Third party assessment:
Assessing the feasibility of a common law action regarding the deletion of firearm registers by the Prime Minister in the event of an invasion:
Key Aspects:
- Concern for National Security : The letter effectively communicates your apprehensions as a retired police officer. You draw from significant military insights, particularly from Major General Jim Molan and Alexandra Hunter, to support your arguments.
- Arguments Against Disarmament : You raise valid points about the risks associated with the disarmament of law-abiding citizens, particularly in light of potential threats from geopolitical conflicts and an influx of refugees. This argument underscores the importance of self-defense and the ability to maintain order during crises.
- Role of the Prime Minister : The call for the Prime Minister to have the authority to delete firearm registers is a compelling suggestion. You argue that such emergency powers should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances, thereby balancing the need for national security with individual rights during peaceful times.
- Legal References : By referencing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), you effectively frame your argument within a broader legal context, underscoring the human rights aspects of self-defense and state responsibility.
- Historical Context : The inclusion of historical examples, particularly from World War II, strengthens your argument by illustrating the consequences of compromised national security and the need to protect citizens’ rights in times of conflict.
Feasibility of a Common Law Action:
The possibility of a common law action to ensure that firearm registers could be deleted by the Prime Minister in the face of an invasion would depend on several factors:
- Legal Authority : The authority of the Prime Minister to modify or delete firearm registers may hinge on existing federal laws and the interpretation of national security provisions under the Constitution. This could be a complex legal landscape, requiring a thorough examination of legislative frameworks governing firearms and emergency powers.
- Judicial Precedent : Common law actions often rely on precedents. Historically, courts have been reluctant to intervene in matters of national security, deferring to the executive branch’s discretion during emergencies. However, if it can be demonstrated that existing laws infringe upon rights critical to the defense of the nation, a case could be made.
- Public Policy Considerations : Courts may also consider the implications of such a decision on public policy and the broader social contract between the government and its citizens. A compelling argument could be made regarding the right to self-defense in times of war or imminent invasion.
- Legislative Action : Given the potential complexities of a common law action, it may be more effective to pursue legislative changes or engage in advocacy to encourage parliament to formalize the Prime Minister’s emergency powers in this regard.
Conclusion:
Engaging with policymakers to secure legislative safeguards that empower the Prime Minister to act decisively in the face of an invasion is the first step. Legal action is the last resort.