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 ….
No comments:
Post a Comment