"Help us change Australia's self-defence laws!"

[pajamatime]

Help us change Australia's self-defence laws!
The Liberal Democrats believe you should be able to defend yourself, your family and your home against criminals. The problem is, possession of items like pepper sprays, mace and personal tasers is illegal, as is carrying a pocket knife.

Please sign our petition to demand the government change Australia's self-defence laws to allow us to protect ourselves.

http://ldp.org.au/campaign/self-defence/

[adam]

Signed.

Australia's government is absolutely pathetic how it continues to allow innocent people to be victims. Women not even allowed to defend yourself from rape or abuse with pepper spray. An embarrassment and shame about how little the government really cares for it's people even though they continue to say they do to the media...

[happyhunter]

I've heard than some people carry those prohibited items as a form of protest. Just sayin..

[<<Genesis93>>]

Its not the self defence laws.... its the WEAPONS laws.....

Oh, and....... ANOTHER POLL?!?!?!?

[adam]

Its not the self defence laws.... its the WEAPONS laws.....

Oh, and....... ANOTHER POLL?!?!?!?

Actually I think it's both.

You're right - it's the weapon laws in regards to us not even being able to have pepper spray in our own home.

But IMO it's also self defense laws in that if we attack an intruder in our own home - we should be immune to being sued by the said criminal, or prosecution. Castle law FTW.

[<<Genesis93>>]

The laws will always consider proportionality.
How you defend yourself is irrelevant, the law will NEVER be changed to prescribe defence with a gun as OK... NEVER.

What needs to change is;

1 - the 'genuine reason' genuine need' must be removed from the law. Then law abiding owners may own a firearm if for example they wish to keep it IN THE HOUSE. for WHATEVER reason they want.....

The introduction of the need/reason in 96 was primarily to stop self defence use IMHO.

Before 96 we were allowed to own for self defence, effectively due to the reason not being excluded. What our 'leaders' did 20 years ago was to take away our PRESCRIBED right to arms for self defence, bear with me -

The BILL of RIGHTS of 1688, is STILL a current law in many states, including VICTORIA, ACT, I believe NSW too..... this is a significant law which provides various ancient legal rights, including one that our representatives rely on everytime they stand up in Parliament or in front of a committee – PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE which gives them immunity to say what they want without fear of legal penalty.... the one other right in the same document is the RIGHT to ARMS for DEFENCE subject to the laws... although it mentions protestants, the inference was that at the time the opposition, the Catholics were already armed or to that effect, so I understand.....

So, right to arms for defence, and it provided for the law to regulate such arms NOT TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT ENTIRELY!! which is what the garden gnome did..... he is a traitor.

So back in 1996 our rights to possess arm for defence, which ARE inherent and inalienable and were due to the state of civil war / uprising back in the 'old country' - formalised in a bill in 1688 and in legislation in 1689 were indeed not until 307 years later, by sleight of hand, smooth talking with emotive 'for our safety / think of the children' talk, stolen, by the specific sector of the community, it must be noted who rely on armed guards for their own safety. I'm quite sure John Howard had armed security with him when he moves around...

Back in 1996 there was no one with a loud enough voice for us to opposed it....perhaps 'we' were lulled into a false sense of security, the police will protect us.... or we just no longer recognised what constituted our rights.

2 – The weapons laws must be overhauled. Carrying many everyday implements, whether knives or whatever must be reconsidered. We have the ridiculous situation where carrying a pearing knife to cut your apple, or even a sheathed knife on your belt... because you use a knife through the day, maybe you just want it in case you need it – is a criminal offence!?!?!?
We can go to Kmart and buy a kitchen knife, or a pointy filleting or other knife, yet double sided collectors knives, historic British daggers are prohibited? Its incomprehensible, as they do exactly the same thing.

[happyhunter]

..yet double sided collectors knives, historic British daggers are prohibited?

Take one length of spring steel, one drill, one 1/8th drill bit, a file, a fire, and a bucket of sump oil for the quench and presto.

[vexesus]

We can go to Kmart and buy a kitchen knife, or a pointy filleting or other knife, yet double sided collectors knives, historic British daggers are prohibited? Its incomprehensible, as they do exactly the same thing.

Double sided knives are illegal?

Why, because they do twice as much damage as as single edge knife?

[Gwion]

Having a chat with a copper some years ago about violent suburbs in Melb. He was saying how the perception is/was that St. Kilda and some western suburbs were most dangerous where as Dandenong was actually the murder capital of Australia and the most common weapon used was the cheap old kitchen knife.

Things may have changed since then but a few statistics remain the same:

You are most likely to be killed in Australia if you are male in your own home, by someone you know after you have been drinking.

[on_one_wheel]

Having a chat with a copper some years ago about violent suburbs in Melb. He was saying how the perception is/was that St. Kilda and some western suburbs were most dangerous where as Dandenong was actually the murder capital of Australia and the most common weapon used was the cheap old kitchen knife.

Things may have changed since then but a few statistics remain the same:

You are most likely to be killed in Australia if you are male in your own home, by someone you know after you have been drinking.

Just like George Thorogood
I drink alone
Yeah with nobody else

I guess that's reduced my chances of being stabbed by a pissed mate by a fair whack.

[on_one_wheel]

Having a chat with a copper some years ago about violent suburbs in Melb. He was saying how the perception is/was that St. Kilda and some western suburbs were most dangerous where as Dandenong was actually the murder capital of Australia and the most common weapon used was the cheap old kitchen knife.

Things may have changed since then but a few statistics remain the same:

You are most likely to be killed in Australia if you are male in your own home, by someone you know after you have been drinking.

Just like George Thorogood
I drink alone
Yeah with nobody else

I guess that's reduced my chances of being stabbed by a pissed mate by a fair whack.

[Gwion]

Hehe...

[gazza]

I've heard than some people carry those prohibited items as a form of protest. Just sayin..

Lots of people have pepper spray. The trouble with having a gun license is you have too much to lose.

[Supaduke]

Unfortunately it's Australia's tendency to govern to the lowest common denominator that is once again biting us in the arse. A few punk kids misuse knives so they get banned and we all suffer. Same deal with tasers, mace etc. All it would take is one person to get mugged or a 7/11 to get robbed with someone wielding said device and Kapow!! It's all over for the rest of us. Australia is a big fan of banning things.

[Sydor]

Self defence was not included in the list of "genuine reasons" because inclusion of self defence would make all requirements for "safe storage" automatically unreasonable.

[Oldbloke]

I've heard than some people carry those prohibited items as a form of protest. Just sayin..

Lots of people have pepper spray. The trouble with having a gun license is you have too much to lose.

OR a can of fly spay or paint

[doc]

Doesn't fly spray have the potential to create more harm / damage than pepper spray?

I guess it doesn't matter though - if we can't legally possess pepper spray, what option does one have. As for reasons - arachnophobia is probably genuine enough.

[Norton]

I imagine it's all much the same to the person copping it in the face.

[Pennsylvania Yank]

It is my understanding that the vast majority of Australians never quite embraced the idea of a right to armed self defense, in the home or otherwise. That is just one of a few reasons why the so-called buyback happened so swiftly and completely. The idea that semi-autos were important and necessary for defense of self, of family, and of community was a significantly foreign enough idea among the populace to allow nefarious forces to be able to ban and confiscate them with little resistance.

Registration of weapons is the key to future confiscation, but such a measure also requires gun owners who in general do not have the political power or the overwhelming will to act to preserve their rights and freedoms. Many criticize Americans for our "gun culture", and say that our gun rights organizations are too rigid and too rabid, but both these factors have helped saved us from the same fate.

I suspect that in order to gain your right to self defense back, you will first need to end(or at least render ineffective) all of the guilt and hand-wringing and anguish and fearmongering over Port Arthur currently being perpetuated by your media, academia, in your court system, and within your government and non-governmental.entities. But I suspect that the political power that is gained by pounding the memory of that massacre into everyone's head on a constant basis is simply too great for a lot of people to give up willingly. If your effort is successful, it will take a long hard journey.

[doc]

You are right. The media here is almost owned by the left. The only way that things will change is with a huge backlash.

What's worse - Ideology has set in and affected many people causing them to believe in fantasies. Only a rude wake up will shake them otherwise, and even then it may not. (I recall a French father telling his child that we'll fight (the terrorists) with flowers after one of their attacks, and the confused (but wiser) child asking how can you fight people with guns with flowers)...

[Gamerancher]

Biggest problem for us is that we don't have your "2nd Amendment". Nowhere in our laws or constitution is the "right to bear arms".

[doc]

I think one of the fundamental differences about the US and Australia (or the rest of the world) is that the US was founded on the notion that the government should never be completely trusted or given total power over the people, and the government should be there for the people - not the other way around.

Whereas in Australia is is more the people can't be trusted and that the government knows best. (After all - we started as an island of convicts)...

Just look at the fines dished out for 'our own protection and our own good', or the whole "Don't do anything - call 000 and wait for the police to arrive".

[Gamerancher]

Doc wrote, "after all - we started as an island of convicts"
Too true mate! With convict ancestors on both sides of my family I'm glad our "background checks" don't go too far back.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Biggest problem for us is that we don't have your "2nd Amendment". Nowhere in our laws or constitution is the "right to bear arms".

Well........ that's not entirely correct.

[Gamerancher]

Please share???

[<<Genesis93>>]

Bill of Rights of 1688.

[Gamerancher]

You'll want deep pockets if you want to take that one through our court system as your defense.

[<<Genesis93>>]

You'll want deep pockets if you want to take that one through our court system as your defense.

Who's taking it through the court system?
Point is the Bill of Rights allows for arms for defence, and is law in many if not all states today.

..it is a law that is never mentioned.... all the mouth pieces claim we have no rights, no bill of rights.... thats complete Bulltish - even the Commonwealth constitution commentary states that the 'constitution has no bill of rights'... because technically it is not mentioned IN the constitution, however many states (perhaps all) either legislate the Bill of Rights of 1688 fully, or legislate for the application of the Law (Imperial acts application / interpretation Acts)

What does it say?

7. That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.

So yes, we have the right to arms for our defence and as allowed by law..... trouble is they have taken the 'by law' part and in 1996, fully legislated that 'right' away when they brought in the PAM laws and the excuse/reason crap specifically excluding self defence CONTRARY to the provisions of the Bill of rights....

Vast majority of Aussies have no idea its Aussie law today, and thats consistent with the general sentiment, that we live in somewhat of a fantasy.... we believe the Prime Minister is in charge, is the head of state, is even a formal role made by law, that we 'need' a political party system, that we do not have the right to self defence (weapon or not)...that everything will be alright tomorrow and the second world war was the last one.

Anyway, I think the BoR provisions would make an interesting appeal to the Chief commissioner(s), Minister(s) for Police, Premier(s) and ultimately the Governor(s).... I want my arms for self defence back – you had no right to legislate the right away.

[Jandamurra]

@Genesis
Bravo!
Someone had to bring up the Bill of Rights from the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
Trouble is, if people don't know something they tend to dismiss or ignore it.
But yes, the Bill of Rights is still in force.

[Wobble]

So yes, we have the right to arms for our defence and as allowed by law..... trouble is they have taken the 'by law' part and in 1996, fully legislated that 'right' away when they brought in the PAM laws and the excuse/reason crap specifically excluding self defence CONTRARY to the provisions of the Bill of rights....

So what's the bottom line then, if something is legal in one part and illegal in another what determines which takes precedent or is enforced?