrant to seize my toys by Penrith LAC Police, the last time was by the Major Crimes and Firearm Dept of Parramatta. My customers use the toys purely for playing or collecting and cosplaying as I mentioned above. Lots of parents buy for themselves and their children to encourage outside play and exercise.”

The public debate about the case of Brad Towner and others who have been the victims of ridiculous laws that make criminals out of non-criminals has to lead to a lack of confidence in the legal system.

The cultural war being waged by many government agencies and politicians against anything that looks like a firearm and anyone who takes an interest in them erodes public confidence in the legal system.

Why divided, but not one-sided?

The fight-or-flight response is an emotional reaction that occurs in response to a perceived threat is called hyperarousal. A flight response is to deprive a future attacker, and the fight response is to enable the next protector, the individual. People are divided, and the subject matter is not one-sided. Will they ever agree, probably not. See also evolution and religion >>

The right of liberty?

So what laws should be reviewed and what laws should be repealed within the context of the “right of liberty”?

Are laws that lock up toy shop owners necessary for our protection?

It is not a matter of toys looking like firearms; it is a matter of firearms now looking like the futurist hero’s armaments of sci-fi movies and cartoons of the past.

Plastics, accessories, and gadgets have created a different appearance to what many Australians remember about firearms growing up in a less anxious and more rational Australia.

How does a young person learn to be courageous, not fierce in a world dominated by those that hold up weapons as the instrument of power to solve conflicts?

The purpose of make-believe using air-soft and gel-blasters is to prepare young minds to deal with the daily news that constantly presents us with evil-doers. Young minds evolve through fair play to become adults with reason, not morals. We all have, and groups have different morals. Subtract the complications of belief systems through fair play and the possibilities for peace and harmony increase. Australians are renowned for their fair game, even in warfare using weapons and that must be encouraged not demonized.

Australians are people that can be trusted. 

Trust is a two-way street, as the saying goes. However, if the State does not trust young people, how can they be expected to trust the State? Along with fireworks from times past, we now have a situation of further prohibition that erodes the development of creating responsible individuals.

“The opposite of courage in society isn’t cowardliness, it is conformity” Rollo May

Conformity was a tool of the Japanese and other Emperors that desired to take their people to war.

A criminal may misuse something that could be mistaken for a firearm; however, witch-hunt laws that go after toy sellers is a message to the people that everyone may have criminal intent. A criminal can just as easily use a 3D printer to create a better representation of a firearm than an air-soft or gel-blaster toy.


Farmers, sporting shooters, and toy sellers are not criminals. They contribute to society in so many positive ways.

 Pro-victim-disarmament rhetoric such as “raid the sporting shooters”; “disarmed the farmer”; “crackdown on them”; “that person is a gun nut”, “we are backsliding”, what is the inference? You are dealing with someone who will say anything to win an argument.

For every statement, there is a half canned statement in response. For example, during research this statement, “the solution to guns, is not more guns”, however, the complete saying is “the solution to guns, is not more guns in the hands of criminals”. The police have more firearms today than they have ever had.

Even the use of the word “gun” is half a term. A gun is either a cannon or a hand-gun, the correct word, is “firearm” which includes hand-guns, shot-guns, and rifles but not cannons. Perhaps we should agree to use the correct terminology and remove the phrase “gun control” from our conversations and replace it with “responsible firearm ownership”. Why? Because the “ghost gun” has rendered control impossible because the knowledge to manufacture these things can not be eradicated by legislation or book burning.

Harsh punishment does not work. The punishment for homicide is very harsh and that does not stop people from murdering others. The penalty for terrorism is extremely harsh but that does not stop terrorism.

So what is the solution to a crime that may or may not involve a firearm?

Numerous early family studies show that a predisposition for criminal behaviour is the result of inherited characteristics, but that an individual’s characteristics and personality are still able to be modified by the environment, peers, family, and others. If a young person has an interest in firearms, teach them responsibility. Do not deny their curiosity because what was it that killed the cat? It is far better to place them in a safe place and fellowship with others, the sporting shooters if that is what they would like to do.

Indicators of Narcissist Journalism

We live in a period of extreme concern about how we are perceived by others; social psychologists are charting a steady increase in narcissism.

The Psychology of Insults by “Psychology Today” helps understand why people insult others. In their article titled, “The desire to put others down may be as old as…chickens” they write: The insult can be interpreted as an attempt to reduce the social status of the recipient and raise the relative status of the insulter. If that logic is correct, we can assume that insults are often motivated by anger surrounding issues of emotional insecurity.

Another way of taking a person down is by questioning their intelligence or general mental competence; for insult purposes, recipients are invariably “stupid” or “crazy” or “You are a gun nut” which is a pejorative stereotype cast upon a person as a means of implying that they are fanatical, exhibit abnormal behaviour, or are a threat to the safety of others.

Don B. Kates Jr., in a paper that analysed Freud’s work, wrote:

“A fear of weapons is a sign of emotional immaturity.”

The link between emotional insecurity and immaturity

The Saturday Paper online newspaper’s motto is our journalism is based on trust and independence”. The story titled, “The Gun Nuts in our Parliament” by a journalist was about an Australian Senator and other respected politicians that believe the lawful right of self-defense is not a right if the capacity to exercise it is prohibited.

Divided, not one-sided

The theory that reducing the number of firearms in the possession of responsible owners will result in less violent crime.

Firstly, in many countries around the world including Australia, non-firearm weapons have been associated with the dominant fraction of violent crimes.

Secondly, the increase in legal firearms was 31% (1999-2009) to (2009-2019). Legal ownership requires a history of responsible and secure management.

Ten-year periods considered between 1997 and 2017:

For the period 1999-2009, the firearm-related homicide total 464, and for the period, 2009-2019 the firearm-related homicide total 364—about 4.7 percent reduction.

For the period 1997-2007, the non-firearm related homicide total 3060 and for the period 2007-2017 the non-firearm related homicide total 2498—about 20.8 percent reduction.

Why did the percentage of non-firearm homicide decrease about four times higher than firearm-related homicide? Perhaps there are times when the circumstances favoured the victim and the criminals deterred.

The questions, how many attempted violent crimes go unreported and why wouldn’t an attempted crime not be reported?

The Problem:

There exists an after-the-fact prohibition law that will punish responsible firearm owners even if they have acted lawfully. The farmer’s story is a case in point >>

The Solution:

Citizens will not report crimes if they are punished regardless of having a lawful right. Repeal all post-event prohibition laws as we do not know how many deterrent events are occurring? The hypothesis denied a test, is a hypothesis that persists.

Law of Prohibition Vs. Lawful Right

The thought experiment, “You are a retired police officer or perhaps a former soldier. One day at a social club you witness a police officer shot by a terrorist. Do you pick up his service weapon to protect yourself and others in the club or leave it on the floor because you are prohibited from using a firearm for personal protection?”

Having used the firearm to disable the terrorist and preserve life, is the State entitled to punish you? Well they do, the farmer Dunstan case and other situations of a like-kind.

When a law of prohibition is in conflict with a lawful right the latter shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency when members of the jury identify that they too could have been in the same situation as the defendant.

Provided the person had a lawful right, no charge can be supported, however the State can punish you in other ways.

The intent of the Bill is to ensure human rights will always prevail and the jury system will never be replaced by a representative of the State.

The Data

One problem in conducting our research is that authorities for some of the years did not release any figures for firearms registered. There appears to be no explanation for this? Using the past and present figures an estimate of numbers for these years was required to normalise as either an increase or decrease over time. However, the majority of the figures are presented and it is reasonable to say a good approximation.

The proposed “unreported deterrent” explanation is a hypothesis. To test it, will require further study. The difficulty will be that if victims of crime do not report the crime for fear of being punished, how does one collect this data? One way would be to change the law so victims do not fear punishment.

However, what can be said today is that the promoted hypothesis that more legal firearms results in more grievous violence is absolutely false. You can not call one side of the coin (more legal firearms less homicide) false and also claim the other side of the coin (less legal firearms less homicide) is true. Perhaps it is a matter of who, not what?

It is recommended you do your own research and test the validity of data. Perhaps you may discover an explanation for the repeating pattern that can be tested?

Farmers and sporting shooters are not the problems, they may be part of the solution?

Are farmers and sporting shooters the problem? Not according to the figures provided above.

See also the farmer’s story, protecting his family from a knifeman intruder >>

Malum Prohibitum

Malum prohibitum is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by statute, as opposed to doing that is evil in and of itself. A witchhunt law is a crime that does not contain criminal intent as an element of an offence. Brad Towner was charged under witchhunt legislation designed to make criminals out of non-criminals.

The toy seller provides society with the positive of fair play that involves pretending to fight against evildoers. Fear-based laws have no place in a rational society. A courageous person was identified by the jury, not a fierce person to be punished. That is the message sent to the persecutors that still pursue him – Brad Towner found not guilty

Extract: Sensibly a Jury of 12, within 26 minutes of deliberation found the toy seller NOT GUILTY. Comment from Mr. Towner, “NSWPOL (the police) are still attempting to discredit and treat my products as illegal” […] “the best and worst $100,000 I ever spent”.

Mr Towner’s raised over $100,000 from the general public that supported his plight.

The Senator is accurate in saying that the lawful right of self-defense is not a right if the capacity to exercise it does not exist.

The real problem is ghost-gun. This is because of evolved desk top and garage manufacturing technologies, and the advent of the internet the ghost gun has rendered gun control legislation obsolete because criminals and terrorists can make any firearm they want. The percentage of ghost guns is increasing exponentially as the cost of manufacturing reduces, now less than $800 AUD for a basic semi-auto blow-back handgun with no serial number. Sadly the next mass murder is likely to be a terrorist attack using ghost guns. Gun control laws have become obsolete, it is time to talk about responsible firearm ownership and other strategies that will reduce violence in society. See also ghost-gun explained and Police seize 3D printed guns >>


The function of POL-CPA is to develop a model Code of Practice concerning:

  • the human right, the security of a person, and 
  • the lawful right, self-defense of a person.

The tenets of traditional policing in order of priority are:

  • Preservation of Life;
  • Protection of Property;
  • Detection of Offenders;
  • The apprehension of Offenders;
  • Maintain Law and Order.

The tenets of POL-CPA are:

  • Preservation of Life; and
  • Community Protection.