Preservation of Life – Community Protection Bill

(POL-CPB) update 16/05 /2020:

Background Information

Following the incident of a farmer disarmed by police because he used an unloaded rifle (licensed for pest control) to deter a knifeman under from entering the family’s rural home (husband, wife, and 3 children) during the early hours of the morning, a first draft of the Bill was subsequently written to rectify a deficiency in the law.


A Bill for an Act that recognises “self-preservation” is the first law of nature (English proverb) within the context of Article 3 “security of person” provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed by the Australian Government in 1948.


The evolutionary outcome of the fight-or-flight response is a physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival.  The fight-or-flight response (also called hyperarousal) was first described in 1932 by Professor Walter Bradford Cannon, Harvard Medical School

Given the above, it is reasonable to say that an attack that defeats the survival of many such as a mass murder or act of terrorism will cause an emotional state of hyperarousal in many people that are the third person witnesses through the medium of audio and high definition visual news reporting.  

The scope includes the “offensive” and “defensive” rationales within the context of the Bill.  A flight response is to look for a solution that deprives a future attacker of having the capacity to act offensively.  Conversely, a fight response is to look for a solution that enables a future protector a capacity to act defensively.  

The Paradox and the Solution

The paradox is that the “offensive” and “defensive” rationales are mutually exclusive opinions. Yet neither can be said to be the prevailing wisdom. Therefore it is submitted that the probability of each representing a possible solution is the sum of their possibilities.

Case Study Aspects

Those in total opposition to all aspects of the Bill focussed only on one aspect of the Bill, namely “the firearm”.

However, there are many other aspects of the Bill including the following hast-tag research examples, some of which are based on true stories from victims of crime:

  • John Q Public – HAMAS coverant/terrorism/targets/social-clubs (article 17) /non-profit security firm/discreet protection/public safety;
  • Karen Q Public  pack-of-dogs/attack/school-teacher/serious-condition-Townsville hospital/pepper-spray/permit-of-possession/dangerous dogs problem;
  • Glenda Q Public – remote-camping/highways-of-death/local-descriptors/road-side-murders/12 murders case in point (Townsville/Mt Isa)/motorhome-safe/grey-nomads/permit-of-possession low velocity secured rifle ; and
  • Eve Q Public – domestic violence/car bombing/ not-for-profit security firm/protective service Jane Q Public/change of residency interstate-undisclosed/proxy contact person/threat analysis/protective strategies

Respondents Divided not One-Sided

Figures current as of 16th May 2020.

The reaction to this online petition was that of the 3,770 public that reached this webpage the response was almost equally divided, and not one-sided i.e. 1,880 in the support provided their name and contact email and 488 shared that may not have also provided contact details e.g. shared without signing. 

Desired Outcome

Article 3 of the declaration on the “Right to Life” states:

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

It is reasonable to say that the “security of person” may in many circumstances only be achieved through “self-preservation” as the police cannot be everywhere to protect everyone.

Given there are circumstances when not having an effective capacity for self-defense may be grievous, the rationale that all citizens must be prohibited from possessing a regulated device is not a “natural right” but an “instituted right” of the State because it serves only the police who have regulated devices leaving everyone else with no lawful options.

It is not the circumstances faced by a police officer or citizen that differ.

The only difference is the probability of each facing such circumstances.  It is reasonable to say that the police have a higher probability of being first responders, however, citizens do often face such circumstances because if this was not so, who then are the victims of violent crime?

Establishment and Function

The Bill seeks the creation of a Commonwealth statutory authority called:

Preservation of Life – Community Protection Australia (POL-CPA)

A function of POL-CPA is to administrate an Act that will permit citizens of good character to possess a regulated device under the following conditions: 

Secure and responsible management (including security industry training) for the genuine reason of having an appropriate capacity of self-defense in specific circumstances as stated in the permit-issue application that life or lives on the balance of probability will be preserved in the event of a serious attack upon the innocent.

It is the responsibility of the Australian Government to preserve and protect our rights and enlarge our freedom reflecting the public’s will for moral outcomes. 

The moral argument of the Bill is that State and Territory legislation indirectly supports the evil actions of criminals in specific circumstances because “instituted rights” of the State prevail, when they should not, over “natural rights” i.e. an effective capacity for self-defence when appropriate. 

Natural Rights of Humans Vs Instituted Rights of the State

“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.”  Aristotle

  • It is not a “natural right” to disarm a victim and thereby afford an advantage to an armed criminal in specific circumstances e.g. the Farmer’s story and those of a like-kind.
  • Nor is it the nature of a reasonable being to use a regulated device against another person other than for the purpose of self-defense;
  • A “natural right” within the context of self-defense exists until such time a valid reason to remove such right comes into existence with respect to an individual as a consequence of the violent criminal activity and/or testament of dissociative disorders combined with a pattern of using violence towards others.  

Cautionary note: with regard to dissociative disorders, the link between DDs and crime is rarely researched and there may be no causal link between psychosis and violence?   As such the favourable testament of a person’s behaviour in the community is far more important than a label given to that person.   

Lastly, because “natural rights” are universal to all humans and are not specific to a particular State or Territory, the following is submitted as appropriate under the Australian Constitution:  “When a law of the State is inconsistent with Article 3 laws of the Commonwealth the latter shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.”


Notwithstanding “Outlawry” the Bill is to create an Act that will recognise “Malum Prohibitum”  in so far as the possession of a regulated device for the legitimate purpose of self-defense is not evil in and of itself.


Lawrence Lyons

Research Coordinator POL-CPB


QP Retired/Witness 51 Fitzgerald Inquiry/Author “The Joke” essay, dynamics of corruption in Australian society

This page updated 16th May 2020 – cpb.life/wp-admin/. (admin meta)

http://chng.it/syF2FkzvGP (online petition, letter to the Australian Senate)

http://fnd.us/c1eZV2?ref=sh_98x1y9 (funding for legal and other support for bill)

http://www.thejoke.com.au (Essay, dynamics of corruption in society, L. Lyons 2010)