The Farmer, his Wife and their Children:
The following is from a letter issued by the NSW Police Force for the incident summarised below ( NSW Police reference no. 1110 53032/IR:SG) .
“[…] it is important that you understand that the legislation prohibits you from possession or using firearms for the purpose of personal protection.”
It is an offence, not only NSW but everywhere across Australia, to possess or use a firearm for the purpose of “personal protection”, which is to say “self-defence”.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
(1) At 3 am 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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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. The knifeman immediately changed his demeanour and responded that “he didn’t want any trouble”.
(4) The farmer stated later he was positive that producing the gun changed the outcome of what happened that morning.
(5) 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.
Given the above, are you of the opinion that the farmer had a genuine reason to use a firearm to deter a knifeman attempting to enter the family’s home?
CONSEQUENCES OF VICTIM DISARMAMENT
(6) The knifeman that ran away concealed himself in bushes away from the house and observed the police disarm the farmer.
(7) After the police have left the knifeman returns and murders the farmer and proceeded to rape and murder his wife.
(8) The two children escape through a window and the matter of damages is being considered by the family solicitor. A claim on the basis that the NSW Crimes Act is inconsistent with Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
In disarming the farmer, the Police Officers also removed the observable deterrent that kept the knifeman from entering the house in the first instance.
Some may say that there are other weapons in a farmer’s house. For example, a kitchen knife that could be picked up and used for self-defence.
However, it is reasonable to say that violent criminals will occasionally engage in hand to hand combat and do so with various weapons including the knife.
It is also reasonable to say that if the advantage favours the innocent, violent criminals will often be deterred as evidenced by point 4 given above.
A “genuine reason” to use the firearm did exist.
“The best division of right, one kind to be natural, and the other voluntary calls it a lawful right in the strictest sense of the word law, and sometimes an instituted right. Of this kind is the evil of certain actions compared with the nature of a reasonable being.”
It was not a natural right of the police to disarm the farmer and thereby afford an advantage to an armed criminal. This is because In disarming the farmer, the police also removed the observable deterrent that kept the criminal from entering the house in the first instance.
In the strictest sense of the word law, the authority to disarm the victim is an instituted right of a kind that supports the evil actions of a criminal. It is respectfully submitted to the court, the authority in this case and when applied to cases like it, is not natural nor is it reasonable.
This law and ones like it conflict with the “security of person” provisions of Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the Commonwealth Government has signed but is yet to honour on behalf of the Australian people.