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.