Got a gun? Meet the MP who thinks you're better off dead

Minister for Police Mr David Elliott.

Got a gun? Meet the MP who thinks you're better off dead

In late 2017, the Deputy Premier of NSW tasked a committee of the New South Wales Parliament to consider changes to the NSW Firearms Act to support the rights of homeowners trying to protect themselves.

The committee has just handed down its verdict.  In this blog we reveal the verdict, and why the NSW Police Minister seems to think:

 people are better off being Dead than Alive with a gun

Minister Elliott’s response

We have now received Mr Elliott’s advice. You can read it by clicking here (check your ‘download’ folder if you can’t find it).

To say it is astonishing is an understatement.  We have summarised what Mr Elliott's said below in bold, with our comments in brackets:

 The issue about whether you can use a gun contrary to your ‘genuine reason’ arises in the National Firearms Agreement  (Wrong.  Genuine reason is regulated by the NFA, but 'use' is not.  The 'use' of firearms is regulated by section 7A of the NSW Firearms Act which is out of step with every other jurisdiction and the NFA, and is something Mr Elliott could fix)

 Mr Dunstan acted outside the NFA (No.  If anything Mr Dunstan arguably used his firearm outside section 7A for the apparently trivial purpose of staying alive, but he was fully compliant with the NFA);

 "There is no intention to amend the genuine reasons provision" (We’re not asking Mr Elliott do that. We’re asking his government to amend 7A to allow for 'reasonable lawful excuse' so that courts can consider each matter on their circumstances and merit);  

 “… the use of a firearm in self-defence is a serious and lethal step which would not automatically protect the person from a criminal charge, despite the assertion they were defending themselves or their property” (Mr Dunstan was not charged with any offences, so Mr Elliott’s comments on this are not relevant);

 “In either case the use of a firearm is not endorsed as a means to self defend, given the potential lethality of a firearm, the risk to the person, the risk to any other person in the vicinity (including the criminal) in a highly volatile and emotionally fraught moment. The risk of escalating the violence is extreme” (Anyone who says this should not be allowed near guns ...); 

 “We also trust in our police to come to our aid and our criminal justice system to prosecute offenders and hold them to account for their actions” (Except that the police are 45 minutes away from Mr Dunstan’s property, and according Mr Dunstan, sometimes don't turn up to intruder calls. If you are going to wait for the NSW Police to come to protect you from a druggie with a knife, you will be dead by the time the police arrive)

Mr Elliott’s response is remarkable. It suggests the better outcome would have been for Mr Dunstan to have been dead, rather than be proactive and stay alive. 

… which is ironic given Mr Elliott was a captain in the army ….

https://nationalshooting.org.au/blog/f/got-a-gun-meet-the-mp-who-thinks-youre-better-off-dead?utm_source=NSC&utm_campaign=bf7c3ad5b6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_04_08_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_34b833c762-bf7c3ad5b6-27924541

Violent Home Invasion! Home invasion victims left defenceless by Australian government anti-self defence laws!

https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/39862294/violent-home-invasion-at-burnside-heights/

Home invasion victims left defenceless by Australian government anti-self defence laws! Surely protecting one's self & family from harm should be a human right ???!!!

The Purge, The Movie.

The purge is about the government reducing the population, mostly the poor & disadvantaged. They came up with a scheme that would appeal to all the sickos like themselves! An annual time of the year when you could kill with no legal consequences. 

I thought this was a great movie, full of action. A few loopholes, things you & I would not do, but on the whole worth watching. The scary part is that I can see this could easily happen here in Australia. We have a totally corrupt to the core government who is actually paying the Indonesian government to kill our WW2 Allies in West Papua. This is the genocide that the world in ignoring! So yes, I think our sick government is quite capable of turning on Australian citizens if it means gaining more power, control & wealth. Remember, it is now illegal in Australia to purchase, own or carry anything for use in self defence of for the defence of others!!! Think about that!

Melbourne police captured on video taking down disability pensioner

Are these the sort of police officers you want on our streets in a crisis situation? Do you think you could trust police officers like this if the shtf? This behavour is criminal, cruel, disgusting & reflects the sort of people these officers are. And let's make it quite clear that this behavour is happening Australia wide & has been for many years! As Australian citizens we have a legal right to demand that these police officers be dismissed from the police service, not just "stood down".

More information here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-03/melbourne-police-on-video-taking-down-disability-pensioner/9591006

Self Defence Law in Australia. REFERRAL TO LAW AND SAFETY COMMITTEE.

Wednesday 22 November 2017

REFERRAL TO LAW AND SAFETY COMMITTEE

John Barilaro Deputy Premier Minister for Regional NSW Minister for Skills Minister for Small Business Wednesday 22 November 2017 REFERRAL TO LAW AND SAFETY COMMITTEE The Deputy Premier and Minister for Regional NSW .

John Barilaro today wrote to the Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety to request it inquire into the operation of the Firearms Act 2016 in relation to people to reasonably believe they are proportionately responding to a threat to them or their family. The Committee has since published the terms of reference which also include:

· The adequacy of protections for victims of a home invasion in responding to a threat;

· Previous incidents involving a response to a threat which resulted in the suspension of a firearm license; and

· The current awareness of firearms license holders of their rights and responsibilities.

Mr Barilaro said the referral to the Law and Safety Committee stems largely from an incident involving a Bungowannah Farmer David Dunstan. Mr Dunstan used an unloaded rifle to scare an intruder who came to his back door at 3AM on 14 September 2017 armed with a block of wood and a knife. His wife Andrea and their three children were at home asleep at the time. Mr Barilaro said that after meeting David and his wife Andrea in Albury on Monday 25 September 2017, he felt compelled to take action. “As a father of three daughters, David and Andrea’s story struck a nerve with me, as it did with so many people,” Mr Barilaro said. “The case raised a number of serious questions about one’s ability to defend their home and family,” he said. “I have referred this matter to the Committee and asked it to look at whether current legislation does enough to protect the victims of home invasion. “There is a lot of confusion about what our rights are to defend our homes and families from intruders, and this case has highlighted the need for the laws to be examined,” he said. Mr Barilaro said Mr Dunstan told him how upon seeing the intruder, he retrieved his unloaded rifle from the gun cupboard, and then encouraged the intruder into the passenger seat of his car. Mr Dunstan says when he drove up his driveway he was soon met by a police car which had been in the area investigating a similar incident. As part of the police investigation the offender was charged and remanded in custody. The next day police officers also seized all of Mr Dunstan’s guns and suspended his firearms license. On 3 October 2017 Andrea Dunstan also received a letter from the Licensing and Permits Authorities at the Firearms Registry, stating that her license would be subject to a special condition that prohibited her from storing or possessing firearms at their residential address or any address where her husband (Mr Dunstan) resides or frequents. MEDIA: Ellie Laing | Deputy Premier | 0427 066 603

Message to the The Border Mail Newspaper!

Firearm locked onto stranger's stomach after GPS makes a wrong turn.

This is blatant biased reporting, the title should read " A 70 year old pensioner defending herself charged with an offence"

How in the hell was this lady to know these people did not mean her harm? Indeed, how do we know they did not intend her harm? A woman alone is faced with several people on her doorstep & she is genuinely concerned for her safety. We only have the word of these intruders that they were lost, would you believe a story like that?! We still only have their word that they did not intend a home invasion & that the gun was aimed directly at them!

This is morally wrong, this woman SHOULD have the human right to take precautions to keep herself safe. These government anti-self defence laws need changing or scrapping. People are suffering home invasions all the time now, people are getting injured, raped & murdered & the government denies us the right to purchase or carry ANYTHING specifically intended for our defence or the defence of our families.
You should be fighting for our rights to defend ourselves, not fighting against our human rights.

Keith H. Burgess.

If you believe that citizens should have the right to use a gun for self defence against a home invasion, then please email or write the Border Mail regarding this article in their newspaper.

Editorial - newsroom@bordermail.com.au 

‘Gun Violence’ Never Happens in ‘Gun Free’ Australia. Except When it Does.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/03/robert-farago/gun-violence-never-happens-gun-free-australia-except/

Now there’s a scenario for you: an unarmed defenceless father and five teenagers hiding from three intruders who’ve shown that they are ready, willing and able to use deadly force.

Thankfully, the home invaders left. They’re still at large. And Australians are still defenseless against armed criminals. Anyone care to repeat the Australian model of gun control here? The scary part? The answer to that question is yes.

Policing In Australia By Consent for the last 200 years? News to me!!!

Policing by consent is about the general public consenting to allow the police to work in their communities within certain guidelines. IF a majority of the general public should at any time decide that what the police are doing is not wholly beneficial to the public, then they the public can demand that the police make changes. That is how I understand it. So why is the Australian public allowing the police to "step over this line" without any complaint?! Wake up people, the right & the power is yours to wield!

Policing By Consent.

To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Essentially, as explained by the notable police historian Charles Reith in his ‘New Study of Police History ‘in 1956, it was a philosophy of policing ‘unique in history and throughout the world because it derived not from fear but almost exclusively from public co-operation with the police, induced by them designedly by behaviour which secures and maintains for them the approval, respect and affection of the public’.

It should be noted that it refers to the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual. No individual can chose to withdraw his or her consent from the police, or from a law.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policing-by-consent/definition-of-policing-by-consent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

http://marxistleftreview.org/index.php/no6-winter-2013/97-coercion-consent-and-australian-policing

http://indymedia.org.au/2012/04/23/our-nsw-police-are-just-way-too-deadly.html

http://www.aipm.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Research-Focus-Vol2-Iss2-2014.pdf

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=192675

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4338/can-the-police-conduct-a-personal-search-without-a.aspx

http://www.cjrn.unsw.edu.au/node/92

http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/rpp/111/rpp111.pdf

Malcolm Turnbull is cutting our pensions!

Malcolm Turnbull is cutting our pensions.
ON 1 JANUARY 2017, 330,000 PENSIONERS WILL BE WORSE OFF.

More information on a fact sheet here: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/actuonline/pages/814/attachments/original/1481586094/A4_pension_fact_sheet_updated.pdf?1481586094

Land and Gun Confiscation in Australia Through Deal With UN !!!

A post I found on Facebook.

I posted not long back on the UN and their Agenda 21 meeting in Rio 1990s. Australia was a part of this and fail to answer any Questions especially the greens. We are a part of Agenda 21.
I just seen a news feed on my US mates site.....READ ON.
Beware patriots, our elected officials are trying to enforce UN gun confiscation, take note if you own a firearm!!!
A 53-46 vote
The U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11:
"CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION and DISARMAMENT of all UN countries".
By a 53-46 vote - The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. resolution.
This is that brief, glorious moment in history when everyone stands around...reloading.
Now, which 46 Senators voted to destroy us? Well, let their names become known ! See below . If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 "legis..traitors". vote against them.
In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the Veterans United Network
States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The Statement of Purpose from the Senate Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.:

Top of Form

 Agenda 21 is the UN as supreme ruler of all who signed up to Agenda 21 Australia being one. I will put up a video and you will see catch words the Government  and councils are using now to implement new changes in the way we live, it is to ease us into one world power. THIS IS FOR REAL SO LET YOUR FRIENDS KNOW BECAUSE,IF YOU OWN LAND OR A HOUSE YOU WONT IN THE FUTURE.

More Australian Government Corruption. Making New Laws !!!

Government to rush a bill through Parliament to rip out the laws that allow Australians to challenge dangerous projects.

https://donate.wwf.org.au/campaigns/places-we-love/thankyou.aspx?tID=50494 

https://secure.action.org.au/page/m/37acb171/273b8e3b/4c6adc7c/69803412/2679910716/VEsF/

The Ultimate TRUTH About The Failed Gun Ban Control Experience (Document...

PLEASE NOTE: Since this incident in Tasmania, new information has come to hand which seriously questions who the shooter/s were & who organised it !!! Government involvement is suspected !!!







http://www.worldpublicunion.org/2013-04-05-NEWS-australian-gun-ban-resulted-in-higher-crime-rates.html