Thanks for the message Clayton found the original video on this story by 9 News, Adelaide. Haven’t been able to learn the outcome?
A Munno Para West man, who says he would have been killed by two home invaders if not for the help of his neighbours, has told 9 News he’s disappointed one of them has been arrested over his brave actions.
This is one of many reasons why this Bill is so important. They arrested a man coming to the aid of a man that feared for his life. Not a situation of provocation, the man simply came home to find his home had been invaded by two armed criminals.
Here is my take on the matter as a non-factual synopsis:
Two armed home invaders are still at large after causing grievous harm to the home-owner. However, police were able to arrest the good Samaritan that prevented the home-owners’ murder because possession of a weapon in and of itself is considered “evil” by the police regardless of the circumstances.
Suggested Letter as a Class Action
I believe the time is approaching when we need to submit letters to the respective Ministers of Police around Australia to put them on notice:
Suggested Template Letter:
I have sought a permit of possession for a regulated weapon for the genuine reason of self-defence because of the attached reasons.
(provide affidavit declaring the facts of the matter)
My request for a capacity for self-defense has been denied by your administration without any due consideration of the facts of the matter.
In the event of my death, I have this day provided a copy of my letter to the family solicitor with instructions to seek damages on behalf of those I leave behind.
In support of my posthumous claim of damages against your office, there does not exist any Australian legislation that recognizes my human right of “security of self” pursuant to Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights within the context that the first law of nature “self-preservation” is applicable.
The Declaration of Human Rights is a legal article which your Government has signed but is yet to honour. I have instructed the family solicitor to fund the damages claim through my life insurance policy.
I would be pleased if you will acknowledge having received my letter.
John or Jill Q Public
The applicant for a permit of possession for the genuine reason of capacity for self-defense which has been denied.
Have reviewed the case of the farmer that was disarmed by police when a knifeman was at large in the district.
We the undersigned understand that a group of like-minded citizens can draft a Bill and respectfully submit it to elected representatives of Parliament in the hope it receives their favourable consideration.
However, according to Andrew Jackson, a former retired public servant, in 99% of cases, the MP will file the Draft and ignore it.
We also understand that one of the biggest advantages of a Westminster System of government is that a draft Bill can go to the parliamentary drafts-persons so that the document may be reviewed with regard to existing legislation and the document accordingly adjusted for final presentation to elected representatives.
Perhaps you will allow us to access that resource so the document is consistent with existing legislation?
Our proposed Bill is called the “Preservation of Life – Community Protection Bill 2022”.The Bill is so dated 2022 for three reasons.
Firstly, we believe that 2 to 3 years of research involving public feedback will be required;
Secondly, our research group commenced on the 1st of January 2020 and concurrent to our activities is a petition that now has over 1,400 signatures and support continues to grow daily; and
Thirdly, we expect the number of supporters for the Bill will increase significantly by the time we are ready to submit the document and that perhaps our submission will be within the 1% that isn’t filed and ignored.
What is our Bill about?
On the 10th of December 1948, 48 countries including Australia came together at the United Nations in Paris to sign the Universal Declaration of Human RightsArticle 3: Right to life of that agreement states:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
We feel that the “security of person” may only be achieved in some instances through “self-preservation” as the police can not be everywhere to protect everyone.
In support of this opinion is the English proverb, “The first law of nature is self-preservation”.We believe that everyone is a part of nature, therefore we seek legislation to be pasted that recognises Article 3.
Our Bill seeks the creation of a Commonwealth statutory authority called “Preservation fo Life – Community Protection Australia” to administrate an Act that permits citizens of good character to be in possession of a regulated weapon for the genuine reason of having a capacity of self-defense in specific circumstances.
We realise the phrase “regulated weapon” may be taken to mean “firearm”.However, whilst firearms are a consideration much of the proposed legislation is in relation to other regulated weapons that represent a capacity for self-defense.
For example, as research hash-tags: stalker/rapist/pepper-spray/Jane Q Public.
Because current State-based weapons legislation specifically states, words to the effect, “A capacity for self-defense is not a genuine reason” we submit at this early time the following case as proof that self-defense in specific circumstances is a genuine reason.
(1) At 3am in September 2017, a man armed with a knife tried to break in through the front door of an Australian farmer’s home before trying the back one.
Alarmed, the farmer went to the back door and saw the offender holding a 7-foot piece of wood. The man tucked one of his knives up behind his arm to hide it from the farmer’s sight, but it didn’t work.
(2) The farmer saw the knife and got his gun while his wife called the police. The farmer said that when he returned to the back door, the offender saw the gun and immediately changed his demeanour, saying ‘he didn’t want any trouble’.
(3) The farmer stated later he was positive that producing the gun changed the outcome of what happened that morning.
(4) The police arrived and took not only the firearm the farmer used to deter the knifeman but all firearms in the house because the farmer only has a permit of possession for pest control.
(5) The knifeman that ran away concealed himself in bushes away from the house and observed the police disarm the farmer.
(6) After the police have left the knifeman returns and murders the farmer and proceeds to rape and murder his wife.
(7) The two children escape through a window and the consideration of “damages” based on the inappropriate actions of the police is being considered by the family solicitor.
(8) In disarming the farmer the Police Officers also remove the observable deterrent that kept the knifeman from entering the house in the first instance.
Please perform the thought experiment of pretending you are a Minister of Police,
“Are you of the opinion that the farmer had a genuine reason for using a firearm to deter a knifeman attempting to enter the family’s home?”
We respectfully submit to the Australian Senate that in signing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights there exists a need for a Commonwealth Act that takes into account the “security of person” provisions of Article 3.
Notwithstanding weapons legislation for pest control and sport which are matters for the State to administrate the proposed Act should be administrated by a Commonwealth statutory authority called:
“Preservation of Life – Community Protection Australia”.
Under section 109 of the Constitution of Australia, the following declaration is consistent with the belief that Human Rights are Universal across Australia:
When a weapon’s law of the State is inconsistent with Article 3 laws of the Commonwealth the latter shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
The proposed Article 3 Laws in the draft form include the following:
(1) Security of person may only be achieved in some instances through self-preservation as the police can not be everywhere to protect everyone;
(2) There exist, persons of good character, that in specific circumstances should be permitted to possess a regulated weapon under secure and responsible management;
(3) A permit-issue should be considered on the balance of probability that a life or lives will be preserved in the event of a grievous attack upon the innocent; and
(4) The function of “Preservation of Life – Community Protection Australia” is to create codes of practice and develop administrative policies and procedures.
As mentioned above, the administration of regulated weapons for pest control and sport remains unchanged and continues to be the responsibility of the States. Thank you for reading our letter and we hope our final submission in 2 to 3 years will meet or exceed your expectations. Sincerely,
A husband and wife barricading themselves in a bathroom, but unfortunately were murdered is original policing knowledge I will never forget.
About 18 months ago, when I read the story of a farmer that saw a man in his back yard with a long-bladed knife it immediately reminded me of the above.
By the time the farmer retrieved his rifle the man was at his back door. It was dinner time and he and his wife and young children were in the kitchen at the time of the incident. The farmer challenged the knifeman and he ran off.
The police had been called and arrived sometime later. They took not only the rifle that he had used to deter the knifeman but all of his firearms, why?
He only had a permit for pest control.
Well, I ask you this, regardless of if you support this Bill or are against it. Had the knifeman returned and murdered the farmer and his wife, would the children that escaped through a window be entitled to sue the Police Minister for the actions of his or her police?
As a result of reading the farmer’s story, I thought it is not the law that needs to change, we need a new law, a Commonwealth Law based on Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)in which it states, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person”.
The key words being “security of person” not “control of the people for security reasons”. In other words, your security is personal and the first law of nature is “self-preservation”.
I believe, and I hope others may do so, that we need standardisation as the process of implementing and developing technical standards including appropriate training.
An agreed process based on the consensus of different parties that believe there are many trustworthy people in our communities that will or have demonstrated responsible management of a firearm which under grievous circumstances represents a capacity for self-defense as a regulated weapon.
The regulated weapon I have put forward is the 38/357 mag. lever action and these are the reasons submitted as the Australian standard under Article 3:
(1) It has a light recoil so that a woman of a light frame can use it effectively.
(2) It has adequate capacity. The 38 cal. provides 10 rounds and the 357 provides 8 rounds.
(3) The 38/357 is a low-velocity long arm meaning that a projectile will not travel well beyond the area of engagement.
(4) As a carbine of 16 inches, it is compact enough for use within the hallways of a residential house, motor-home or similar confined area.
(5) It has safety features that do not require a bolt to be removed.
(6) A level lock and other items such as a light can be readily installed.
This training video was selected as it contains sensible advice.
I hope you will find, ” Personal Defense Tips – Lever Action Defense Scenario” interesting and informative.
Prior to about the year 2000, the operational police to resident ratio in many areas around Australia was about 1 as to 900 in the city and 1 as to 1,100 in the country. Have you heard about Simpson’s paradox?
It is a phenomenon in probability and statistics, in which a trend appears in several different groups of data but disappears or reverses when these groups are combined. You can’t always rely on crime statistics to tell you what is happening in society. However, it is obvious that if you have little need for high police to resident ratio that the level of harmony in a community must be reasonable as no one is complaining they need more police on the streets.
As you may have noted, in the Exploration Notes of the proposed Bill the statement [ … ] “the barometer of harmony [ in society] is a low police-to-resident ratio.” Therefore the question is, “What has actually happened to our society over the past 20 years?”
Since about the year 2000 the police to resident ratio has been steadily increasing as politicians seeking to be elected promised more police on the streets to address complaints from residents about crime. Did it work? The short answer is “no”. In fact, in relative terms within the context of “civil unrest” and crime as a form of rebellion against authority, things are far worse compared to the past.
Much of this “civil unrest” is covered up by those in power because it is evidence of their incompetence and/or that there is inequality in the community stemming from corruption. The matter of strategies to reduce violent crime is an aspect of the proposed Bill, however returning the subject matter of authoritarianism is the following.
The news story “Call for Curfews” which sounds like something associated with wartime, was popular among politicians in Townsville as the solution to the crime there. Whilst I am not sure, I believe that around 2015 there was a dramatic increase in the number of police going from about 1 as to 850 to 1 as to 700 and less sometime in 2016. Did crime reduce by a corresponding 10 percent or more, no I think it may have increased?
The same thing was happening around Australia, the police to resident ratio were steadily going up and crime wasn’t reducing. Of particular note, was the increase in violent crime. Hence the up-gunning of the police and them putting on near black uniforms and body armour. Black uniforms historically, is the colour of intimidation.
Did the police ask for this colour, I doubt it. They were put into this uniform by those that favour an authoritarian system of things. So we mustn’t blame the police for their appearance. But we must closely look behind the curtain to learn why they don’t want the public to trust their police and for the police not to trust the public?
The ratio varies from place to place in response to crime statistics. For example, in Gympie (Qld) it is 1 officer to 492 residents. The residents of Gympie must be terrible people in the eyes of the law compared to Brisbane West which only has 1 officer as to 901 residents. However, in Mount Isa it is about 1 officer to 183 residents so I suppose Gympie is middle of the road. You would think to have lots of police on the streets would have resulted in less crime. That is a misconception and the reason why it has been counterproductive is outlined below.
The highest ratio that I have come across was in the NT where one town had a ratio of 1 as 50 and the police department reduced the training from 6 months to 3 months for a specific purpose to counter growing civil unrest in some of its largest towns. They were putting people in uniforms as quickly as possible as things were getting out of control. I am happy to provide a statutory declaration that I heard a police trainer say to a group of trainees in the NT, “Don’t be backward in being rough on some of these people, and that is coming from the top.” Has an increasing police to resident ratio worked?
Has safer communities been the resulted?
Well a safe community does not need a police service, now called a “force” carrying military-style firearms and armed with paperless arrest and un-arrest laws. When I say “paperless” I am referring to arrest without charge and held without written explanation nor financially viable recourse for compensation.
Today we are far from Westminister and beyond Napoleonic with some laws that don’t even exist in some communist countries. Section 114 of the Australia Constitution comes to mind, words to the effect that the State may not raise a “military force”.
There is a good reason why you don’t have the military do police work. Because when you of do the enemies of the State that once came from outside the State begin to emerge from within the State. I am unsure if I see much of a difference between what was once the police service and what now appears to be a para-military force controlled by the State. What about you, what do you see?
But hey the residents must feel safer, right? Well the ones I have spoken too, don’t think so. So whenever you hear a politician seeking to be elected by getting tough on crime by putting more police on the streets take note of the above.
Elect someone that has policies that represent sensible well researched and thought out strategies to improve the harmony of their respective communities. Authoritarianism is not the solution to crime as it only encourages a form of crime that represents a pushback against authority.
Last year Karen was attacked by two large dogs, hunting dogs that were once domesticated. Her injuries were so serious that she had to be air evacuated to Townsville hospital for emergency surgery.
The circumstances of her attack were:
The Queensland Government
provides a $50/month subsidy to people living in certain remote communities if they have a dog. Because dogs have culturally been a part of their communities.
Most dog owners are responsible, however as is the case for anywhere there are always a few bad apples.
These bad apples will get a dog in order to claim the subsidy, but then the animal is either let go or not feed very well. These dogs, usually large hunting dogs are left to roam the streets looking for food.
Karen had complained to the local council, however, little was done because in many instances who owns the dog plays a part in what gets done. Being deprived of the subsidy may result in retribution.
A representative of Preservation of Life – Community Protection Australia has visited several communities and has concluded that a dog problem does in fact exist. Karen was approached and offered security training and a permit of possession for a special type of pepper spray that has a range of up to 8m that was originally designed for bears in Canada.
By agreement with the school she keeps the pepper spray in her locker while at work and now walks to and from the school to her home with the pepper spray in her bag in the event she is again attacked by a pack of dogs.
Grey Nomad Glenda Q Public permit of possession of a low-velocity rifle:
In her application, she had stated that the regulated weapon will be secured in the safe of their motorhome.
The permit issue allows for a low-velocity rifle. The reason the permit issue specifying low velocity is to safeguard against a round traveling well past the area of engagement. You may have noted that I have posted my concern about Police being issued 223 semi-automatic rifles for use in heavy urban environments such as a city. If the police officer rounds should stray the probability of it killing a bystander down the road at a very long distance from the area of engagement is very real.
In the case of Glenda Q Public who has received security and firearms training meets an approved standard as specified by “Preservation of Life – Community Protection Australia” the weapon as a standard is the modern and reliable 10 shot 38/357 lever-action rifle as featured below.
Some comments have been made about the speed in which the weapon may be produced from a safe, however, it is a matter of balance between the security of the weapon to prevent it from being stolen (when the vehicle is not occupied) and being able to access the weapon if needed as a deterrent.
The greatest risk is remote camping.
In her security training, it is re-enforced that when you’re inside your vehicle always lock the security door behind you.
The aspect of what type of safe to allow quick access and the arrangement the weapon should have is a matter for discussion here i.e. research for the proposed Bill.
In the case of a level action, there is no removable bolt, the rounds can be easily loaded and the number of rounds maintained without having to remove a magazine.
Glenda maintains her proficiency at a rifle club. The recoil for this weapon is most modest for Glenda and the knockdown capacity is solid.
The 38/357 lever-action rifle is therefore put forward as the standard weapon for those seeking a permit of possession for the above and similar scenarios.
One more thought, the reason for standardization has two functions, no up-gunning is permitted and the training of approved applicants is consistent.
The civilian standard for a capacity of self-defense involving a firearm does not exceed the police standard prior to their moving to military-style weapons.
Your thoughts on this standardization policy appreciated.
During the past 12 months, Glenda and her husband have made three long-distance grey nomad trips about Australia in their motorhome. Glenda and husband are members of a traveller’s group and the general rule for free camping safely is to try and always camp with others or if you are unable to do so find a camp spot that can’t be seen from the road.
Over the past 12 months, they were pleased to tell their friends there had been no ugly incidents travelling the highways, however, they did meet a couple, friends they had known for years, that had original knowledge about a highway the locals call the “highway of death”, where a thrill killer is rumoured to have lurked on a desolate stretch of road where 11 people have vanished, with some found murdered.
Now there is a twelfth, missing Newcastle man Jayden Penno-Tompsett, who disappeared close to the cursed Flinders Highway in Charters Towers.
The mystery of the 22-year-old last seen on New Year’s Eve has baffled, but not surprised the locals, said the couple. As the couple was part of the traveller’s group and Glenda and her husband had known them for years they brought them into their confidence that whenever they travelled and locked up at night in their motorhome they had the peace of mind that tucked away in the safe was a rifle.
Glenda’s husband commented, “My wife is the most unassuming bad-ass crack shot with that rifle should trouble come knocking.”
The lady replied, “Good to know we are camping with your guys tonight” and her husband said in a serious tone, “Well it is about time that these highway murderers don’t know who is armed? You know that just the knowledge that someone may be armed is often enough of a deterrent.”
The above synopsis uses extracts of information from a true story of 12 unsolved murders on the highway some call the Highway of Death and others the Wolfe Creek Highway can be found at
Grey Nomad Glenda Q Public: Australia has had a long history of very tightly regulated laws with regard to concealable weapons. This is because no one knows who is armed and who is not. You readily see that a hostile is armed when they carry a rifle. Therefore the penalties are far higher as a circumstance of aggravation. From a cultural perspective, long arms have no such issues. In further, those that lived during those times were not concerned about people that had a rifle or rifles because of their upbringing, supervised experience and education to become responsible firearm owners. Therefore in the case of the grey nomad scenario of Glenda Q Public and other related scenarios the public should not all be presumed to be untrustworthy and irresponsible people noting that when you outlaw the weapon only outlaws (not victims) have weapons. I am confident that Glenda’s grandfather that lost his life as an ANZAC to keep his children free and safe would agree that his daughter should have a capacity for self-defense, otherwise why did he give his life? The evidence that the possession of a rifle in and of itself was not considered evil is that in almost every town across Australia we see the statue of the downturned rifle and a solemn ANZAC soldier. Those deserving of consideration in term of responsible possession of a rifle must include the children of those that sacrificed so much for their loved ones.
It should be noted that the Australian Parliamentary website contains this statement:Some of Magna Carta’s core principles are echoed in the United States Bill of Rights (1791) and in many other constitutional documents around the world, as well as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950).
It can be legally argued that Australia has not created legislation that recognises the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” as it moves closer to coming under the control of the UN. Can’t have one without the other if that’s where it’s all heading. Its a double edged sword and we should use it as follows:
In Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) it states: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
The key words being “security of person” not “control of the people for security reasons”. In other words, your security is personal and the first law of nature is “self preservation”.