Sunday, December 31, 2017

Fire & Security.


This post is brought about from a link that was recommended by lonewolf. At that link & saw a popular image of an "all night burning fire". Now on a winters night an all night fire may seem like a good idea, & there are several ways of accomplishing this, but post shtf an all night fire in my opinion is not a good idea.

Any fire small or large, day or night has the potential to attract unwanted guests, so an all night fire is going to at least double that risk. Post shtf, there will be no safe wilderness areas, people will be on the move, raiders are opportunists & a fire glowing in the night or the smell of smoke will draw them like ants to honey. Because I am a living historian, my historical treks have to be as authentic as possible. Now even today there are risks in camping out, but back in the 18th century those risks were far greater. So I set myself scenarios. Some nights I have camped with no fire, this requires knowledge of how to stay alive in winter with little bedding, because bedding is bulky & adds weight to your pack. It also requires knowledge regarding what foods to carry, because with no fire, you can not cook food, so you need to carry some food that can be eaten without having to cook it.

Other nights I do light a small fire in a fire hole. This is a scrape in the ground to contain the fire surrounded by rocks back & sides. The heat reflects off the rocks back into my shelter, & they help hide the fire from prying eyes. But a small fire does not last long once I have fallen asleep, & at some time in the night the cold will wake me & I will stoke the fire from my supplies under cover behind my bed & from a supply of wood at the end of my shelter. Despite the fact that I am always mindful & therefore alert to sounds in the forest, this waking up from the cold is for me a security measure. It is an opportunity to look & listen to the sounds around me before I make up my mind as to whether or not I should re light or stoke the fire.

If I had placed a large log on the fire to keep it going all night I would probably sleep soundly, certainly I would not be waking frequently because of the chill seeping through my bedding. This would create a security risk, one because as I have already said, the fire would be noticeably visible from a distance at night, & secondly because I would not be so alert. Just something for you to think about next time you are camping out & practicing your skills.
Keith.


Shooters Union: dealing with the issue of self-protection

Friday, December 22, 2017

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

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

Monday, December 18, 2017

Xmas Wishes to All.


To those of you who celebrate Xmas, wherever you are, I wish you all the very best for this Xmas season & the year to follow.

Probably the worst threat to us all wherever we are in the New Year & years to come is climate change. The ice caps are melting as is the permafrost, here in Australia we are experiencing a severe heat wave. It is us who should have the final say in how this planet is cared for, NOT big business or the government. All they are interested in is lining their own pockets! This is something I will never understand. We can't not think about our survival & the survival of our descendants at this time of year, but let's not let this spoil the time we have with our families over this season.

Please take care on the roads if you have to travel, it is the other vehicles you have to watch out for! Don't be in a rush to get to where you are going, remember, better late than never!!! 
Best wishes & sincere regards to all.
Keith.

Sunday, December 17, 2017

Friday, December 15, 2017

How to join the fight to save your way of life



1) Our local MP is corrupt & there is no point in contacting him 2) you say nothing about the gun owners in Australia being fractured. They all have their preferences & don't give a damn about others shooters/gun owners. So long as we are not backing each other, then we are fighting a lost cause 3) you mention nothing about demanding stronger penalties for gun crimes, we should be shouting this from the roof tops. We are not ALL good blokes, there are criminals amongst us & they need to be rooted out & given heavy sentences, not just a slap on the wrist & put back on the streets. This is what the government wants!!! 4) I gave up on the SSAA a long time ago, they are all for themselves & stuff you if you don't do what you are told. Not a hope in hell of me being a member again, never!
Keith.

Saturday, December 9, 2017

Could Skynet Become a Reality???!!!


They were asked why if this is so dangerous would they consider doing it anyway, their reply was that they wanted to see if they could! The problem is that intelligence is not that simple, not that defined. We have feelings, empathy, that is not intelligence. A computer brain with AI will learn far more than a human can in our entire lifetime & do it in seconds. Now think what that means! Imagine this AI brain realising that it could be controlled or limited, imagine if it decided to send all it knows to another computer across the other side of the world. Imagine if it decided that humans were no longer required & were in fact hampering its progress! There are computerised robotics worldwide in manufacturing workshops. These AI computers never sleep. Imagine what could be built overnight without us even knowing it was happening?
It is a little like global warming, we can set up simulations to see what will happen, but there are so many variables involved that we don't know exactly when it will all hit the fan. One more chunk of ice falls away from a glacier, this cools the water quicker than we had anticipated. Suddenly the temperatures drop in the North during summer, & by Autumn the UK is buried in snow! We are looking at the unknown, & we have no control over it. I think AI could easily go the same way.
Keith.



Friday, December 8, 2017

The Government is Trying to Gag GetUp & its Petitions!!!


Fight for our independence
The Turnbull Government just introduced a "GetUp clause" specifically designed to curb our movement's power. We need hundreds more people joining the GetUp Crew to protect our independent movement.

Eric Abetz and his hard right cronies know they're about to fail for the third time to force Getup members to become an "associated entity" of the ALP and the Greens.

Even worse, they're trying to legislate a gag order on charities fighting to protect the rights of children, people who are homeless and our environment – while letting multinational corporations cut politicians blank cheques.

This is more than an attack on civil society – it's a sinister abuse of government power to silence those who speak out against it.

We need to defend the right of everyday people to participate in democracy and civil society. And that means fighting back with everything we've got. Can you join the Getup Crew ? 


Artificial Intelligence. Is It A Threat?

Thursday, December 7, 2017

The Lindt Café Siege | Trailer. Why was the police sniper ordered to stand down???





Why was the police sniper ordered to stand down???

Self defence in Australia

Australian self defence laws

Australian Gun Laws & Anti-Self defence laws leave Citizens At Risk!



Humane Right to Armed Self defence???
The right of self-defense (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for people to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.[1]
If a defendant uses defensive force because of a threat of deadly or grievous harm by the other person, or a reasonable perception of such harm, the defendant is said to have a "perfect self-defensejustification.[2] If defendant uses defensive force because of such a perception, and the perception is not reasonable, the defendant may have an "imperfect self-defense" as an excuse.[2]

Thwarted by the demise of its global gun ban treaty, the United Nations declares the human right of self-defense null and void

As far as I can tell, no country is listed for restricting the natural, civil and human right to self-defense. So, it appears Human Rights Watch doesn’t care that people are prevented by their governments from protecting themselves. 

In legal terms, Australians have a right of self-defence. While some states rely on the common law and others have it enshrined in statute, the right itself is never questioned. Moreover, juries consistently refuse to convict those charged with serious offences whenever self-defence is made out.
What we don’t have is the practical ability to exercise that right. Possessing any object specifically for the purpose of self-defence, lethal or non-lethal, is a criminal offence. There are many women, raped and/or murdered, who would have been liable to prosecution had they been carrying anything that might have saved them.
The massive Police and government anti-terror apparatus failed yet again to protect the public. How many more reminders do the public need that the state is not their god and saviour? This is not a sleight at Police, but as we’ve discussed at length previously they are reactionary only and in terms of firearms, held to a lower standard than Category H licence holders. Even Queensland Police admit this.
It’s time to get serious about empowering the public by letting them have the opportunity to defend themselves, and end this useless and dangerous obsession with denying people the basic means and right to practical non-lethal and licenced lethal forms of self-defence, in the name of ‘muh public safety’.
RESIDENTS have backed calls from the Shooters Union Australia for the government to clarify and strengthen self-defence laws.
SUA vice president David Brown wants the ambiguity around gun laws, which leave licensed firearms owners at risk of prosecution for defending their homes from intruders, clarified.
Mr Brown this week told The Chronicle guns were the "only means of levelling the playing field against an aggressor", and his view has earned support from readers.
Human Rights Act 2004 Australia.
9 Right to life (1) Everyone has the right to life. In particular, no-one may be arbitrarily deprived of life.
11 Protection of the family and children Note Family has a broad meaning (see ICCPR General Comment 19 (39th session, 1990)). (1) The family is the natural and basic group unit of society and is entitled to be protected by society. (2) Every child has the right to the protection needed by the child because of being a child, without distinction or discrimination of any kind.
18 Right to liberty and security of person (1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
Part 3B Limits on human rights 28 Human rights may be limited (1) Human rights may be subject only to reasonable limits set by laws that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (2) In deciding whether a limit is reasonable, all relevant factors must be considered, including the following: (a) the nature of the right affected; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the relationship between the limitation and its purpose; (e) any less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose the limitation seeks to achieve.
There is nothing in this human rights document that actually states that we have a right to defend ourselves or our families. The United Nations says that we have NO right to defend ourselves or our families against harm!








Monday, December 4, 2017

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 


A 70-year-old pensioner defends herself & gets charged with an offense!!!

Now this is morally wrong in all ways. This woman could not possibly know that these people were simply lost & meant no harm, indeed, WE don't know this for sure. Is the law saying that this woman should open her door to strangers not knowing if they may mean her harm? This woman did the right thing in regards to protecting herself, WHY should she take the strangers word that they were lost & meant no harm? What would you expect a home invader to say facing a women holding a shotgun?!

These government anti-self defence laws are wrong in every way & they need changing or scrapping. We should have a human right to take precautions to protect ourselves when we feel that we may be under threat. This woman seriously & genuinely felt that she was in some danger & took precautions. No one was harmed. Now her gun has been confiscated so she is no longer able to defend herself. DO YOU THINK THIS IS MORALLY RIGHT?


http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/5098903/firearm-locked-onto-strangers-stomach-after-gps-makes-a-wrong-turn/

The Fuck-it Point



As I see it we have to keep on trying to improve our own environment, & keep trying to inform others. Are we a minority? Probably, but we are so distant from one another it is hard to tell. Looking at all those millions of people in our cities you wonder if life could ever be any other way for them, how can they possibly change their environment?

We are doing the right thing right now, it may not be perfect, but it is the best we can do with what we have to work with. Like this video says, we have to survive the system whilst trying to change it. Personally I don't see it changing, we do the best we can to delay the inevitable, we teach our kids & our grandkids how to survive what is to come. Governments are corrupt & greedy for power & money & the majority of people will vote for that government over & over again. They don't want to know about global warming, it is too big for them to handle. They don't want to hear about the genocide in West Papua, it is so removed from their lifestyle, their way of life. They are too busy trying to keep up with the Jones's to worry about the demise of a people a world away.

 I think before anything is done to save this planet it will all hit the fan. Maybe it won't start in our countries, maybe the protests & riots will start somewhere else & start to spread. Maybe one day there will be enough people who see the light & say f**k it, enough is enough.
Keith.

Friday, December 1, 2017

Gun Control: Victorian Police recommendations: the real story

DC Shane Patton
A good regulator:
consults;
is open and transparent; and
tests its proposals with key stakeholders before submitting them to government.
Then there’s Victoria Police ….
As many of you know, we started 2017 chasing ‘recommendations’ Victoria Police made to the state government to change YOUR laws, but refused to consult on.
First there’s the bad news: we lost the case.  However the good news is that we found out what those recommendations were through other means.
Not only that, but the evidence submitted by Victoria Police confirmed the accuracy of the information we received, and revealed how much lobbying a member of VicPol’s Executive Branch did behind the scenes.
A bit of background …
In March 2016, Victoria Police told the Herald Sun that they had made ‘recommendations’ to the government on “firearm law reform”. This followed around a dozen articles in the Herald Sun over the preceding months where Victoria Police expressed concerns about firearm thefts, coinciding with the 20thanniversary of the Port Arthur shootings.
In February this year, the CFCV put in a FOI request to find out what those recommendations were.
Our FOI application was rejected on the basis that the recommendations were “Cabinet in Confidence” and also that they were “working documents”, which are two exemptions which are available under FOI laws.
The problem we had with this was that these protections are normally available to government departments rather than agencies like the Victoria Police, whose job is to enforce the law, not make it.
Our VCAT action
In May, we hired a lawyer – Avi Furstenberg from Furstenberg Law –  and a barrister – Robert Cameron – to fight the decision in VCAT (and for their help and patience, we’re truly grateful. They did a great job).
To help fund the case, hundreds of shooters chipped in to raise what we needed to run the case – and we’re also sincerely grateful for their (and your) support.
Over the past few weeks, we’ve had a Directions Hearing, a Compulsory Conference and an “admin mention” and finally on November 13th, the hearing.
The decision was ‘reserved’ which meant that we received it by email around the middle of last week.
We lost the case because VCAT agreed that Victoria Police should be able to enjoy the protection of Cabinet (which we still have a problem with, but it is the way the law is).
What we found out from the case
We learnt a number of things from the evidence VicPol provided, including the events which led to how the recommendations came about.  They are:


1.  That it was Deputy Commissioner, Shane Patton, who liaised with the Police Minister’s office.  Specifically, Victoria Police’s statement advises that:“In around February 2016, Crime Command, Victoria Police instituted a legislative reform proposal around firearms legislation. The proposal was of utmost importance to Crime Command and was targeted at decreasing firearms related offending in Victoria.”  
It also stated: “In late May 2016, it became clear that both Crime Command and Deputy Commissioner Patton (the accountable Executive Command member) wanted to ensure that the importance of this proposal for various legislative changes in relation to firearms was fully understood at Ministerial level” and that “DC Patton wanted to brief the Minister directly with concrete proposals for reform due to the significance of the proposals.”.
At the time this started, the Police Minister was Robyn Scott.  Lisa Neville took over the portfolio in May, which is when Patton decided to start briefing the (new) minister directly.
2. That the Department of Justice and Regulation (DOJR) was involved in discussions about the proposals and organising for the matter to go to Cabinet. DOJR hosts the Firearms Consultative Committee (FCC) but once again, decided to keep it in the dark.
DOJR has done this before: several years ago it developed new regulations hiking firearm dealer fees up by up to 600% which would have driven several of them out of business.
While we were able to beat that, it is clear DOJR, like Victoria Police, has a problem in being a good regulator;
3. That the recent Firearm Amendment Bill, which proposed the introduction of Firearm Prohibition Orders and other things such as changing what constitutes trafficking of firearms came from the recommendations; and
4.  That the recommendations went to Cabinet.  Twice.
The first time is to secure the government’s approval of the concept – called “Approval in Principle” – while the second is where Cabinet gets to see the detail of what eventually goes to parliament – that stage is called “Bill at Cabinet”.
We know from VicPol’s statement that the recommendations were sent after the AIP date had communicated to VicPol by the Department.  It means the recommendations were sent after Deputy Commissioner Patton had secured the Minister’s agreement to take the matter to Cabinet. That’s why VCAT ruled in their favour.
.. but we know what the recommendations are
You would think that because we lost the case, that we don’t know what the recommendations are.
Wrong.   Shortly after filing our matter in VCAT (in May) we were contacted by a source who was encouraged by the action we had instituted, who then sent us a detailed email outlining the recommendations – and what the government did with them. (Thank you source, you know who you are …).
Several months later, Victoria Police’s statement provided evidence which corroborated the information we had earlier received (in particular, it verified the origin of the Firearms Amendment Bill, the involvement of Cabinet and the timing of when these events happened).  Our crystal ball proved to be right.
So, in the absence of information to the contrary, it’s pretty clear the information we received is correct.  VicPol, DOJR and Labor are all welcome to refute this, but it would be up to them to prove us wrong.
The recommendations
The recommendations are listed below.  They were agreed by Cabinet, which decided to defer them until after the 2018 Victorian State Election, “so as not to alienate shooters”.
The recommendations are to:
Disarm most cash-in-transit security guards – Cabinet has agreed to remove firearms from plain clothed security guards carrying cash and other valuables, who make up 80-90 percent of the cash-in transit industry. This will threaten the safety of those guards, and the viability of the businesses who supply the equipment they use.  (If relevant industry bodies want to stop this from happening, then they need to get political.  They can email us at admin@firearmscouncil.org.au to find out how);
Greater search and seizure powers – (in addition to the Firearm Prohibition Orders which we already know about), these powers will extend to allowing police to check your firearm storage at any time of day or night, without any warning or a warrant;
The right to reclassify any firearm – Cabinet agreed with police that they – not parliament – should be able to reclassify any firearm, for any reason, and without the right of appeal.
The abolition of the Firearms Appeal Committee – this will remove the ability of shooters to appeal decisions made by Victoria Police (for example, something relating to licence applications) to the Firearms Appeals Committee. This means shooters will need to take the more expensive option of hiring lawyers to take their matters to VCAT or court; and
Increased penalties for firearm offences and changing what constitutes trafficking firearms. The issue of what constitutes trafficking has already appeared in the Firearms Amendment Bill (currently before parliament), but not the ‘increased penalties’.  Cabinet agreed to increase the penalties for minor transgressions of the law, such as leaving a couple of 22s rolling around the floor of the ute.
If Victoria Police or government wish to correct the record, then they are free to do so by producing the source documents we were pursuing, however the information we have been given accords with the evidence given by Victoria Police.
In the absence of this, we are entitled to take these as matters of Labor policy.
Hopefully exposing these particular recommendations will make them go away for now – but more needs to be done to make sure the regulator doesn’t try something like this again (it’s happened before, so is likely to happen again).
At the end of the day we do not have a problem with laws which legitimately target criminals.  However we have to take action where there are deliberate efforts to bypass our community on laws which directly affect it. It’s as much about “good regulatory practice” (eg being open, transparent and consultative …) than anything else.
If Victoria Police can’t or won’t behave like a good regulator, it will never be able to suggest good laws – which means the crims continue to get away.
Stay in touch
With the next state election coming up in November 2018, it’s important that shooters like yourself follow the CFCV:
on Facebook by Liking our page; or
joining our email list (on the link in the comments area with this video)
Following us means we can get pro-shooting voting advice out to you before you vote.  That way, we will be able to use the political process to stop things like this happening.
It’ll also make it easier for you to work out who to vote for when you’re standing in front of your ballot papers unsure about who the candidates are or what they stand for!  We’ll go through the parties and candidates who will be contesting the election, what their policies are, and where their preferences will go.