40,000 guns seized in crackdown

[Remmah]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12208288-1702,00.html

40,000 guns seized in crackdown


MORE than 40,000 weapons were seized in crackdowns across New South Wales, the state's police commissioner Ken Moroney said today.


Mr Moroney said that, as part of the blitz, thousands of weapons were destroyed because police were not satisfied that the firearms were being kept securely, or that
"possession of that firearm was necessarily further warranted".


(I suspect there were no trials and decisions by the police were final.)

[iverglas]

1. "(I suspect there were no trials and decisions by the police were final.)"

Do you?

Why would you suspect that the citizens and other people residing in a mature democracy would have no recourse against actions of the executive branch of their government?

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act -- expressly modelled on Canada's constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- was adopted in 1990:

http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/nz01000_.html

Section 3 <Application>

This Bill of rights applies only to acts done
(a) By the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the government of New Zealand; or
(b) By any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law.

Section 4 <Other Enactments>

No court shall, in relation to any enactment (whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Bill of Rights),
(a) Hold any provision of the enactment to be impliedly repealed or revoked, or to be in any way invalid or ineffective; or
(b) Decline to apply any provision of this enactment by reason only that the provision is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights.

<the legislation is only quasi-constitutional; it does not give the judicial branch the power to invalidate acts of the legislative branch; this is consistent with the principle of the supremacy of Parliament, which Canada has now limited>

Section 5 <Justified Limitations>

Subject to Section 4 of this Bill of Rights, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified justified in a free and democratic society.

Section 21 <Unreasonable Search and Seizure>

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence, or otherwise.

Section 25 <Fair Trial>

Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights:
(a) The right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court:
(b) The right to be tried without undue delay:
(c) The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:
(d) The right not to be compelled to be a witness or to confess guilt:
(e) The right to be present at the trial and to present a defence:
(f) The right to examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses for the defence under the same conditions as the prosecution:
(g) The right, if convicted of an offence in respect of which the penalty has been varied between the commission of the offence and sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser penalty:
(h) The right, if convicted of the offence, to appeal according to the law to a higher court against the conviction or against the sentence or against both:
(i) The right, in the case of a child, to be dealt with in a manner that takes account of the child's age.

Section 27 <Remedies>

(1) Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person's right, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.
(2) Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.
(3) Every person has the right to bring civil proceedings against, and to defend civil proceedings brought by, the Crown, and to have those proceedings heard, according to law, in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals.

I'm seeing a requirement that executive action meet a set of standards.

Anyone who was the subject of this action would, it seems pretty clear to me, be entirely free to challenge it as not in accordance with the law or the principles of natural justice.

What could apparently not be done -- which could be done in Canada or the US -- would be to challenge the law itself as being in violation of the rights legislation. However, that does not mean that legislation cannot be challenged in NZ on the grounds of violation of what is known in the British-derived parliamentary system as "constitutional convention" or the fundamental principles inherent in government by parliamentary democracy.

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/other/pamphlets/2001/legal_system.html

New Zealand's Constitution

A constitution is central to a country's legal system because it defines the principles on which the system is based. It sets up the most important institutions of government, states their principal powers and makes broad rules about how those powers can be used. In some countries the constitution is written down in one place and that document is called the constitution.

New Zealand's constitution, which is the foundation of our legal system, is drawn from a number of important statutes, judicial decisions, and customary rules known as constitutional conventions.

New Zealand does not have a single written constitution. New Zealand's constitutional arrangements can be found in a number of key documents. These, together with New Zealand's constitutional conventions, form the nation's constitution. Key written sources include the Constitution Act 1986, the New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act 1990, the Electoral Act 1993, the Treaty of Waitangi and the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives. Aspects of the constitution are also found in United Kingdom and other New Zealand legislation, judgments of the courts, and broad constitutional principles and conventions.

The Rule of Law

The rule of law also forms a significant part of the New Zealand constitution. The principles of the rule of law are not easily defined, but encompass ideas such as:

the powers exercised by parliamentarians and officials are based on legal authority;

there are minimum standards of justice to which the law must conform, eg laws affecting individual liberty should be reasonably certain and clear;

the law should have safeguards against the abuse of wide discretionary powers;

unfair discrimination should not be allowed by the law;

a person should not be deprived of his or her liberty, status or other substantial interest without the opportunity of a fair hearing before an impartial court or tribunal.

The prerogative writs -- mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, or the more modern "judicial review" manifestations of the old writs -- are always available for challenging executive action on such a basis.

Now maybe you could present the basis that you might have relied on in forming this suspicion you claim to have.

[MyMouth]

2. "Were Destroyed"

Mr Moroney said that, as part of the blitz, thousands of weapons were destroyed because police were not satisfied that the firearms were being kept securely, or that "possession of that firearm was necessarily further warranted".

Seems final to me.

[benEzra]

3. This is precisely the type of scenario...

that causes we gun owners to be very skeptical of "safe storage" laws. Not that we don't favor safe storage (our family's firearms are kept in a safe, FWIW), but that making "secure storage" a prerequisite for gun ownership allows anti-gun officials to continuously upgrade the definition of "secure storage" to gradually reduce the number of people "authorized" to own firearms, and/or curtail quick access to loaded firearms even by authorized users.

Here in NC, we do have a safe storage law in regards to access by minors, but it does not specify what method must be used, and there are no home inspections. A felony is committed if a minor gains access to a firearm and harm ensues, but the law is constructed in such a way that anti-gun officials cannot dictate how guns must be stored. In the current political climate, anything further is susceptible to abuse by the anti-self-defense lobby.

[iverglas]

5. awwww

Here, this might make your trip a little easier.



You might want to heed this one too:



http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/

[iverglas]

4. ya think?

Are you actually asserting that no one whose firearm was destroyed would have a remedy for the loss if the forfeiture and destruction were subsequently determined to have been unlawful?

If I knock your spectacles off and stomp them to smithereens, that's pretty final too. You still get to sue me.

*If* you are alleging that there would be no remedy for such improper forfeiture and destruction -- are you? -- where might you be getting this idea?

Same question as before. Not answered so far. Answer?

[RoeBear]

6. Do they pay for

sentimental value?

If they dice up Grampa's ole double barrel Purdey
how would they make me 'whole' again?

Or let's say it's the other side of the spectrum. They take and destroy an inexpensive gun. How much money can I afford to fight the limitless resources of the government?

[MyMouth]

7. Store them and wait.

Confiscate the nasty nasty firearms, and when they have been determined, by a court, to have been owned etc illegally, destroy them. Is that so hard? It would certainly curb the damage a power-hungry sheriff could do.

'Course, then, you don't get your nifty video of thousands of guns being run through a shredder. And if we're going to violate a person's property rights, we may as well get some good propaganda out of it.

Now please, resume your condescension.

[iverglas]

8. well let's just look a little more closely, shall we?

Mr Moroney said NSW police carried out a big audit and compliance check of all firearms in NSW last year.

He said the audit, combined with the NSW Government's gun buyback, had seized 43,000 weapons, most of which were firearms.

In total, 185,000 licensed firearm holders were identified, holding about 600,000 registered firearms between them, he said.

Mr Moroney said that, as part of the blitz, thousands of weapons were destroyed because police were not satisfied that the firearms were being kept securely, or that "possession of that firearm was necessarily further warranted".

"Some 43,000 weapons were seized and subsequently destroyed by NSW police during (20)03-04," he said.

Gosh. Sounds ominous. Sounds authoritarian. Sounds like lots of people had grandpappy's musket seized and crushed.

Well, no, it doesn't. Does anybody ever actually read what s/he is talking about before talking about it?

Mr Moroney said a number of private security firms had closed following a police audit of the industry.

"We're working with the security industry of course in terms of the ballistic testing of all firearms in possession of the security industry itself," the commissioner said.

"... We've sought to apply a strong audit and compliance regime with the industry itself.

"As a consequence of that a number of private security firms have had to close down.

"We're not satisfied with the level of security that they've been taking."

The security industry had strongly supported the police actions, he said.

Detective Superintendent John Kerlatec said so far this year six guns had been stolen from security guards compared to about 10 last year and more than 60 in 2003.

Does it really really look like the police were rounding up grandpappies' muskets?

Not to me it doesn't.

I also don't see any basis whatsoever for any wild speculation that anything at all was destroyed before anybody at all had an opportunity to make representations against the action, or that anybody who had grounds for challenging the action didn't do so or didn't succeed.

The firearms in question were destroyed during fiscal 2003-2004. There is nothing at all in the article that says they were destroyed the day they were confiscated, or the week they were confiscated, or the month they were confiscated.

Relevant facts, anyone?

http://www.colfo.org.nz/Reference_Library/Research/Guide_to_New_Zealand_Firearms_Laws.php

STORAGE: when not in use firearms must be locked in a secure rack or cabinet. Police check and approve this storage before issuing a licence. Holders of endorsed licences are required to meet a higher security standard and are checked periodically. Ammunition must be stored securely and separately from firearms.

... Around 225,000 New Zealanders have firearms licences and a recent Government inquiry estimates that New Zealand civilians hold between 700,000 and 1,000,000 firearms.

Nearly half a million responsible New Zealanders used firearms in the year to Dec 1996. They safely fired around 15 million cartridges.

Each year around 5,500 New Zealanders apply to the Police for firearms licences. Almost all applicants list hunting or pest destruction as the reason for their application.

New Zealand has a population of just over 4 million, just for our info. So 1 in 17 of them -- or maybe 1 in 10 of the population old enough to have a licence, at a guess -- have firearms licences. And there is nearly 1 "civilian"-owned firearm in the country for every 4 NZers.

Damn, they're doing a bad job of rounding those things up.

[diatribal]

10. Those would be relevant facts.

If they were talking about guns seized in New Zealand.

New South Wales is Australia.

Either way, good work Australia!!!!!

[iverglas]

14. motor skills failed again

My batting average is about 0 this week.

Somehow, I read "New" and stopped reading.

I know all about where New South Wales is, believe it or not.


Now, Australians unfortunately don't have the same quasi-constitutional rights protection that New Zealanders have. I was rather intimately familiar with New Zealand's already, and that may have been what prompted my rush to cite them. Australia's are a different kettle of fish, and the idea of adopting a Bill of Rights has been the subject of much discussion for some time:
http://www.apo.org.au/webboard/results.chtml?filename_num=00929
http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/bills-of-rights-resources.asp

http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/bill_of_rights.php
(Oh look ... New South Wales ... making a wry-grimace idiotfacethingy)

26 May 2004 (Sydney): The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties expressed its support for an interim statutory Human Rights Act for all Australians. CCL remains committed to a constitutional Bill of Rights, but CCL accepts that in the meantime a strong statutory Human Rights Act would help to protect the rights and freedoms of all Australians.

Nonetheless. The Australian constitution -- consisting as it does, in the British tradition, of both written and unwritten provisions -- includes the rule of law, and due process as part of that principle, and the availability of the prerogative writs to enforce the rights (and also some specific provisions regarding procedural rights) --

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter3.htm

75. In all matters--

... (v.) In which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth:

the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.

There has been debate for a long time, in many places, over the advisability of written vs. unwritten rules in this respect. Canadians held the debate over the period leading up to the adoption of the new Constitution, with its entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in 1982. The principle of parliamentary supremacy -- the ultimate authority of the elected representatives of the people -- is a strong one in the parliamentary tradition, and there remains considerable resistance to fettering the exercise of that power.

The Australian Capital Territory has enacted express rights-protection legislation.
http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2004-5/current/pdf/2004-5.pdf
Unfortunately, I can't find an html version and I have so much stuff open right now that I'm not gonna risk crashing it all by opening a stupid pdf file.


So yup, I had my geography seriously wrong. But the points I made -

- that it is false to say that any decision by the Australian police is "final" and there is no rational basis for "suspecting" that it is otherwise,

and

- that the fact that something was done does not mean that it could not have been prevented from being done, or that no remedy is available for the doing of it

apply pretty much mutatis mutandis to New South Wales.


I'll just go back to putting my key in my transmission now, or my diet coke in my ear, if you'll excuse me.

[skippythwndrdog]

13. What relevance does New Zealand have here?

None. Check your geography. At least get the country right.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. It says 40,000 were seized, and thousands destroyed.

It doesn't say how many thousands were destroyed. Could be all 40,000 or it could be 2,000.

How many might have been owned by, for instance, an 80 year old widow who had her husband's shotgun sitting in a back closet for 25 years. When they took the weapons she says "Eh, keep it. Glad to be rid of it." And how many were found to have been stolen?

Now I don't know this. But the point is, neither do you. We have not been given the facts. Were 38,000 of those weapons eventually restored to their owners under the understanding that they would be properly stored as mandated by law?

On Edit --

I went back and read the link, and yes, 43,000 weapons (not all of them firearms) were destroyed. That includes those that were voluntarily given up, as I suggested above, in a buy-back program. Forty-three thousand, out of a million.

Not much cause for alarm.

[iverglas]

11. ah, the things we don't know

It says 40,000 were seized, and thousands destroyed.
It doesn't say how many thousands were destroyed. Could be all 40,000 or it could be 2,000.

Actually, it did say.

"Some 43,000 weapons were seized and subsequently destroyed by NSW police during (20)03-04"

It doesn't say that they were all seized as part of the blitz in question, of course. So yes, we have two apparently overlapping sets and we don't know the extent of the overlap.

How many might have been owned by, for instance, an 80 year old widow who had her husband's shotgun sitting in a back closet for 25 years. When they took the weapons she says "Eh, keep it. Glad to be rid of it."

And I'm assuming that such a seizure wouldn't be a problem for anybody.

What it seems to me that the police were focusing on, from the balance of the article, was licensees other than private individuals, who held multiple firearms.

And how many were found to have been stolen?

That I don't quite understand. They were auditing people with firearms licences, so presumably the firearms they found weren't stolen firearms; certainly not many of them were likely to have been. Do you mean that they might have found that some such people's firearms had been stolen and therefore weren't in their possession as they were supposed to be?

Now I don't know this. But the point is, neither do you. We have not been given the facts. Were 38,000 of those weapons eventually restored to their owners under the understanding that they would be properly stored as mandated by law?

Apparently not. Apparently the 43,000 that were destroyed were destroyed. (Again, the overlapping sets -- some of those seem to have come from a buy-back program.)

But none of this has anything to do with anything I have said, other than the information I reproduced to demonstrate the apparent targets of the police's interest.

I was responding to an allegation made in the original post, and a subsequent post.

The first was:

(I suspect there were no trials and decisions by the police were final.)

The statement "there were no trials and decisions by the police were final" is quite simply FALSE, and I have yet to ascertain what basis anyone who suspected that it was true had for that suspicion.

There may have been no trials (or other appropriate forms of due process), but the decisions by the police quite simply WERE NOT FINAL. People in New Zealand have due process rights that apply to seizures of firearms just as they apply to any other executive action. If someone had wanted a "trial", s/he would have got it.

The second was:

Mr Moroney said that, as part of the blitz, thousands of weapons were destroyed because police were not satisfied that the firearms were being kept securely, or that "possession of that firearm was necessarily further warranted".

Seems final to me.

And in this case, we had a little attempt at a diversionary skirmish. I had not said that the destruction of the firearms was not "final". I said that there was no ground for "suspecting" that THE DECISIONS BY THE POLICE were final, because they WERE NOT.

Maybe there are those among us who don't grasp the issues here, and that would be unfortunate, but I may not be able to do anything about it.

*I* am not the one claiming to know what went on in this instance. I am neither second-guessing nor applauding the authorities who took this action.

I assume that if someone rather more directly affected by the action was concerned that it had been taken without, for instance, affording due process, someone would have done something about it. But whether anyone did anything about it or not, anyone COULD HAVE done so.

Police decisions are no more "final" in New Zealand than they are in the United States. And I have no idea what drives anyone to say things that convey the impression that s/he thinks that a sister liberal democracy is a fascist police state.

Apparently the urge stems from disagreement with the public policies adopted and implemented in those other places. That's dandy, but it is not grounds for insinuating that the manner in which those policies are applied violates due process rights, or that the people of the countries in question have no due process rights.

[skippythwndrdog]

12. What the hell does New Zealand have to do with it?

We're talking about Australia. NSW is in Australia. This is evidenced by the website, http://www.nsw.gov.au/.

[iverglas]

15. hmm, evidence

This is evidenced by the website,
http://www.nsw.gov.au /.

Sadly, your reference to that website seems to be the first in this thread. The link actually provided was to

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12208288-1702,00.html

It is not at all uncommon for the Australian news media to be used as sources for news about New Zealand ... as they were, for instance, throughout this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=78083

Ya got me.

Now if only the people who have made the unsupported and misleading statements about Australia in this thread would acknowledge the same.

They've been got. Whether they acknowledge it or not.

[skippythwndrdog]

19. What in God's name are you going on about this time?

[MrSandman]

20. New South Wales...New Zealand...

Who knows?

[slackmaster]

16. This is exactly why I oppose gun licensing and strict "safe storage" laws

The Australian system gives police the power to perform warrantless searches of people's homes simply because they are known to own firearms. Police can go on mass "fishing expiditions" and make arbitrary decisions about who gets to keep their possessions and who does not.

The process of indictment and trial, is completely bypassed. Accusation of non-compliance by law enforcement (i.e. executive power) determines guilt, with no check by the judiciary, no due process to defend one's self against criminal charges and even punishment.

Of course Australians who have only unregistered firearms are not subject to these actions. This is a terrific way to foster respect for and compliance with the law, kind of like the California state legislature has done in its ham-handed treatment of owners of certain kinds of rifles stigmatized as "assault weapons". Here too, people who blew off registration have less reason to fear JBT raids than do people who have faithfully complied with the law.

[iverglas]

17. such bald and false assertions

Like, oh look, this one here:

Accusation of non-compliance by law enforcement (i.e. executive power) determines guilt, with no check by the judiciary, no due process to defend one's self against criminal charges and even punishment.

If only the folks making them would offer a shred of evidence to support them ... or to counter the abundant evidence I have provided to show that the statements are completely and rather despicably false.


Of course Australians who have only unregistered firearms are not subject to these actions. This is a terrific way to foster respect for and compliance with the law, ...

Yeah. Jeez. And if you drive a car without having a driver's licence, you can't get your licence taken away. Amazing, isn't it? Why would anybody bother getting a driver's licence?

Criminals don't obey laws ... that's how I thought the mantra went. How come everybody's always so bloody surprised when that's what happens?

Damned if I can't be charged with driving without a licence if caught, though. And damned if all those Australians who have unregistered firearms can't be charged with having 'em if they're caught, too.

Does the fact that some people are going to drive cars with expired licence plates mean that we should stop requiring that cars be registered, and prohibit police from checking to see that they are?


I wonder. What occupying power descended on New South Wales and imposed a Firearms Act on its people? -- and then somehow managed to wipe out all those centuries of common law, and the Australian Constitution, which had guaranteed their right to seek judicial review of executive action ...

It seems I'll never know.

[skippythwndrdog]

21. Are you for real?

[iverglas]

23. Unfortunately, I'm assuming you are.

And I guess you must be saying that the statement made by slackmaster:

Accusation of non-compliance by law enforcement (i.e. executive power) determines guilt, with no check by the judiciary, no due process to defend one's self against criminal charges and even punishment.

was not FALSE. (Goodness knows what you're saying at any given time, but that's my best guess here. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure.)

It was. It was utterly and completely false and dog knows why anyone would have made it. As I have now ... after politely waiting for the makers of such statements to produce their own evidence ... demonstrated to perfection.

So I sure hope you weren't hitching your wagon to that particular star, eh?

[benEzra]

24. The state's POLICE COMMISSIONER...

said that the police make that determination, to wit:

(quoting from the article in question)

Mr Moroney said that, as part of the blitz, thousands of weapons were destroyed because police were not satisfied that the firearms were being kept securely, or that "possession of that firearm was necessarily further warranted".

So the police are given the authority to make the determination, and it appears from the fact that they are confiscating AND destroying the guns in question that their determination is de facto final.

[iverglas]

25. gosh ... and I suppose that in a police state ...

... what the Police Commissioner said would be more important than what the LAW says. (I know, you haven't bothered to read the LAW that I reproduced in my previous post in this thread ... so you get to go on pretending to be ignorant of it?)

So if we start by calling NSW a police state ...

Of course, we also have to be willing to accept a newspaper report (which doesn't even use quotation marks) as gospel as to what the Police Commissioner said, and pretend that, even if it were true as gospel, we never ever hear people speaking in any kind of shorthand when they convey facts ...


So the police are given the authority to make the determination, and it appears from the fact that they are confiscating AND destroying the guns in question that their determination is de facto final.

And it appears that as long as you don't read what the LAW says (and have no basis for asserting that the police did not comply with the LAW), then you can just make all the false statements you like and pretend that you think they're true.

Well, try again.

Police are NOT given the authority to make the determination as to the disposition of firearms they have confiscated -- whether to return them, destroy them or do something else with them -- so your little conclusion from that little FALSE premise is worthless.

the NSW Firearms Act:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102

80. Disposal of surrendered or seized firearms

(1) A Local Court or the Children's Court may, on application by a police officer or by any person who claims to be the owner of a firearm surrendered to or seized by a police officer in accordance with this Act or section 23A (4) of the Security Industry Act 1997 order that the firearm:

(a) be forfeited to the Crown, or
(b) be returned to the person claiming to be owner of the firearm, or
(c) be otherwise disposed of in such manner as the Court thinks fit.

Now. Let's see how we can interpret that as meaning that "police are given the authority to make the determination" and that "their determination is de facto final".

Unless you can come up with some evidence that police BROKE THE LAW by failing to obtain a court order for the destruction of the firearms in question, you seem to have a problem.

Your statement seems to be false.

It does NOT appear that police are given any authority to make any determination other than that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a firearm is not being kept in accordance with the Firearms Act (you know, pretty much like they make the determination that there are reasonable grounds to believe that anybody has done anything) -- in which case they are REQUIRED to seize the firearm (you know, like they are REQUIRED to do various other things they are paid to do) -- or that they even MAKE the decision regarding destruction, let alone make a final decision.

What they do is

- decide that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a firearm is not being kept in accordance with the law

- seize the firearm

- apply to a court for forfeiture of the firearm and/or permission to destroy or otherwise dispose of it

- make a case to the court on such an application (or on application by the owner of the firearm) for the order they are seeking

- dispose of the firearm AS ORDERED BY THE COURT.

It might have "appeared" otherwise to someone who read a newspaper report and applied the premise that NSW is a police state when interpreting what the newspaper reported ... but of course I have no clue why anyone would do that and can hardly know how to respond to the conclusions that anyone applying such a stupid and offensive premise might purport to reach.

[iverglas]

26. I'm sure that slackmaster would want

... an opportunity to retract his false (but of course negligently so, I must assume, never intentionally) statement:

The process of indictment and trial, is completely bypassed. Accusation of non-compliance by law enforcement (i.e. executive power) determines guilt, with no check by the judiciary, no due process to defend one's self against criminal charges and even punishment.

As my post about the actual LAW makes plain:

- there is no charge or sentence, and accordingly all reference to "indictment" or "trial" is irrelevant;

- since there is no question of "guilt", there is no "accusation";

- the entire process is governed by law and subject to judicial oversight in the form of the application that police must make to the court in order to dispose of seized weapons;

- there is complete due process afforded to firearms owners, who all are entitled to apply to the court for the return of their firearms, including by opposing the application made by the police;

- there are no criminal charges to be defended against and there is no punishment to be avoided.

There is a police determination that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the conditions on which a firearm is held have been violated.

There is a seizure by the police of the firearm from the owner who has (there are reasonable grounds to believe) violated the conditions on which it is held.

There is a judicial process for determining the outcome of the seizure in which both the state and the owner of the firearm are entitled to participate.

Once slackmaster has read the law and learned the actual facts, I'm sure that he's be hastening to retract the erroneous conclusions that he has evidently drawn from insufficient information and presented in the form of an assertion that is manifestly false.

Won't someone offer him that opportunity?

[goju]

37. May I ask a question?

What does this phrase mean?:
"police were not satisfied that the firearms were being kept securely, or that "possession of that firearm was necessarily further warranted".

I think I might know what it means, but maybe someone else can spell it out for me?

Edit, meant to reply to the original post.

[Pert_UK]

39. Oooh! Me sir!

"You will need to advise the Customer Service Operator of your “Genuine Reason” for using a firearm (i.e. Sport/Target Shooting) and the category of licence you wish to use...

Your details will be taken over the phone and a personalised application form and applicable Genuine Reason form posted out to you for completion."

http://www.shootingcentre.com.au/html/to_apply_for_a_nsw_firearms_licence.cfm

"There are eight genuine reasons:

Sport / Target Shooting
Recreational Hunting / Vermin Control
Primary Production
Vertebrate Pest Animal Control
Business or Employment
Rural Occupation
Animal Welfare
Firearms Collection"

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/about_us/structure/corporate_services/firearms/more_information/faq/genuine_reasons

I believe you have to have a genuine reason for the possession of each individual weapon. Therefore the Police (and indeed a judge/court) deciding that "possession of that firearm was necessarily further warranted" implies that the original reason given for buying that gun no longer applies, e.g. you've changed jobs, moved to the city etc.

<<Stands back awaiting apoplectic fit regarding "self-defense" being absent from the list>>

[Jack_DeLeon]

18. I feel sorry for the people of Australia...

It sucks when any nation lets its police force become too authoritarian.

[Pert_UK]

31. And I feel sorry for anybody so closed-minded....

that they automatically assume that the police are being "authoritarian" when they enforce a gun law or take weapons away from people.

Seriously.....read the whole article, and maybe even Iverglas's post about how the police in NSW can't destroy someone's gun without going through a court and giving them right to appeal.......

Pathetic.

[iverglas]

36. and the funny thing is

I've googled around a fair bit about this story ... and I just haven't found any actual New South Walesians (New South Walers?) whining about the seizure of their firearms.

I guess that any who were distressed by it did what a reasonable person would have done, and opposed the police application to destroy the firearms, or applied for the return of the firearms. Hell, maybe some even appealed the orders if they weren't happy. Amazing how people who live in countries that recognize the rule of law can do those things.



This is an interesting study of the firearms situation in Australia, btw:
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/9C0252B88F63421ECA256ECF00073CB7

One little bit:

Firearms theft in Australia, 1994-2000 – Australian Institute of Criminology (2002)

The Australian Institute of Criminology conducted a study focusing on firearms thefts that were reported to police throughout Australia between 1 July 1994 and 30 June 2000.65 The statistics presented in the study include:

- There were 2,165,170 registered firearms in Australia as at 1 July 2001, and a total of 764,518 individual licence holders. Queensland had the highest number of licensed individuals, followed by Victoria. New South Wales ranked third. In all jurisdictions, with the exception of the ACT, licence holders owned an average of three registered firearms each.

<Australia's population was about 19,300,000 at the time>

- As a proportion of the total adult population, about 5% of Australian adults held a current firearm licence, with Tasmania recording the highest at 11.8%. New South Wales had the lowest percentage among the States.

<NSW is heavily urban; the population of Sydney is about 4,000,000>

- A total of 25,171 firearms were reported stolen to police in Australia between July 1994 and June 2000. Annually, this equates to an average of 4195 legal firearms, or less than 1% of the total number of registered firearms (over 2.1 million).

- One quarter of the firearms reported stolen from 1994 to 2000 were stolen in New South Wales. Thefts of handguns were also highest in New South Wales.

- The biggest percentage of firearms reported stolen throughout Australia were rifles (52%), followed by shotguns (21%) and handguns (14%). By contrast, in the United States of America, the most commonly stolen firearms are handguns.

- The majority of firearms stolen between 1994 and 2000 were stolen from residential premises (81%), based on statistics from New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

Between 1994 and 2000 there was a significant increase in the use of handguns in crime, especially in New South Wales. But there had not been a corresponding increase in the number of handguns stolen. The study concludes that 'there has been a downward trend in the number of firearms reported stolen in Australia. This is a positive indication that the stringent storage requirements introduced through legislative reforms are producing the desired effect, and reducing the number of firearms targeted by thieves.' Of course, the rates of handgun theft in New South Wales may have risen since the data period of 1994-2000.

[Jack_DeLeon]

67. most all gun laws are authoritarian...

What kind of fucked up society gives the police the power to inspect your home whenever the police say its "reasonable."

I'm sorry but if the police want to enter my home they better have a warrent, or think someone is dying or at risk of severe injury, or have my permission to enter (which I will most likely never give to the police).

[iverglas]

22. so ... when's somebody going to admit the TRUTH?

So here we go; the NSW Firearms Act:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/

Let me start out by summarizing, for the short of attention span:

THE POLICE IN N.S.W.
MAY NOT DESTROY A SEIZED FIREARM
UNLESS THEY HAVE FIRST OBTAINED
A COURT ORDER
PERMITTING THEM TO DO SO.

and

A PERSON WHOSE FIREARM HAS BEEN SEIZED
MAY APPLY TO THE COURT
FOR THE RETURN OF THE FIREARM.

Here ya go:

37. Requirements relating to registered firearms

(1) The person in whose name a firearm is registered:

(a) must produce the firearm for inspection by a police officer at any reasonable time when requested to do so by the officer, and ...

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

39. General requirement

(1) A person who possesses a firearm must take all reasonable precautions to ensure:

(a) its safe keeping, and
(b) that it is not stolen or lost, and
(c) that it does not come into the possession of a person who is not authorised to possess the firearm.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both, if it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the firearm concerned was a prohibited firearm or a pistol, or 20 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both, in any other case.

(2) The regulations may specify the precautions that are taken to be reasonable precautions for the purposes of this section.

42. Seizure of firearms if storage requirements not met

A police officer must seize any firearm or ammunition that the officer has reasonable grounds to believe is not being kept in accordance with this Part.

Now, here comes the good part:

80. Disposal of surrendered or seized firearms

(1) A Local Court or the Children's Court may, on application by a police officer or by any person who claims to be the owner of a firearm surrendered to or seized by a police officer in accordance with this Act or section 23A (4) of the Security Industry Act 1997 order that the firearm:

(a) be forfeited to the Crown, or
(b) be returned to the person claiming to be owner of the firearm, or
(c) be otherwise disposed of in such manner as the Court thinks fit.

(2) If a person is found guilty of an offence under Part 4 and a firearm has been seized by a police officer in connection with the offence, the court which makes the finding of guilt is taken to have ordered that the firearm be forfeited to the Crown. A firearm so forfeited may be destroyed. ...

OH LOOK!

THE POLICE IN N.S.W. MAY NOT DESTROY A SEIZED FIREARM UNLESS THEY HAVE FIRST OBTAINED A COURT ORDER PERMITTING THEM TO DO SO.

And A PERSON WHOSE FIREARM HAS BEEN SEIZED MAY APPLY TO THE COURT FOR THE RETURN OF THE FIREARM.

So much for that "suspicion" that "there were no trials and decisions by the police were final", eh?

Who will be the first to admit that the "suspicion" was baseless, and that any suggestion or allegation that any decisions by police in New South Wales regarding the forfeiture and destruction of firearms are final is FALSE?

Step up, now.

[solinvictus]

27. I would've kept a couple of token beaters to be found..

and cached the rest in a remote area.

[Pert_UK]

30. Yeah, 'cause owning guns is all about breaking the law.......

Much easier to illegally hide those weapons somewhere else than acquire and store them legally, in accordance with the laws put down for firearms ownership.

I'm not scared of guns, I'm scared of people who seem to think that they have the right to do whatever the fuck they like with guns with no regard to the law or the safety of others.

I suppose I was deluding myself when I hoped the gun owners on here would all pipe up with, "This wouldn't be a problem for me - I obey the relevant laws and store my guns safely."

[iverglas]

35. some Australians agree with him

http://www.findlaw.com.au/cases/casertf.asp?id=196498
google's cached html version: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1ilG6mHts1oJ:www.findlaw.com.au/cases/casertf.asp%3Fid%3D196498+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Damn, I hate pdf docs.


NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
CITATION: Regina v Cromarty <2004> NSWCCA 54


This is an appeal against sentence by the Crown. Ian Ross Cromarty pleaded guilty to each count in the following indictment:

Count 1:
Unauthorised possession of firearms in aggravated circumstances, contrary to s51D(2) Firearms Act 1996 (maximum penalty: 20 years imprisonment).

Count 2:
Possession of unregistered firearms, contrary to s36(1) Firearms Act 1996 (maximum penalty: 10 years imprisonment).

Count 3:
Possession of firearms with defaced identification marks, contrary to s66(b) Firearms Act 1996 (maximum penalty: 5 years imprisonment).

Count 4:
Unauthorised possession of prohibited weapons, contrary to s7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (maximum penalty: 14 years imprisonment).

Count 5:
Possession of shortened firearms, contrary to s62(1)(b) Firearms Act 1996 (maximum penalty: 10 years imprisonment).

Mr Cromarty asked that two matters be taken into account on a Form 1, namely, that he was in possession of ammunition without a licence or permit, and that contrary to s39(1)(a) of the Firearms Act 1996, he did not keep a firearm safe.

<"taken into account" means that the sentence will reflect those offences as well, and he will not be liable for further prosecution on them>

The Sentence.

On 24 September 2003, Coolahan DCJ sentenced Mr Cromarty as follows. ...

His Honour ordered that such sentences should be served by way of periodic detention. He further ordered that the firearms seized by the police should be forfeited to the Crown. The Crown complains that the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate.

The search of Mr Cromarty's premises.

... The material tendered before the sentencing Judge included a number of statements by the police. On Thursday 28 November 2002, upon the basis of information received by the police, a Chamber Magistrate issued a warrant to search Mr Cromarty's home. The nature of the information given to the police was not the subject of evidence before the sentencing Judge.

<Would you look at that? A warrant!>

... Mr Cromarty gave evidence on sentence. He said the roller door was much stronger than the usual door. Plates had been welded in position which in some way fortified the door. The house was fitted with deadlocks. There were sensors which detected movement. The premises had been inspected by the police when he first sought a licence. They appeared quite pleased with them.

... The search was conducted over two days. The police found and seized what was described as the "largest cache of weapons" ever taken from a private individual in Australia. The items seized were later tested by a ballistics expert. All but a few were in working order. They included:

· 35 weapons prohibited under Schedule 1 of the Firearms Act 1996.

· 63 weapons prohibited under Schedule 1 of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998.

· 103 unregistered firearms.

· 10 pistols from which the serial number or identification mark had been defaced.

· 2 shortened self loading rifles.

· 2,850 cartridges of ammunition.

· 147 firearm parts.

· 7 silencers suitable for rifles and pistols.

The weapons which the police seized were scattered throughout the home and workshop of Mr Cromarty. A significant number were recovered from the area concealed by the false ceiling. Some of those so concealed were prohibited weapons, including (as described by Det Martin) "two Thompson automatic submachine guns, a number of pistols and parts for high calibre machine guns ...".

Det Martin, in describing the search on the second day, said this:

"During this time, the second level of the premises was searched and as a result one loaded, UZI submachine gun, 2 x 30 calibre machine guns, 1 Bren field machine gun, 1 x 50 calibre machine gun, 1 x M14 machine gun, 1 x AR15, Mini 14 rifle and other self loading rifles were located. All of these weapons were left unlocked and were found behind doors, in cupboards and under beds."

... Prohibited weapons, which include self loading and pump action firearms, are excluded from categories A, B and H. A person may also obtain a Firearm Dealer's licence. Mr Cromarty was authorised to possess firearms in respect to categories A, B and H. He also had a dealer's licence, which extended to all categories of firearms.

... Part 4 of the Act makes provision for the safe-keeping of firearms. Category A and B firearms must be stored in a locked receptacle when not being used (s40). Category H firearms (pistols) must be locked in a safe (s41). It is an offence to shorten a firearm or possess a shortened firearm (s62(1)), or to have in your possession a firearm on which any number or identification mark has been defaced or altered (s66). The maximum penalty under s62 is ten years, and under s66 is five years imprisonment.

... Count 1 was the most serious offence, alleging possession of firearms in circumstances of aggravation (s51D(2)). It will be remembered (supra para 22) that s51D(1) (the offence without aggravation) required proof that the person charged was in possession of three unregistered firearms and had no licence or permit (the maximum penalty: 10 years imprisonment). The offence in its aggravated form, as alleged against Mr Cromarty, required proof that any one of the three firearms was also "a prohibited firearm or pistol" (as defined by Schedule 1 of the Act) (maximum penalty: 20 years imprisonment). Here the Crown case on Count 1 involved multiple prohibited firearms, namely:

· 4 machine guns

· 4 submachine guns

· 24 self loading rifles

· 3 self loading shotguns

Some of the firearms were museum pieces. All were lethal. The description of Det Martin included the following:

"These weapons included WWII Bren Machine Gun, 50 calibre machine gun, 2 x 30 calibre machine guns, M14 machine gun and a AR15 .300 Whisper calibre assault rifle fitted for a silencer and designed and used as a snipers rifle by some American law enforcement agencies."

The firearms were unregistered. Mr Cromarty was not authorised by licence or permit to have them in his possession. They were not firearms owned by others which he was working on. His dealer's licence (which extended to categories C and D) did not authorise their possession.

... Count 3 alleged possession of firearms with defaced identification marks (s66(b)) Firearms Act (maximum penalty: 5 years imprisonment). There were ten pistols which had been defaced. Det Martin said this:

"The defacing of a firearm is achieved by drilling out the serial number or any other feature which would prevent authorities tracing the true origin of the weapon. These weapons are of particular concern to police as these weapons are often stolen from lawful owners and sold to the criminal element."

... Mr Duffield, an experienced probation and parole officer, provided a report which included the following: (Exhibit A)

"It seems he chose to ignore the illegality of his behaviour, but it is strongly felt that he had no sinister intent."

<Duffield also said: "There is no doubt Cromarty would have been quite aware of the illegal nature of his activities. He is very well versed on the gun laws and has very strong negative views about them.">

41 Dr Roger Peters, a psychologist to whom Mr Cromarty had been referred, commented upon possible explanations of Mr Cromarty's conduct in these terms: (Exhibit 1)

"I think the answer in this case is quite complex and psychologically convoluted. I think it involves many issues none of which are delinquent or sinister."

... Nonetheless, his Honour noted that Mr Cromarty "was well aware of the (relevant) legislative provisions and deliberately flouted the law..." (R/S 28). He added: (R/S 28)

"I also have regard to the number and type of weapons seized, including the fact that some were silencers and two were shortened firearms. Whilst I accept that the offender had no intention of ever dealing in these arms in an illegal manner and whilst I accept that in relation to some of them at least had he registered them he was entitled to possess them, the real danger is that they may have fallen into the hands of the criminal element, notwithstanding the security provided for them by the offender."

... Since the confiscation of his collection of firearms and weapons, Mr Cromarty has lost all interest in firearms. Mr Duffield, a Probation Officer, said this:

"That pistols and shooting and working on weapons was a major part of the offender's life is an understatement, and he currently exhibits signs of significant grief and loss."

Dr Roger Peters thought that Mr Cromarty was suffering from a reactive anxiety best described as an "adjustment disorder". He was otherwise well adjusted and not suffering from any psychiatric or psychological conditions. He suffered from a measure of depression. His licence as a gunsmith had been revoked (s11 Firearms Act). Dr Peters said this: (Exhibit 1: 4/5 )

"In fact I would make one further observation and that is that had he handed in his collection when amnesties were proclaimed - he would have had no opportunity of replacing it and this collection seems to have been one of the main reasons he was living. Not to put (too fine a) point on it, his collection provided him with a reason for living and that its loss would have been devastating. I doubt he could even face the thought of handing in his collection, let alone taken any action to actually do anything. Thus the threat of resultant depression and psychological trauma from its loss would have been overwhelming, ironically the very situation he now finds himself in."

... The Crown submitted that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, both in its overall length and in the manner in which it is to be served. It drew attention to the size and nature of the weaponry in respect of each count. Whilst Mr Cromarty may not have been trafficking in illegal weapons, he was certainly conscious of his obligations under each Act, and understood the security risk that he ran. The fact that he was obsessed by firearms may be an explanation for his offending behaviour. It is not, in the Crown submission, a matter in mitigation.

... Thirdly, it cannot be doubted that Mr Cromarty well appreciated the security risk which his arsenal created. In 1996 Mr Cromarty's home was invaded by three masked intruders, one armed with a sawn-off 12 gauge shotgun. Mr Cromarty described what occurred in these words: (T24)

"A. ... all I was told was get down. They want me on the ground and then fortunately the bloke decided that he didn't like what he'd seen and he left, tripping over his mates doing it."

Mr Cromarty elaborated: (T24)

"A. ... I had a safe there, full of guns, and the police asked me what were they there for and I said I don't know, all that was said to me was get down and I said to the officer that actually took the statement that you are glad that they didn't get the safe open, that is what they wanted. Because on the following Friday, that was Tuesday night, and the following Friday they robbed the National Australia Bank in Warners Bay, with a sawn-off shotgun and with a knife I think the other bloke was supposed to have had. I would say it was the same people."

... With some hyperbole, the respondent's submissions described Mr Cromarty's home as "a fortress". It certainly was not a fortress. It was a suburban home with limited security. ...

... These are matters which go to the objective seriousness of the criminality in these offences. However, on the credit side, two things should be said. First, although there was unquestionably a risk to public safety through the accumulation and possession of such an arsenal, that risk did not materialise. The weapons did not fall into the hands of criminals. They were seized by the police.

... The "nest egg" was valued at something like $300,000. Quite how it was to have been realised was not explored, either by Dr Peters or during the sentencing hearing. During argument on the appeal there was discussion about possible ways in which the "nest egg" could have been lawfully realised. One way was by surrendering the weapons during any renewed amnesty (and accepting compensation at the then
market value), or opening a museum.

... I would therefore propose the following orders:

1. That the appeal be allowed.

2. That the sentence imposed by Coolahan DCJ on 24 September 2003 be quashed.

3. That, in lieu thereof, the respondent be sentenced as follows:

Count 1: Taking account of the matters on the Form 1, to a term of imprisonment of 4 years commencing on 4 October 2003 and expiring on 3 October 2007, with a non parole period of 2 years expiring on 3 October 2005.

Count 2: Imprisonment for a fixed term of 2 years commencing on 4 October 2003 and expiring on 3 October 2005.

Count 3: Imprisonment for a fixed term of 18 months commencing on 4 October 2003 and expiring on 3 April 2005.

Counts 4 and 5: On each count, to imprisonment for a fixed term of 16 months commencing on 4 October 2003 and expiring on 3 February 2005.

4. The order that all firearms be seized and forfeited to the Crown is confirmed.

_________________________________________________

Fascinating tale, no? Of course it's much longer in the original; I've offered highlights.

[aikoaiko]

28. Firearms abuse is sad.

:cry:

[Pert_UK]

29. "OH, THE HUMANITY!!!", or "How to misrepresent the facts" by Remmah

Little point in actually making a logical or sensible comment, given the standard of debate in this thread already......Suffice to say......People have had guns taken from them in accordance with the law and due process when it has been established that they no longer met the legally required standards or justifications for owning those guns. They had the full range of appeal options open to them.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

Oh sorry, I was forgetting....guns are one of those areas where you're under no obligation to follow the legal requirements of your country, aren't they?

But hang on a minute.....

"Mr Moroney said NSW police carried out a big audit and compliance check of all firearms in NSW last year. He said the audit, combined with the NSW Government's gun buyback, had seized 43,000 weapons, most of which were firearms."

So.........some of these guns were BOUGHT BACK from people who wanted to dispose of them!!! Curse those fascists!

"In total, 185,000 licensed firearm holders were identified, holding about 600,000 registered firearms between them, he said."

Bit of a different spin on it, eh? 43,000 guns taken out of a total of 600,000? And bear in mind that "Mr Moroney said a number of private security firms had closed following a police audit of the industry." Wow.....so a number of security firms had been closed because "We're not satisfied with the level of security that they've been taking"....Do you happen to think that maybe THEIR guns were included in the total number?

It really beggars belief....

The Police remove 43,000 guns from people and companies who either don't need them or aren't storing/using them legally and safely. The VAST majority of guns remain in the hands of those people who have shown themselves responsible enough to own them.

What a terrible society - one where you can actually CHECK whether people have met the standards they've agreed to abide by, and then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT when they haven't.

But then, that doesn't make NEARLY as good a story as suggesting wholesale gungrabbing by an authoritarian regime?

:cry:

Pathetic.

[benEzra]

"Buyback..."

In the terminology of Australia's gun control scene, "buyback" was the term used for the initial confiscation of self-loaders. The "buyback" was mandatory, but the confiscation was nominally compensated (sort of an eminent domain thing).

[Pert_UK]

33. Thanks for that historical point......not that it helps at all......

You just carry on misrepresenting the facts in this case:

From mid 2003:

"Because of the complexity and scale of the buyback, planning is already under way to ensure it proceeds as smoothly as possible...NSW Police are establishing three mobile handgun buyback identification centres. These units...will take the buyback to gun owners, rather than the other way round. Two trucks will visit pistol clubs in metropolitan and regional centres of New South Wales...

Owners of handguns that have been banned will be issued with a compensation cheque right there on the spot....An independent valuation panel will also be available to resolve any disputes on the amount of compensation that is to be paid for surrendered guns. I would also mention that an amnesty will run in tandem with the buyback so that anyone illegally holding a handgun can surrender it without compensation, but with the facility to surrender it without penalty."

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20030529019

And guess what?.......The police are also introducing a fund to purchase ILLEGAL guns from smugglers in order to remove guns before they hit the streets and to gather information on the illegal gun trade.

<<Tackling legal and illegal gun problems in two similar but distinct ways......DOES NOT COMPUTE....DOES NOT COMPUTE......>>

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Pert_UK]

34. GAAAH! You wouldn't say that if I had a gun!!!!

:evilgrin:

[goju]

38. A question

Posted it in wrong spot, post 37
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=99909&mesg_id=100046&page=

[Pert_UK]

40. And here in case you didn't get it first time:

"You will need to advise the Customer Service Operator of your “Genuine Reason” for using a firearm (i.e. Sport/Target Shooting) and the category of licence you wish to use...

Your details will be taken over the phone and a personalised application form and applicable Genuine Reason form posted out to you for completion."

http://www.shootingcentre.com.au/html/to_apply_for_a_ns...

"There are eight genuine reasons:

Sport / Target Shooting
Recreational Hunting / Vermin Control
Primary Production
Vertebrate Pest Animal Control
Business or Employment
Rural Occupation
Animal Welfare
Firearms Collection"

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/about_us/structure/corpora...

I believe you have to have a genuine reason for the possession of each individual weapon. Therefore the Police (and indeed a judge/court) deciding that "possession of that firearm was necessarily further warranted" implies that the original reason given for buying that gun no longer applies, e.g. you've changed jobs, moved to the city etc.

<<Stands back awaiting apoplectic fit regarding "self-defense" being absent from the list>>

[goju]

41. No fits here

Thanks for the info. And I cant imagine why youd be at all concerned about self defense not being included in that list? Im fairly sure from the original post that most of us RKBA types now understand very well, if we didnt already, the nature of firearm ownership in such countries with limited freedoms, and rights. This falls under the "no shit" category.

[Pert_UK]

42. "such countries with limited freedoms"

PFFFTTTT........BWWWAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAAAAHAAHAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Ooooh...

Mercy....

Don't you ever get tired of repeatedly trotting out the same old mantra over and over again?

Actually, don't bother answering that...Just keep saying it and sooner or later we'll all start believing you......

[goju]

43. You will pardon me if I DO answer that

The right to keep and bear arms, we believe, is an inherent right and not something that should be "left off the list". That is a freedom, and one of our rights. What is not believable about that?

[iverglas]

44. Amazingly

The right to keep and bear arms, we believe, is an inherent right and not something that should be "left off the list".

Australians pretty much feel that way about the right to express themselves. They don't need licences ... or "free speech zones" ... to do that.

You USAmerican folks are required to practise "safe storage" when it comes to your political opinions. Many Australians, I'm sure, share my outrage on your behalf, and pity for your enslaved state.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/10/23/apec.special.bush.australia/

CANBERRA, Australia (CNN) -- U.S. President George W. Bush has been heckled by Australian parliamentarians during an address in which he thanked the nation for its support in the war on terror.

As Bush began to talk about the downfall of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, two separate interjections by Australian Greens Party senators, Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle, forced the U.S. president to halt his address.

The Speaker of the House ordered that the parliamentarians be removed from the house by the Sergeant at Arms but both resisted efforts to have them removed.

Senator Brown called out that President Bush should show respect for the world's laws and said that Australia was not a "sheriff" in Asia.

During the second interjection by Senator Nettle, Bush quipped: "I love free speech".

Lucky he loves free speech so much. On his visits to Canada and Australia, he actually got to see some of it in action, and undoubtedly hear it too. A novel experience, certainly.

Outside parliament during the Bush speech, an anti-war demonstration turned ugly with protesters scuffling with police.

... Thousands of protesters then marched to Howard's official residence, where the Australian leader hosted lunch for Bush.

(For CNN's info, "Parliament", like "Congress", is capitalized.)

Just by the bye, the Australian Parliament, which includes the Senators in question, is, like any other legislature, entitled to make its own rules of procedure and decorum, and the Senators violated those rules. Their counterparts would have been ousted for heckling the Green Senators, too. I just thought it was an interesting demonstration of the noise that a few sheep can make when they set their minds to it and aren't too busy sucking up to the wolves.

[goju]

46. A little off today?

You left yourself wide open on that one.

I presume you didnt see the last State of the Union Address, where the president was repeatedly booed and jeered for some of his statements? We too have standards of decorum in our public gatherings, so its not likely we would see Pelosi stand up and throw something at the president, or make some off color remark. Nevertheless, they do make their opinions known in a most public way.

You might have been following the Ward Churchill story down here? Perhaps he was issued a license to make his comments? Is that what youre suggesting?

Australians pretty much feel that way about the right to express themselves. They don't need licences ... or "free speech zones" ... to do that.

You USAmerican folks are required to practise "safe storage" when it comes to your political opinions. Many Australians, I'm sure, share my outrage on your behalf, and pity for your enslaved state.

Really now, what licenses do we Americans need to express ourselves? Are you referring to the free speech zones, set up for security purposes, at the inauguration? I guess places like Canada dont have that problem....
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=975

And lets not forget, we here in the US allow Fox news and the CBC. How long has Canada refused Fox news access to its market?

Im just not sure what distinction you are drawing? I can surely point to specific "Rights" we have, that others dont. But feel free to continue this red herring.

[iverglas]

48. not me, pal

I presume you didnt see the last State of the Union Address, where the president was repeatedly booed and jeered for some of his statements?

I presume you managed to miss the point of my post.

The parliamentary episode was just for entertainment. The reports of the public gathering outside the two locales where the US President was -- Parliament and the PM's private residence -- were what I was drawing your attention to.

Really now, what licenses do we Americans need to express ourselves? Are you referring to the free speech zones, set up for security purposes, at the inauguration?

"At the inauguration"??? Well, that was one time and place, I guess.

How about: everywhere your President goes?


http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=975 , you say.

Uh ... your point?

Our crime? Authorities told us that our very short records of misdemeanor arrests (Carwil has two, I have three) made us undesirable elements.

Damn, people who were not admissible to Canada were prevented from entering Canada. Immigration legislation REQUIRES that people who are inadmissible to Canada be prevented from entering Canada, unless they are granted special permission.

The funny part is ... can you just imagine what the US media and Congress would be saying if Canada did NOT prevent inadmissible people from entering Canada ...

I might happen to think it would have been wise, in Canadian terms, to grant them permission to enter. But I might not want to annoy the big fellas to the south.


And lets not forget, we here in the US allow Fox news and the CBC. How long has Canada refused Fox news access to its market?

Damn, I guess you don't watch Fox News. Congratulations. Me, I've been watching it since late December. I have digital cable, and it's been on free preview (for much longer than the all-channel free preview was supposed to last; guess sales aren't going well in my area). When it goes away, I'll have to pay $2.49 a month (plus some kind of horrible Canadian tax) for the pleasure.

Of course, I'm taking this opportunity to amass evidence to assist in demonstrating that Fox News does not meet the rather strict standards of things like, oh, not broadcasting false news that our broadcasting legislation requires ...


Im just not sure what distinction you are drawing?

Hey, it's all just a matter of taste, eh? Some of us have more taste for some freedoms and rights than for others. You folks get along without much in the way of free speech, and we get along without having firearms in our faces all the time.

[goju]

50. Huh

Hey, it's all just a matter of taste, eh? Some of us have more taste for some freedoms and rights than for others. You folks get along without much in the way of free speech, and we get along without having firearms in our faces all the time.

I guess Im just not seeing where this phantom abuse of free speech rights exist here, and nowhere else? Are we completely free? Of course not, but its absurd to hold up Canada, or really anywhere else for that matter, as an example? I mean, unless you can provide some specific curtailing of that right.

Damn, people who were not admissible to Canada were prevented from entering Canada. Immigration legislation REQUIRES that people who are inadmissible to Canada be prevented from entering Canada, unless they are granted special permission.

Inadmissable? And I presume all those Vietnam war deserters you claim to have helped were admissable then? Maybe you should clarify what makes one inadmissable to Canada, and again explain how Canada is champion of "rights". I must presume its misdemeanor arrests? Does Canada then deport all those Canadian citizens with misdemeanors?

The funny part is ... can you just imagine what the US media and Congress would be saying if Canada did NOT prevent inadmissible people from entering Canada ...

Sure we can. Probably something like this...
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050218/D88AU37G0.html
A 2 hour news story that whithered as quickly as other similar stories.

Damn, I guess you don't watch Fox News. Congratulations. Me, I've been watching it since late December. I have digital cable, and it's been on free preview (for much longer than the all-channel free preview was supposed to last; guess sales aren't going well in my area). When it goes away, I'll have to pay $2.49 a month (plus some kind of horrible Canadian tax) for the pleasure.

No, I dont watch Fox, or much TV at all for that matter. I guess then, Canada is finally allowing free speech?

I presume you managed to miss the point of my post.

Not at all, I can smell herring.

[iverglas]

58. I take my little hammer ...

I guess Im just not seeing where this phantom abuse of free speech rights exist here, and nowhere else?

How, exactly, have you managed to miss this news?

Result # 1 of 29,100 on a google search for "free speech zones" ("free speech zone" gets 98,100, many undoubtedly overlapping).

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
and yikes, it's on a "conservative" site.

When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, “The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.” The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, “As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.”

Any clearer now?

These things do not happen in Canada, or Australia, or the UK, or France ... not even when your President comes to call.

People in these places are not arrested for standing in a public place holding signs bearing political speech. Particularly not for doing so in places where people holding signs bearing different political speech are permitted to stand.

Inadmissable? And I presume all those Vietnam war deserters you claim to have helped were admissable then?

Uh ... yes. Was there another answer you thought you might get? Was there some reason you thought you might get another answer?

(If you're referring to me personally, of course, I've never claimed to have helped "all those Vietnam war deserters". I did my small bits, is all.)

I must presume its misdemeanor arrests? Does Canada then deport all those Canadian citizens with misdemeanors?

First, just so you're clear, the individuals in question in your report were not deported. They were denied entry. Deportation requires a hearing, and occurs after someone has been admitted. Had the individuals in question wished a hearing on the issue of whether they were admissible to Canada, they could have got one:
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/i-2.5/sec44.html
http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/i-2.5/sec45.html

I don't believe your report specified the offences that were in issue. In simple terms: if they were offences that may be prosecuted in Canada by way of indictment (counterpart to "felony") -- and many offences here are "hybrid", giving prosecutors the option of prosecuting by summary conviction (counterpart to "misdemeanour") or indictment, the only two classifications of crimes here -- or in some cases if there were multiple lesser offences -- they would make the individual inadmissible. (I and other immigration lawyers fought the interpretation of equivalency to an indictable offence, unsuccessfully, arguing, for instance, that someone convicted of a common assault in another country was guilty of an offence that would never have been prosecuted by indictment in Canada, even though it could have been.)

An immigration officer may admit an inadmissible individual subject to conditions, but is under no obligation to do so.

I'm really quite surprised, however, that you still don't seem to be grasping the distinction between denying residents of a country the ability to exercise their right of free speech and denying people who are not residents of a country entry to that country.

Does Canada then deport all those Canadian citizens with misdemeanors?

Uh ... where to? What kind of idiocy are you imagining here?

Canada deports permanent or temporary residents who commit offences that make them eligible to lose their status.

Canada can deport Canadian citizens who obtained their citizenship through fraud, and who have actually then had their citizenship taken away, on the assumption that there is somewhere to deport them to.

Probably something like this...
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050218/D88AU37G0.html

I'm not seeing how that article relates to anything. (Is throwing a shoe at someone "speech" anyhow?) The question was what opinion leaders and legislators in the US would be saying if Canada went around admitting inadmissible persons. I was thinking more of something like this:

http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/menu-en.asp?act=v&did=1944&mid=9&cat=613&typ=1

On Jan. 7, the FBI announced that reports of the five terrorists supposedly entering the United States from Canada were fabricated. But unfortunately, the damage done by the news reports and Michael Ramirez's Jan. 18 editorial cartoon that continue to have a corrosive effect on how Americans perceive Canada. This is not the first time Canada has been falsely accused of letting terrorists into the United States. Media reports after Sept. 11 falsely suggested terrorists came through Canada.

and the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton, among others, called for a tightening of the US border with Canada based precisely on those false reports.

Border tightening tends to do nasty things to economies.

I guess then, Canada is finally allowing free speech?

Well ... as you point out ...

Are we completely free? Of course not, ...

and I've never suggested that anyone is. I'm not free to lie in court. You're not free to stand in public with a poster opposing your president's policies.

Canadian broadcasting legislation imposes certain standards in respect of the broadcasting of false news and various other matters. (Although we don't fine broadcasters for using naughty language, of course. You ever actually watched CBC?)

I can smell herring.

Herring, is it? Not when there's a very black pot saying silly things about a nice shiny kettle.


edited to insert omitted word

[goju]

62. I prefer crayons....they seem more effective

How, exactly, have you managed to miss this news?

Havent missed a thing. Again I point to "security measures" that appear to be used on both sides of our common border. Canada doesnt allow protesters who might upset the success of an economic forum, US doesnt allow protesters within object-throwing distance of the president, usually. You might have heard about the snowball thrown at the VP's car. These stories seem very similar, yet the comparison is lost on you?

These things do not happen in Canada, or Australia, or the UK, or France ... not even when your President comes to call.

Really? You mean NO security measures are taken to ensure safety for domestic or foreign dignitaries in those countries? Or were you talking about something as silly as physical proximity? I imagine its the latter, since the former would be absurd. So if I have it right, what you are saying is that Canada, or Australia, or the UK, or France allow protesters to get "closer" to the target of the protest than the US does. And that is the sole basis of your contention that the US doesnt allow free speech? Brilliant!

Surely you werent suggesting that protesters are prevented from protesting, right? I mean, you did catch some of the news around inauguration time, didnt you? Otherwise, you might just be talking nonsense, and I know that cant be the case. But what I really need help with, Im just trying to figure out why "Bush" might need that extra security precaution...hmmm, thats a stumper. Conversely, Kerry didnt need nor want that level of security. I wonder if the political climate as of late had something to do with these newly implemented free speech zones? And Im trying to wonder whether Clinton was afforded those same precautionary measures? I just dont believe so....but I could be wrong.


I'm not seeing how that article relates to anything. (Is throwing a shoe at someone "speech" anyhow?) The question was what opinion leaders and legislators in the US would be saying if Canada went around admitting inadmissible persons.

You dont see how that relates, really? Lets see, a protester in the US being ALLOWED to protest, the topic du jour happens to be free speech, and your charge is that we dont allow free speech down here. Alas, I believe this article is relevant. The question of how opinion leaders would react is right there, in that link, in black and white...with words even. They would react by writing a story, as they always do. Or did you expect some other reaction?

and the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton, among others, called for a tightening of the US border with Canada based precisely on those false reports.

And I might say, her policy is probably just a reaction to Canada's de facto policy of not allowing US protesters entry into that country, since we are reduced to crystal ball speculation as to motives.

and I've never suggested that anyone is. I'm not free to lie in court. You're not free to stand in public with a poster opposing your president's policies.

Im not? No one is? Hmmm, well now if I find just one example of someone standing in public with a poster opposing the presidents policies, I guess that makes your contention....well, silly and just plain wrong again, eh?



Canadian broadcasting legislation imposes certain standards in respect of the broadcasting of false news and various other matters. (Although we don't fine broadcasters for using naughty language, of course. You ever actually watched CBC?)

So you have a "limited" censorship policy, is that your point?

Herring, is it? Not when there's a very black pot saying silly things about a nice shiny kettle.

Well now, Im not the one making fallacious allegations about anyone's rights or freedoms. Id say you have some 'splaining to do.

[iverglas]

63. wowee

Again I point to "security measures" that appear to be used on both sides of our common border. Canada doesnt allow protesters who might upset the success of an economic forum, US doesnt allow protesters within object-throwing distance of the president, usually. You might have heard about the snowball thrown at the VP's car. These stories seem very similar, yet the comparison is lost on you?

Yes, I'm afraid the similarity you allege is quite lost on me.

Canada denies entrance to people who fail the criminality criteria in its immigration legislation ... just like the US does.

In the US, people are arrested for engaging in non-disruptive political speech in a public place, when other people are doing the same thing and are not interfered with ... which Canada simply does not do.

Amazing how DISsimilar they look when you characterize them accurately, ain't it?

Kinda like how apples and oranges look so much alike ... unless you consider their colour, and a few other possibly relevant things, in which case few people have much trouble distinguishing between them at all.

Really? You mean NO security measures are taken to ensure safety for domestic or foreign dignitaries in those countries?

Ooooo. Did I say that? Did I say something that a reasonable person speaking in good faith would have interpreted as meaning that?

Don't think so.

Here:



So I guess those we take just aren't adequate. That's the recent PM of Canada you see there behind that pie. Now why wasn't that pie-er locked up behind a fence someplace nice and safe?

Then there was the guy who got into Chrétien's house in the middle of the night ... and Ms. Chrétien had to resort to grabbing an Inuit soapstone sculpture off the bedside table, not having any firearms to hand, in case he got close ...

Yes, it's just a peaceable kingdom.

Y'know, I gotta say, this is the first time I've seen someone at DU defend "free speech zones".

I'm not saying that nothing of the sort ever happens here. The arrangements made for Bush's little visit to Halifax were quite unacceptable, and many voices were raised against them.

http://hfxpeace.chebucto.org/_archives/12.01.04bushinhalifax.html

After reaching Cornwallis Park, and a 5 minute delay while the bike cart holding the sound system arrived, almost all of the protestors split off and continued to Pier 21, where Bush was inside delivering a speech to 300 invited guests. Gridlocked and surrounded by concrete and security forces, they stood chanting protests and drumming before returning to Cornwallis Park for more speeches and a wrapup of the main rally.

If you think that any Canadian ... or Australian, or British ... government would get away with that kind of thing when the people being "protected" were mere domestic politicians, you're sadly mistaken. Bush had demanded that he be hosted in Halifax (so that he could deliver some unctuous praise of all the good folks of Eastern Canada who had taken in his fellow USAmericans on Sept. 11, 2001, him having somehow forgotten to do so at the time), and it was his Secret Service who demanded the "security" arrangements. Us, we're just here to provide an audience, and sit quiet while the US violates trade agreements ...

your charge is that we dont allow free speech down here.

Noooo, I don't think that was my charge at all. It was that certain forms of expression are not allowed in the US -- to the point that people are jailed for engaging in them -- and that the freedom of speech that exists in places where that sort of thing happens is diminished, and in this case is diminished to a point below where it is in some other places.

So I'm still taking no point from your article. Shoes, pies, whatever. Nobody in Canada is being arrested for peacefully holding an expression of critical political opinion where the PM -- or heavens, even the Queen herself, should she happen by -- might see it.

And I might say, her <Clinton's> policy is probably just a reaction to Canada's de facto policy of not allowing US protesters entry into that country, since we are reduced to crystal ball speculation as to motives.

I have no clue what you're talking about. "Motives"? For what? I couldn't care less what Clinton's motives were. Her actions were devoid of justification, and it wasn't her who suffered any consequences.

What she was reacting to (do you read no news?) was an allegation by an official US govt source, the FBI as I recall it, that 5 terrorists had entered the US from Canada post-Sept. 11, 2001. The allegation was absolutely and completely false. But I guess nobody should ever worry about false allegations that their country allows terrorists to sneak into the US, or the reaction of opinion leaders in the US to such allegations. Nah, we should just let everybody and their unvaccinated dogs across the border and through the airport gates ...

You're not free to stand in public with a poster opposing your president's policies.
Im not? No one is? Hmmm, well now if I find just one example of someone standing in public with a poster opposing the presidents policies, I guess that makes your contention....well, silly and just plain wrong again, eh?

Well, it would be wrong ... if the "freedom" to stand in officially approved public places at officially approved times and express officially approved opinions were what "freedom of speech" meant, and if being "free" to do that were what "free" meant.

So you have a "limited" censorship policy, is that your point?

Not much of a point, would it be? I mean, you have a limited censorship policy too, when it comes to the use of the public airwaves, so I wouldn't have actually made a point, if that had been my point.

Hmm, maybe my point was that you might want to know what you're talking about before attempting to do it.

[goju]

65. Must be all that cold weather up there

Yes, I'm afraid the similarity you allege is quite lost on me.

That fact couldnt be more plain.

In the US, people are arrested for engaging in non-disruptive political speech in a public place, when other people are doing the same thing and are not interfered with ... which Canada simply does not do.

Who was arrested for "non-disruptive political speech in a public place"?

So I guess those we take just aren't adequate. That's the recent PM of Canada you see there behind that pie. Now why wasn't that pie-er locked up behind a fence someplace nice and safe?

Hmm, not sure. Maybe the same reason the guy throwin the snowball at the Veep wasnt. Just a guess though.

Y'know, I gotta say, this is the first time I've seen someone at DU defend "free speech zones".

Who's defending them? Im saying they exist in YOUR country too. If you think physical proximity is the only way that free speech is threatened, you are sorely misinformed.

So I'm still taking no point from your article. Shoes, pies, whatever. Nobody in Canada is being arrested for peacefully holding an expression of critical political opinion where the PM -- or heavens, even the Queen herself, should she happen by -- might see it.

Tell that to the pie thrower, or the poor couple that couldnt even get in the country. I bet they'd have a different take on things.

I have no clue what you're talking about. "Motives"? For what? I couldn't care less what Clinton's motives were. Her actions were devoid of justification, and it wasn't her who suffered any consequences.

You do indeed care what clintons motives are/were, since you attributed her call for tigher border security to that terrorist allegation. You failed to understand, once again, the political climate that exists here in the US.

What she was reacting to (do you read no news?) was an allegation by an official US govt source, the FBI as I recall it, that 5 terrorists had entered the US from Canada post-Sept. 11, 2001.

Of course she was. Everything has to do with Canada, right? Couldnt be anything else, like oh, political expedience born of white house aspirations? Convenient way to show she can get tough....naw! All about canada.

Well, it would be wrong ... if the "freedom" to stand in officially approved public places at officially approved times and express officially approved opinions were what "freedom of speech" meant, and if being "free" to do that were what "free" meant.

Of course. We have to stand in line to get licenses too. And we submit a script to be approved by Asscroft himself. Lets not start on placards..

Hmm, maybe my point was that you might want to know what you're talking about before attempting to do it.

Sure, just keep telling me how Im not allowed to go protest anything, anywhere, at anytime. Meanwhile, I'll be exercising my 2nd amdt rights out in the back yard, without asking permission of anyone.

[iverglas]

66. well, if you're gonna play that game

Who was arrested for "non-disruptive political speech in a public place"?

It was really only one post back. How many times did you want to go round the mulberry bush? --

When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, “The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.” The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, “As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.”

What did you miss? The part about how someone engaged in critical political speech was arrested for doing exactly the same thing as someone engaged in non-critical political speech was doing?

How are you defining "freedom of speech", anyhow? It might help me if you would explain. Hard to know what you're talking about, at this point.

Nobody in Canada is being arrested for peacefully holding an expression of critical political opinion where the PM -- or heavens, even the Queen herself, should she happen by -- might see it.
Tell that to the pie thrower, or the poor couple that couldnt even get in the country. I bet they'd have a different take on things.

I couldn't guess.

What I do know is that none of them was arrested for peacefully holding an expression of critical political opinion where the PM -- or heavens, even the Queen herself, should she happen by, or anybody else -- might see it. Don't know why they'd have any different take on that.

The pie-thrower was arrested for throwing a pie. If he'd thrown a few insults instead, he'd have been treated the way everybody else in the crowd was. Unmolested.

The point, in case you've missed this one too, is that he was close enough to the head of government of his country that any insults he might have thrown -- or critical political speech he might have engaged in -- would have hit their mark. His pie didn't hit a bulletproof car window, by the way. When the head of my government travels around the country, he is met at every turn by, and sometimes has to push his way through, people who say quite a lot of loud critical things to him. (And amazingly, he usually even talks back to them.)

I'm sure that your head of government has more reason to be wary of people projecting more than speech at him than my head of government has. That is not a sufficient reason ... where I'm at ... for arresting people engaged in the peaceful expression of critical political speech (when other people, engaged in the peaceful expression of non-critical political speech, are not arrested ... or herded into remote corrals).

Everything has to do with Canada, right? Couldnt be anything else, like oh, political expedience born of white house aspirations? Convenient way to show she can get tough....naw! All about canada.

Uh ... actually, I happen to think that it was, in fact, the basest political opportunism. As I said at DU at the time. Missing the point again? The fact that the target of the false allegation -- the one likely to suffer the consequences of it -- was Canada?

And that Canada knows that if it does not want to be targeted by such allegations, baseless or otherwise, it had better keep its nose scrupulously clean. And that admitting people to Canada whose criminal convictions make them inadmissible ... well, might just not be the best way of doing that.

And that there is every reason to believe that intransigence at our border in cases like this results from pressure exerted by your government, and not from any internal flaws (save the gutlessness of some of our own politicians). I can say this fairly confidently, because back when the very first "popular summit" was held, in opposition to a G7 (as it then was) summit in Canada, I was personally involved in facilitating the entry of some USAmerican "undesirables" into Canada for the event. ... If they'd just crossed the damned border at rush hour, instead of in the middle of the night when some bored border guard had nothing better to do than (unsuccessfully) try to charge duties on their carload of political literature, there wouldn't have been an issue at all.

But I see you're still failing to see the difference between

- requiring people seeking admission to a country of which they are not citizens or lawful residents to meet certain criteria

and

- prohibiting people who are lawfully resident in a country from engaging in peaceful political speech, and arresting them when they do.

So I guess we must jointly conclude that the measures taken by the US to prevent people from crossing its southern border without visas are a violation of those people's right to free speech.

The people in the case you hold up would have had the same right to freedom of expression in Canada, once they got into the country, as anybody else here. You understood that, right? And you know that thousands and thousands of people enter Canada as visitors every year, and do just that?

We have to stand in line to get licenses too.

I dunno. Maybe you're actually saying that lining up to obtain a service is the same as being arrested for expressing an opinion that is not officially approved in a place that is not officially approved at a time that is not officially approved. Were you?

Meanwhile, I'll be exercising my 2nd amdt rights out in the back yard, without asking permission of anyone.

And I'll probably be hanging out on the steps of a legislative building, sometime in the next couple of weeks, taking part in a political protest. You know: there are still a few right-wing assholes up here trying to stop same-sex couples from exercising their right to liberty, and to the equal protection and benefit of the law, by getting married.

Bet nobody would try pulling an evil stunt like that where you're at ...

[goju]

86. Perhaps you are confused

Sounds like he was arrested for disorderly conduct, doesnt it? Is that legal in Canada? Hmm, I dont know, maybe you were trying to sneak in some suggestion that he was arrested for voicing an opinion, one never knows.

And that Canada knows that if it does not want to be targeted by such allegations, baseless or otherwise, it had better keep its nose scrupulously clean. And that admitting people to Canada whose criminal convictions make them inadmissible ... well, might just not be the best way of doing that.

If youre not blaming the US for Canada's rising crime rate, your blaming us for YOUR government's lack of spine. When does it end? And what consequences are you referring to if "it <didnt> keep its nose scrupulously clean"? I would think such a "truly" progressive nation would reject outright any attempts at that sort of strong arm tactics.

Bet nobody would try pulling an evil stunt like that where you're at ...

Bet you arent really paying attention to the goings on in the good ole USofA. And I bet you like the comfy view up there on that high horse.

[alwynsw]

69. Admissible?

I have no idea if Srivastava and Carwil were tried and convivted for their misdemeanor arrests. The article only states that they were arrested.

Call me insulated. Call me thick. One of the prime considerations we receive in the U.S. is a presumption of innocence until adjucated otherwise, regardless of the severity of the crime. If Canada is the great bastion of democratic freedom you claim why on Earth would one be refused entry as a guest for only an arrest?

If the were indeed adjucated guilty of any of the misdemeanor charges I can almost understand the refusal.

Why do I have issues with Canadian entry officials, you ask?

Here comes one of those anecdotes you like so well:

In 1993 I was driving from Detroit to Windsor with a client from Puerto Rico as a passenger in my car. The idiot at the Canadian Border station demanded a passport for my guest while requesting only a driver's license for identification from me. He argued at length that Puerto Rico is a caribbean nation, separate and of itself. We both tried to enlighten this product of the Canadain educational system that Puerto Rico is a territory of the U.S. and that those born there are U.S. citizens. He would hear none of it. His supervisor agreed with the idiot in the booth. Both refused to make a call of any sort to verify the nationality of Puerto Rico and it's residents.

After over an hour, I was allowed access to my cell phone. It took a call to the U.S. Department of State (via my company attorney, who I called via my secretary), who then called some agency in Canada, who then called the border station to clear the matter up. In the interim, we were detained for about 6 hours, car searched - and damaged for which no monies were paid for the repairs - persons searched, interrogated, and generally harrassed for attempting to cross into Canada illegally (my guest for attempting, me for aiding).

Tell me again how wonderful Canada (and it's educational and government training of it's employees) are.

Now you can dismiss this as a unsubstantiated ancedote.

[Columbia]

72. You are insulated and thick

You asked for it.

Hope you have that venison ready... :)

[alwynsw]

73. I got it, BUT

You gotta get through the grits first.

[Columbia]

75. Kentucky grits?

Better bring my Maalox..

[alwynsw]

76. Don't tell me your California-trained gut can't handle real food! n/t

[Columbia]

78. I'll just need to do some yoga beforehand

:)

[alwynsw]

80. Yougut? We got yougurt!

Oh? nevermind

[MrSandman]

77. Your property was not returned in the original state?

Surely the Canadian border police did not make an administrative decision that your property could be destroyed/damaged without following due process?

I am shocked, shocked, I say.

[alwynsw]

79. Maybe their fingers were too cold to do the job?

[iverglas]

88. "Admissible?"?

What is it, you don't know what that means?

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/i-2.5/sec36.html

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
PART 1 IMMIGRATION TO CANADA
DIVISION 4 INADMISSIBILITY
Serious criminality

36. ... (2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for

... (b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;

(c) committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament; ...

(3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) and (2):

(a) an offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily; ...

I have no idea if Srivastava and Carwil were tried and convivted for their misdemeanor arrests. The article only states that they were arrested.

You didn't read far enough, apparently:

Our crime? Authorities told us that our very short records of misdemeanor arrests (Carwil has two, I have three) made us undesirable elements.

... Apparently following in the footsteps of their U.S. cousins, Canadian officials in Windsor arrested and jailed U.S. activist David Solnit ... . The charges against him were the same ones leveled at us--a misdemeanor conviction more than a decade ago--which made him a threat to Canada.

I don't believe that anyone said that anyone was "a threat to Canada". The finding appears to have been that they were inadmissible to Canada. (And people who are inadmissible to a country and nonetheless attempt to enter it do, really, often find themselves being detained.) I'm not saying that these individuals should not have been allowed to enter Canada as an exercise of discretion. I'm saying that were it not for the US and its holy war on terror, and the resulting need for the Canadian government to toe its line or suffer retaliation, I think there's a good chance they would have been admitted.

One of the prime considerations we receive in the U.S. is a presumption of innocence until adjucated otherwise, regardless of the severity of the crime. If Canada is the great bastion of democratic freedom you claim why on Earth would one be refused entry as a guest for only an arrest?

What in dog's name does the presumption of innocence have to do with anything here?

The presumption of innocence is the guarantee that no one may be punished for an act that s/he has not been proved, to the requisite standard, to have committed.

No one is punished when s/he is denied entry to a foreign country. No one is entitled to enter a foreign country as of right. Citizens are entitled to enter their own countries as of right (at least in countries like ours). Everyone else who wants in is allowed to enter as a favour, quite simply. I know that it can be difficult for many USAmericans to grasp, but other countries really do regard them as foreigners just like other foreigners, and just like foreigners wanting to enter the US and how the US regards them.

The onus in the case of someone seeking to enter a foreign country -- including a non-USAmerican seeking to enter the US -- is on that person, to prove that s/he is admissible. There is no onus on the authorities of the country to prove that anyone is not admissible. (Once a person has been admitted to Canada, for example, the onus is then on immigration authorities, if they wish to remove that person, to demonstrate that s/he is not entitled to remain, and of course proof that s/he has overstayed a visa will establish that.)

We both tried to enlighten this product of the Canadain educational system that Puerto Rico is a territory of the U.S. and that those born there are U.S. citizens. He would hear none of it.

Well that was indeed a good story. Let me pick myself up off the floor.

Would-be visitor to Canada: "I'm a citizen of the US resident in Puerto Rico."

Customs officer: "A citizen of the US, eh? So, who's your Senator?"

WBVtoC: "I don't have one. Puerto Rico is not represented in the US Senate."

CO: "Really? That's odd. So, which candidate did Puerto Rico's electoral college votes go to in the last presidential election?"

WBVtoC: "Sorry, can't help you. Puerto Ricans don't get to vote for the President of the US, so there are no electoral college votes."

CO: "Uh ... you're telling me you're a citizen of the US, but you don't vote for the US President and you don't have a representative in the US Congress. Okay, sure ..."

I know, he shoulda known better. You'll jeer when I admit that I'd never been quite sure what status Puerto Ricans had either.

Y'see, it's just that the concept of colony is so strange to us up here, we can't quite get our heads around this ...

But hey, c'mon. The Canadians at the border didn't deport you to Syria.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/

Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria in 1970, came to Canada in 1987. After earning bachelor's and master's degrees in computer engineering, Arar worked in Ottawa as a telecommunications engineer.

On a stopover in New York as he was returning to Canada from a vacation in Tunisia in September 2002, U.S. officials detained Arar, claiming he has links to al-Qaeda, and deported him to Syria, even though he was carrying a Canadian passport.

When Arar returned to Canada more than a year later, he said he had been tortured during his incarceration and accused American officials of sending him to Syria knowing that they practise torture.

Damn ... whatever did happen to that "innocent until proved guilty" stuff??

[iverglas]

91. Your property was not returned in the original state?

You mean, Puerto Rico?

Oh wait ... that's not a state ...


hahahahahah!

[Pert_UK]

49. "Congress" isn't necessarily spelt with a capital "C"....

Not as in "sexual congress"....which may be capital, but not capitalised.....

:evilgrin:

Thanks, I'll be here all week...Try the veal.....

[MyMouth]

51. thread hijack...

I LOVE veal....Havent had it in months. I've got some pasta sauce at home, val parm would be great this weekend...

DAMN YOU Pert, now I'm hungry!

[Pert_UK]

53. I'm cooking "Pork Wellington" tonight....

boneless loin of pork with a layer of mushroom and cranberry pate wrapped in pastry......

Then I'm going out to strangle some ducks with my bare hands, just in case anyone thinks I'm some kind of apron-wearing girly-man...

[MyMouth]

54. Strangle a duck or choke a chicken?

....Sorry, I couldnt resist! ;)

No, I've never been accused of not being Juvenile enough!

[goju]

56. If you were a "real" man..

Youd use a shotgun, of course ;)

MyMouth: "No, I've never been accused of not being Juvenile enough!"

I have :)

[MyMouth]

57. Hey, if the ducks let you walk right up to them...

Then they deserve it. Shotgun shells cost money, you know.<g>

[goju]

59. Good point

And it would be easier to clean too! ;)

[Pert_UK]

45. I understand very well what your beliefs are regarding the RKBA...

What I find incredible, bizarre and bordeline insane is some people's willingness to use the availability of firearms as the main benchmark of freedom in any given society........

US - VERY free
Canada / Australia - less free
UK - downtrodden victims of authoritarian regime
Iraq - Free as a bird
Angola - Everybody's freeeeeeee, to feel good!

What I also find odd is that some pro-gunners seem to assume that the RKBA is an objective right/freedom that they can spot, but many people have a selective blindness towards and choose not to see it.

I just love the way that the vast majority of the Westernised/civilised world doesn't recognise gun ownership as a "right", but pro-gunners manage to overlook this or simply label them as "less free".

[goju]

47. Its not an assumption

The right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed. Disbelief, blindness, or assumptions about that fact dont amount to more than a hill of beans.

We dont overlook the fact that other countries do not afford their citizens that right, we are simply astounded by it. And more astounded that those citizens accept it.

Not sure I would use firearm ownership as the benchmark of freedom, but it certainly is "fundamental". I guess the argument can be made, and has, that without that right to own firearms, all other rights are threatened, and maybe wouldnt exist at all. We might still be ruled by the Crown were it not for that right. I wont make that argument though. Its like the chicken and the egg ordeal. Ill just thank the founding fathers and go clean my pistol.

[Pert_UK]

52. BANGING HEAD AGAINST WALL...........

"The right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed. Disbelief, blindness, or assumptions about that fact dont amount to more than a hill of beans."

Happily for Australians and the world at large, the US Constitution isn't legally binding in Australia. In case you hadn't noticed, we're discussing the situation in Australia.

Bearing arms is a RIGHT in the US in accordance with US law and the US constitution.

US law and the US constitution are not universally applicable.

The Australian government is not denying a right to its people, it's denying that bearing arms is a right. Same in the UK. The fact that you may see it as a fundamental right doesn't amount to a hill of beans to Aussies or Brits or the United Nations.

You believe that the US government is recognising a universal right when it allows the RKBA. Nearly everybody else disagrees.

It's NOT (for the millionth time) that other governments are going, "Yeah, we see how bearing arms is a universal right and everything we're just not going to allow it...."

It's very similar to dealing with a Theocracy. Take Iran for example.....the government of Iran sits around going, "Look at those infidels, they totally refuse to acknowledge Allah the great Creator.....It's ridiculous, Allah made the world and everything in it and they refuse to believe in him, how ridiculous..."

The rest of the (non-Muslim) world doesn't say, "Yes of course Allah exists but I refuse to believe in Him", it says, "They're wrong, Allah doesn't exist."

That's what you're doing, only guns are your objective truth/God in this instance....

[goju]

55. Good grief

That's what you're doing, only guns are your objective truth/God in this instance....

Did I not just say, I wouldnt consider it the benchmark of freedom, but a fundamental freedom? How you can gloss over that, I will never know. If your sentence made any more sense, I would continue, but it falls a bit short of that.

Happily for Australians and the world at large, the US Constitution isn't legally binding in Australia. In case you hadn't noticed, we're discussing the situation in Australia.

Did I say it was? I dont recall saying anywhere at any time that the right to keep and bear arms is afforded to any non citizen, or that it should be. And since you dont recall WHY we were discussing the US as it relates to Australia, I said:
Im fairly sure from the original post that most of us RKBA types now understand very well, if we didnt already, the nature of firearm ownership in such countries with limited freedoms, and rights.

To which you replied..
Don't you ever get tired of repeatedly trotting out the same old mantra over and over again?

Actually, don't bother answering that...Just keep saying it and sooner or later we'll all start believing you......

The comparison between the US and other countries' handling of the gun right issue was the entire point of both of our posts.

If you need to start over, I will refresh your memory...

What I also find odd is that some pro-gunners seem to assume that the RKBA is an objective right/freedom that they can spot, but many people have a selective blindness towards and choose not to see it.

And I said, We dont overlook the fact that other countries do not afford their citizens that right, we are simply astounded by it. And more astounded that those citizens accept it.


Getting clearer now?

You believe that the US government is recognising a universal right when it allows the RKBA. Nearly everybody else disagrees.

Both those statements are accurate. What is your point?

To compare gun rights support with theocratic fanaticism is clearly desperation at its worst. But since you opened that can of worms..

The rest of the (non-Muslim) world doesn't say, "Yes of course Allah exists but I refuse to believe in Him", it says, "They're wrong, Allah doesn't exist."

Is that what the rest of the world is saying? I cant see how you came by that information, maybe you can englighten me? I for one, have said Allah is the same damn god that everyone else believes in, just goes by a different handle. But again, I fail to see how these oranges are in any way related to the apples we were discussing.

[Pert_UK]

60. Wow...maybe I wasn't clear enough there....

I wasn't saying that you equate guns with God.

I wasn't saying that the rest of the world necessarily denies that Allah is another name for God, Jahweh, Shiva or whatever.

I was using an analogy to clarify (haha) my argument.....Maybe if I'd used nuclear power as an analogy instead.....i.e., "The rest of the world doesn't say 'yes of course it's the answer to all our problems, but we're still not going to use it', the world says 'we don't believe it's the right answer to all our problems'".

Benchmark/fundamental freedom/what-ever.........It doesn't really undermine my point, namely that Australians, Brits etc. don't see it as a right or fundamental freedom of any kind. It's a privilege allowed in law, providing you can meet criteria.....The default position is that people don't need guns, and only get them with good reason.

Happily for Australians and the world at large, the US Constitution isn't legally binding in Australia. In case you hadn't noticed, we're discussing the situation in Australia.

Did I say it was?

No......but you did just criticise Australia for failing to let its citizens bear arms, which is something the US constitution does, but the Aussie laws don't. So, you seem to be criticising the Australian government for failing to meet US constitutional standards, whereas the Aussies would demand to know why they should have widespread gun ownership thrust upon them.

In fact I can't be bothered to continue this, especially as your reply so totally misrepresented my post and simply repeats the stuff you've already said and which I've specifically criticised already.

Sorry.

It's Friday and I want to go home now....

[iverglas]

61. it really is quite amazing

That's what you're doing, only guns are your objective truth/God in this instance....
Did I not just say, I wouldnt consider it the benchmark of freedom, but a fundamental freedom?

Uh ... yes ... and it is your assertion that it IS a "fundamental freedom" that is your assertion of objective truth. Where did you find "benchmark" in there?

You aren't asserting that it's like the right to vote in US elections -- something that US citizens have decided to give themselves.

You're asserting that it's a fundamental freedom that Australian citizens have decided to deny themselves.

The "owning firearms is a fundamental right" business is your belief, or opinion, or whatever. You act as if it is an objective truth. Any clearer?

Your response had nothing to do with the point being made.

And your further response to

What I also find odd is that some pro-gunners seem to assume that the RKBA is an objective right/freedom that they can spot, but many people have a selective blindness towards and choose not to see it.

-- And I said, We dont overlook the fact that other countries do not afford their citizens that right, we are simply astounded by it. And more astounded that those citizens accept it. --

just compounded the nonsense.

You persist in saying that other countries "do not afford" a right that you believe to exist, and people in other countries don't.

Just like Iran's rulers must be astounded that other countries "do not recognize" the supremacy of Allah, whom Iran's rulers believe to exist, and people in other contries don't.

And since you dont recall WHY we were discussing the US as it relates to Australia, I said:
Im fairly sure from the original post that most of us RKBA types now understand very well, if we didnt already, the nature of firearm ownership in such countries with limited freedoms, and rights.

There you bloody go.

Is the fact that Australian citizens may not vote in US elections also evidence of this fact that they have "limited freedoms, and rights"?

But you're actually going farther in that statement. You refer to firearms ownership in such countries with limited freedoms, and rights.

The ONLY evidence you have that they have such limited freedoms and rights is that they do not have the same rights as you in respect of firearms. Since that is the very "right" in issue, you can just not use it as proof of a claim that such countries have "limited freedoms, and rights" -- since the status of that "right" as a right is the very thing in issue.

!!

To compare gun rights support with theocratic fanaticism is clearly desperation at its worst.

To think, or pretend to think, that someone who draws an analogy is "comparing" two things -- in the sense of asserting that the two things are just like each other -- is ... well, desperation is one word that might come to mind.

In point of fact, the comparison that was being made was between

(a) belief that the right to have firearms is a fundamental human right

and

(b) belief that Allah is the supreme being that created the world.

So you don't even have a point, desperate though you might have been to make it look as if you did.

Your policy position is based on a belief. Iran's fundamentalist rulers' position is based on a belief. Or ... at least so you both claim, anyhow. And the belief isn't shared by others.

Is that what the rest of the world is saying? I cant see how you came by that information, maybe you can englighten me? I for one, have said ...

And that from someone who merrily alleged herring against others ...

[goju]

64. Borderline absurd is more like it

The "owning firearms is a fundamental right" business is your belief, or opinion, or whatever. You act as if it is an objective truth. Any clearer?

And it is. Despite my beliefs, or opinions, or whatever...owning firearms is a fundamental right, whether I say so or not. Why? Because the founding fathers guaranteed that. Opinion is irrelevant. Objective truth? The right exists, regardless of my or your opinion. But if you prefer to take "rights" beyond the context of society and the law, then I will leave that debate to the philosophers. Is there any objective truth?

You persist in saying that other countries "do not afford" a right that you believe to exist, and people in other countries don't.

That is partially correct. I believe some other countries "deny" that right to their citizens. Much like some countries have denied their citizens access to certain opinions or news sources, ie free speech rights.

Is the fact that Australian citizens may not vote in US elections also evidence of this fact that they have "limited freedoms, and rights"?

No, I think you once again have become confused. If Australia denied their citizens a right to vote in Australian elections, I would say they have limited freedoms, and rights, even more so than they do now.

The ONLY evidence you have that they have such limited freedoms and rights is that they do not have the same rights as you in respect of firearms. Since that is the very "right" in issue, you can just not use it as proof of a claim that such countries have "limited freedoms, and rights" -- since the status of that "right" as a right is the very thing in issue.

While Im trying to straighten out that convoluted, circular whiz bang you've managed to concoct, let me just say that the status, or existence, of the right to keep and bear arms is not at issue, since it doesnt exist in those countries. Right? That right does exist here, in the US. If you are again looking for an objective truth, I wonder if you would hang freedom of speech, or freedom from religious persectuion, on that same nail? Are those really objective truths? Do those rights not exist anyway?

Let me see if I can try to straighten out your reasoning. You say, the right to own firearms is not decided, correct? You said the status of that right is in issue. I must assume that you mean its not decided whether or not it is an actual, fundamental right. But, it IS decided here in the US, regardless of how Britian, Australia, or Canada wants to do business, and regardless of how you or I see it. You then say, I may not use OUR right to own firearms when other countries deny that right to their citizens as evidence of the limited rights in those countries because, YOU or THEY havent decided that RKBA is indeed a right? How am I doing so far? So what you are saying is that if we dont ALL agree on any right, then no right exists. Im wondering where this will take us, but I will leave it in your capable hands to take us down this slope.

Your policy position is based on a belief. Iran's fundamentalist rulers' position is based on a belief. Or ... at least so you both claim, anyhow. And the belief isn't shared by others.

Is it? My policy position is based on belief, and not the constitution/law? Does an anarchist have to share our belief in representative government for that form of govt to be an objective truth? Doesnt rep. gov't exist, beyond belief, shared or not?

[Pert_UK]

81. Jeepers H Crackers.....is it REALLY this difficult?

The "owning firearms is a fundamental right" business is your belief, or opinion, or whatever. You act as if it is an objective truth. Any clearer?

And it is. Despite my beliefs, or opinions, or whatever...owning firearms is a fundamental right, whether I say so or not. Why? Because the founding fathers guaranteed that. Opinion is irrelevant. Objective truth? The right exists, regardless of my or your opinion.

Goju, for the final time and S L O W L Y to make it easy.

You are going round and round and round in circles but here's your basic premise.

"Owning firearms is an objective right because the founding fathers guaranteed that it is."

I hate to break it to you, old bean, but this sentence shows clearly and unambiguously that you actually don't know what the phrase "objective right" means. If you did, you would never, EVER be able to form a sentence that runs, "X is an objective right because these people said it is."

I suspect that your reply will be something like, "Pert you're wrong - the founding fathers didn't CREATE the right, they merely recognised and recorded an objective right that already existed."

In which case we're back to square one.......Where did that objective right come from? What makes it "objective"?

But anyway, I'm not going to go down that route.

You completely fail to understand that it is YOUR BELIEF that guns are an objective right, whereas I believe they're not. Instead, you merely repeat and repeat and repeat the mantra that they objectively ARE a right, but I fail to recognise it. I'm not failing to believe in something that exists, I'm saying that it doesn't exist and nobody has shown me how it possibly could.

I'm not staring at an elephant in the parking lot and saying, "That elephant there doesn't exist" - that would be mad. I'm sitting in my room talking to somebody who claims there's an elephant outside.....They know it's there because their friend told them, but as neither of us have looked outside to see if there is an elephant, or even heard trumpeting from where we sit, I'm going to be skeptical and say that there is no elephant there at all....

I actually cannot get my head around somebody who suggests that there are "objective rights" floating around the universe waiting for founding fathers to spot them and write about them. Your position is similar to saying that while God, ESP and ghosts etc. are all "maybes" that some people believe in while others don't, the right to bear arms is somehow definite and exists regardless of what humans think about it........If all humans were wiped out tomorrow, by your logic the RKBA would remain - it has to if it's objective.

But anyway, I've broken a promise to myself.........

Saying "owning firearms is an objective right because the founding fathers said it was" is actually akin to saying "this cat is black because it's white" or "the sum of these two numbers is 5 because they're 1 and 3".

The fact that you can't see this means that you're either trying to deliberately drive me mad or you have a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the terms "right" and "objective". I think I've wasted enough time either way. Sorry.

[hansberrym]

82. Lets' just cut to the chase.

"I suspect that your reply will be something like, "Pert you're wrong - the founding fathers didn't CREATE the right, they merely recognised and recorded an objective right that already existed."

In which case we're back to square one.......Where did that objective right come from? What makes it "objective"?

But anyway, I'm not going to go down that route."



Let's go down that route since that is really the heart of the matter.

Do you think there is any such thing as object rights? By this I mean rights which are inherent, self-evident, and not merely granted or created by government -but rather pre-exist government.

Is the freedom of religion an objective right?
Is the freedom of speech an objective right?
If you answer yes, how do you know those are objective rights?

If you deny the existence of inherent rights altogether, then any further discussion with you of whether the RKBA is inherent is pointless.

If you accept the existence of inherent rights, then I would like to know how you distinguish between rights which are objective and those merely granted (or denied) by government.

[Pert_UK]

83. An excellent point and well made, but with all due respect.....

whether I accept the possible existence of inherent or objective rights is a side issue.

Goju is repeatedly asserting that they do exist, and moreover is asserting that keeping and bearing arms is one of those rights.

In fact, he's not even asserting it, he's assuming it.

I've asked (GOD, how I've asked) for some justification for his position, and all I've got in return is the same claim repeated over and over and over again, and then finally the suggestion that the RKBA is an inherent right because the founding fathers said it was.

How the FUCK can anybody who understands the phrase "objective right" base a claim for an "objective right" purely on the fact that some guys said it was one? The definition of an "objective right" would specifically exclude any reliance on people's opinions or views.

Finally, it is common practice for people to have to prove their claims.......I'm only asking for Goju to give me one iota of evidence or logical argument, and all I'm getting is the same claim repeated repeated repeated repeated repeated repeated.

Why should I have to prove that objective rights don't exist? Shouldn't it be down to the people who happily use them to criticise other countries to prove that they're not just making it up as they go along?

[jody]

84. You say “I've asked (GOD, how I've asked) for some justification

for his position, and all I've got in return is the same claim repeated over and over and over again, and then finally the suggestion that the RKBA is an inherent right because the founding fathers said it was.”

The issue of self-dense is purely philosophical. Richard Tuck’s book “Natural Rights Theories, Their origin and development” compares and contrasts the works of such great philosophers as Hugo Grotius, John Selden, and Thomas Hobbes. Self-defense is one of the “natural rights” and Tuck’s book is worth reading.

Tuck discusses the issue of whether a person can give away a natural right, e.g. sell them self into slavery, and that’s a contentious topic even today. In the U.S., we believe that liberty is inalienable except for the most egregious crimes and then society takes away by force the natural right of liberty. To me, that’s simply pitting the natural right of one against the natural rights of many.

Tuck may be biased because he is or was a University Lecturer in History and Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge. I don’t believe that school has ever been the national football champion or even made the final four in basketball. Other than that weakness, the faculty appears qualified. :evilgrin:

Jody’s opinion below is based on a brief study of Tuck’s book.

The evolutionary process is driven by unconscious efforts of an organism to defend itself and scientists have amassed volumes of evidence proving that plants and animals developed unusual mechanisms for self-defense.

If natural rights exist, it is reasonable to postulate that each organism has a “natural right to self-defense” and some philosophers have argued that self-defense is the most basic or first natural right. No citations since the topic is so convoluted that one must read the basic material or at least a summary work like Tuck’s to form one’s own opinion.

In 1776, the citizens of thirteen colonies threw off their oppressor’s yoke. In the process, they reasserted their natural right to self-defense.

No philosopher nor anyone else has developed a universally accepted argument for natural rights other than “it’s a natural right because I/we say it is” but the founding fathers went on to declare in state constitutions that self-defense is an inalienable/unalienable right meaning that people could not give it away. That does not mean that a government of the people cannot control arms used for self-defense but it does mean that state governments cannot pass laws that effectively prohibit all arms for self-defense.

It is ludicrous to argue that in the U.S. (a) governments can via the militia and draft compel a citizen to keep and bear arms to defend governments, see Arver v. U.S. (245 U.S. 366) and US v. Miller (307 U.S. 174), and (b) governments have no right to defend a citizen, see Deshaney v. Winnebago (489 U.S. 189), but then assert (c) citizens have no right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves.

We have people who post on DU that apparently believe (c) but ignore (a) and (b). :shrug:

BOTTOM LINE: “RKBA is an inherent right because the founding fathers said it was.”

[goju]

87. Well why the double standard Pert?

whether I accept the possible existence of inherent or objective rights is a side issue.

Yet you "require" of me to proove the existence of an objective truth?

Goju is repeatedly asserting that they do exist, and moreover is asserting that keeping and bearing arms is one of those rights.

In fact, he's not even asserting it, he's assuming it.

Once again, in case you again failed to read the previous post, I never asserted nor assumed that ANY objective truth exists. Rights exist, whether you like or agree with them or not. As I said, I will leave the question of "truth" to the philosophers.

If you are confused by the distinction between an objective right and an objective truth, I am at a loss to help.

Why should I have to prove that objective rights don't exist?

Maybe you should just start by giving us all your definition of an "objective right". That might go a long way in helping you muddle through this.

[hansberrym]

89. I disagree that the existence of inherent rights is a side issue.

It is at the heart of the issue.

If the only rights which we can agree exist are those which society in its political/legal structures recognize (subjective) then there is no point arguing further regarding the RKBA. To each his own.

But if we agree that inherent rights do exist, then the argument becomes focused on how does your side separate the RKBA from other inherent rights such as free speech.

I am not asking you to prove that objective rights do not exist, nor do I believe GOJO was asking that of you, the question of thier existence boils down to a philosophical argument. All forms of government are based on certain assumptions about individual rights, the common good, due process, and legitimate powers of governments (as opposed to oppression). If we are starting from very differnet assumptions, again it is pointless to continue. But if we are working from the similar assuptions (i.e. that inherent rights do exist) then it makes good sense to continue the discussion to try to find out why our conclusions regarding the RKBA are different.

In your opinion, do inherent rights exist?
If so, why do you believe the RKBA is not an inherent right?


Aside from the RKBA, what I find most disturbing when discussing rights (with both US citizens and foreigners) is the apparently wide acceptance, especially outside the US, that rights are not inherent nor "endowed by our creator", but rather are created and endowed on individuals by government.


While others here might sing the praises of the UN Convention on Human Rights, for myself the view espoused by the Founders of the US is the clearest, truest, enunciation of the relationship between the rights of the people and governmental powers.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[iverglas]

90. nuh uh

But if we agree that inherent rights do exist, then the argument becomes focused on how does your side separate the RKBA from other inherent rights such as free speech.

You have just done exactly what Pert_UK has been complaining about -- you have assumed the very premise that he disputes. I would have expected better than such circular reasoning from you.

The point is that EVEN IF there is agreement that "inherent rights" exist (a nonsense, basically, but something that there could be agreement on nonetheless), the argument is not at all what you say it is.

The argument is about whether "your side" has established that its pet right IS an inherent right.

There can simply be no quesiton of whether anybody separates (distinguishes) one inherent right from another unless it has been established that each is an inherent right.

Aside from the RKBA, what I find most disturbing when discussing rights (with both US citizens and foreigners) is the apparently wide acceptance, especially outside the US, that rights are not inherent nor "endowed by our creator", but rather are created and endowed on individuals by government.

Perhaps you're just not listening closely enough to all those "foreigners". (And ain't that cute? "Foreigners".)

You are maybe familiar with a few "foreign" rights instruments?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, ...

... Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. ...

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

(Here's an interesting side question: at the international level, and in modern national rights instruments like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the various instruments modeled on it throughout the world, there is recognition of the right to security of the person ... and yet there is no such recognition in the US Constitution. Did your founders & framers just fail to notice that one? Or is it not obviously an inherent right, because if it were they would have picked up on it? I assert that it is an inherent right; must you now prove why it should be distinguished from the other inherent rights and justify your country's failure to give it constitutional protection?)

The fact is that there can be recognition of the "inherent" nature of human rights without any invocation of a deity as having bestowed them, of course. Essentially, it becomes definitional: a human being is a member of a human group, and has rights in relation to that group by virtue of being a human being.

As long as we agree that all human beings have certain fundamental rights, and that all human beings have the same fundamental rights, and that they have them at all times and in all places and circumstances, it really doesn't matter whether we call them "inherent" or "Juanita". Calling them "inherent" is just a way of expressing the concept that human beings and their rights are inseparable, because if it doesn't have rights it isn't a human being, and if isn't a human being it doesn't have rights.

It still takes a human group to define human beings as those things which have rights, i.e. to make rights "inherent". It is simply abject nonsense to talk about rights in any other sense. Rights, as I believe Pert_UK kind of said, are not things that are free-floating in the universe and come to rest on individuals. They are a definition of the relationship between human beings and human groups.

The fundamental rights are indeed life, liberty and security of the person. The things that human beings do are exercises of those rights.

Driving down the highway is an exercise of the right to liberty.

Defending one's self is an exercise of the right to life and the right to security of the person.

One may need a motor vehicle in order to exercise one's liberty in the way one chooses. One may need a firearm in order to exercise one's right to life in the way one chooses.

It is as much nonsense to say that there is an inherent right to defend one's self as it is to say that there is an inherent right to drive down the highway. If we start down that road, then there will also be an inherent right to stand on one's head and spit nickels -- which there is, that being an exercise of the right to liberty, but it serves no purpose to jumble up rights and their exercise this way.

And the plain fact is that human groups are entitled to limit the manner in which human beings exercise their "inherent" rights. The criteria that must be met for such limitations to be justifiable also do not drop out of the sky, and must be decided by human beings.


While others here might sing the praises of the UN Convention on Human Rights, for myself the view espoused by the Founders of the US is the clearest, truest, enunciation of the relationship between the rights of the people and governmental powers.

The fact that there is no such animal as the "UN Convention on Human Rights" suggests that your knowledge of things not written by your founders & framers is perhaps a little weak, and that you might do well to upgrade it before forming an opinion.

The Universal Declaration to which I referred earlier sounds pretty OK to me at this point:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Of course, there are many different kinds of "rights", as many thinkers more sophisticated that those 18th century ones have written about since their time:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~uichr/resources/eb/weston4.shtml

and for that reason there is a variety of rights instruments at the international level:
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html

and modern national instruments differentiate among rights that are often referred to as "fundamental", "political", "social", etc. -- e.g. Canada's constitutional charter:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Fundamental Freedoms
Democratic Rights
Mobility Rights
Legal Rights
Equality Rights
Official Languages of Canada
Minority Language Educational Rights

The right to vote just is not of the same order as the right of free speech, for instance, just as the right not to have troops billeted in one's home is not of the same order as the right to life.

And honest to goodness, in my ever so humble opinion, the right to tote a gun around just is not of the same order as the right to security of the person.

You might claim to need to be able to tote a gun around in order to be certain of being able to exercise your right to life and to security of the person, but that really is just your claim, and is no different from or better than my claim to need to be able to install a snake pit around the permiter of my property for the same purpose.

[hansberrym]

92. Maybe you missed something about the argument,

so I will lay it out for you stepwise.

1) Do inherenent rights exist (y or n) ?
2) If no, then we have nothing more to argue about.
3) If yes, then the argument is whether RKBA is inherent or not.
and how does one distinguish it for other inherent rights.

From my point of view, the RKBA is inherent, hence I used the word "other" in step #3, but if it pleases you, simply remove the word.

"There can simply be no quesiton of whether anybody separates (distinguishes) one inherent right from another unless it has been established that each is an inherent right."

Why would one need to "distinguish" if each were already established to be of the same type? You are placing the "key in the transmission" again.

One needs only to establish that at least ONE right is of that type, then ask why any other right is NOT also of that type. If NONE are of that type, then no more discussion is needed.

This is not circular reasoning as I have not attempted to prove the existence of inherent rights (leaving that to the philosophers as GOJO suggests). I am simply trying to define the terms of the argument.

By "Inherent" or "objective" I mean not resting on the graces of government for its existence, nor created by government, but presumed to pre-exist government. If you say that there is no such thing as that type of right, then there is no point in arguing whether RKBA is of that type.

Since you say this type of right is a nonsense, we are at step #2 and there really is nothing further to argue about. If all rights are merely government created allowances of varying degrees, then there are no "inherent" rights in the meaning that we in the US generally understand that term.



Note on "Right to security of person":

The RKBA IS the right to security of person and estate in the US. It just has a finer point on it than your amorphous "right of security of person" in that the RKBA specifically mentions having arms.

I (and others -mostly Jody) have posted this many times.





Those sophisticated thinkers in 1948 placed a restriction (art 29, sec #3)on the rights they had laid out earlier in the same document that one does not find in the US constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or in US state constitutions.

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations

While the drafters of the "Universal Declaration" (touche! on pointing out my error in naming the document) use similar language as was used by the founders of the US, they indeed had a more nuanced, or dare I say limited, view of the rights of the people than the US founders.

[iverglas]

94. distinctions without differences

Actually, some fairly significant differences, of course. Allow me to elaborate, and ask a few questions.

Universal Declaration, article 29:

2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

For information and for purposes of comparison, section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (Canada):

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

(Various other countries, including New Zealand and the new South Africa, have adopted Canada's formulation.)

And now let's try Amendment I to the US Constitution:

http://lab.pava.purdue.edu/pol101/Reference/Constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Yes indeed, there's a difference. The international instrument allows for certain kinds of limitations on the exercise of the rights it recognizes. The US Constitution doesn't.

But hark! What's that I hear?

You in the US may be prohibited from, by law, and punished for, by law, shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre?

You may be prohibited from and punished for lying under oath to a court?

You may be prohibited from and punished for disclosing official secrets to the enemy in wartime, or threatening the head of state? You may be prohibited from and punished for advertising snake oil as a cure for cancer? Saying naughty words on television? Conspiring to commit a crime?

Dog damn. Looks to me like you've got some laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ... not to mention those laws that seem to allow people to be arrested for exercising their right to peaceably assemble, if they happen to be carrying signs critical of your president.

Do you think that your founders & framers intended to make a constitution that said that their governments could *not* make those kinds of laws?? Do you think that they meant their constitution to say that the government could not prohibit perjurious speech, or treasonous speech, or incitements or conspiracies to murder?

It's always seemed to me that your founders & framers firmly believed that "inherent rights" came with inherent limitations. They didn't even think they needed to put that part in their constitution; they just thought everybody knew it, apparently.

We out here don't actually look at it that way. We do not think that there are *any* inherent limitations on fundamental rights. We think that every limitation on the exercise of a fundamental right must be individually justified.

Your courts have developed justifications for limiting the exercise of constitutional rights without any guidance from their constitutional framers, and with what you presumably regard as success. Ours have done so with explicit guidance from our constitutional framers, and with what we regard as very considerable success indeed.

Given that, just for instance, our courts have held that it is an unjustified restriction on constitutional democratic rights to deny prisoners the ability to vote, and an unjustified restriction on constitutional equality rights to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry (or to deny the widowed survivor benefits from the public pension plan, or to deny GLBT people statutory protection against discrimination in the private sector), and an unjustified restriction on women's right not be be deprived of security of the person except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice to restrict access to abortion in the manner the government had done ... well, some of us do think that our successes to date have been quite adequate, to put it rather mildly.

So when it comes to "sophisticated thinkers", I'll still be taking the 20th and 21st century ones, myself.

While the drafters of the "Universal Declaration" (touche! on pointing out my error in naming the document) use similar language as was used by the founders of the US, they indeed had a more nuanced, or dare I say limited, view of the rights of the people than the US founders.

And given the fact that your basis for saying this appears to be some sort of claim that your framers did *not* recognize the legitimacy of limitations on the exercise of rights, well, I think you don't have a premise to stand on.

[hansberrym]

95. You will not find in the Declaration if Independence any

such limitation as in Article 29, sec 3 of the Universal Declaration. Nor is any such limitation to be found in the US Const. or in the various state constitutions.

The United nations is an organization that is like any human endeavor inherently fallible and corruptible. While it is laudable that the Universal Declaration recognizes the inalienable and inherent rights of mankind, it gives one pause that in the next breath (art 29, sec 3)that document claims those rights can not be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. That statement presumes that the UN is the font of all that is good and right in the universe, and that there is no right of dissent.


Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations


Sometimes I think you purposely miss the point (quoting section 2 of article 29 rather than section 3 which was the subject of my objection), but then I realize that you do this quite often (for example, I would not ascribe any nefarious purpose in you statemnt about putting a key in the transmission rather than the ignition) so I am apt to think it is an honest mistake.

[iverglas]

97. fascinating

Now if you would just find something in your Declaration of Independence, or your actual Constitution/Bill of Rights, or any other parchment you have handy, that permits your governments to ABRIDGE the RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH by

- prohibiting and punishing perjury
- prohibiting and punishing false advertising
- prohibiting and punishing the shouting of "Fire!" in crowded theatres
- prohibiting and punishing the disclosure of official secrets to the enemy in wartime
- prohibiting and punishing the making of threats against the head of state
- prohibiting and punishing conspiracy (that's "speech") to commit crimes

and I'm sure I could think of a few others.

Sometimes I think you purposely miss the point (quoting section 2 of article 29 rather than section 3 which was the subject of my objection), ...

(Nonetheless, wouldn't you like to answer MY questions? They actually went to the point we are discussing. You don't seem to have replied to anything at all that I actually said.)

And exactly how in hell was I supposed to know THAT? "Honest mistake" indeed. Most definitely -- since I had no way of even being aware that you saw a problem with any other part of that Article. Perhaps unfortunately, I did not assume that you did not know what it meant.

Section (3):

These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised
contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations

Hmm. I guess it wasn't safe to assume that you actually knew what the "purposes and principles of the United Nations" ARE?

I realize that laypeople may not be aware of such things, but the expression "the purposes and principles of the United Nations" is not just a flowery phrase, it is a very specific reference to a very specific thing.

The purposes and principles of the United Nations are part of the Charter of the United Nations, the instrument that the states members have as their constitutive governing document. It is the "constitution" of a body composed, not of individuals, but of states.

Likewise, the Universal Declaration is binding on states, not on individuals. International legal instruments set out things like what principles states recognize, and what states that adhere to those instruments are required to do. The Universal Declaration was "Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948" by member states, who have agreed to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

No provision of an international legal instrument is binding on individuals unless the states whose jurisdiction they are subject to have enacted legislation to implement the principles that the state has ratified.

Here ya go: http://www.hrweb.org/legal/unchartr.html

PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

So, if I may ask, what exactly is your beef?

Do you imagine that your framers intended that the rights and freedoms in your Constitution could lawfully be exercised, oh, say, by someone engaging in "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state"?

Since your own government has adhered to the Charter of the United Nations and is a member of the body that adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it apparently didn't see a problem. And I just don't see what yours is.

[hansberrym]

98. Bizarre is a better word

"And exactly how in hell was I supposed to know THAT? "Honest mistake" indeed."

Answer: By reading what is was that I objected to -namely Art 29, sec 3.


" Most definitely -- since I had no way of even being aware that you saw a problem with any other part of that Article. "

WTF? Did I say anywhere that I had an objection to sec 1 and 2?

"Perhaps unfortunately, I did not assume that you did not know what it meant."

You assume far too much, and read far to little of what others are saying.


Why would I respond to your comments when they were not even in the slightest way a response to what I had objected to? You responded with a diatribe regarding sections 1 and 2 and made no mention of what I had actually objected to -which was section 3.




In regards to art 29, sec 3

The Declaration of Independence says that is the people's right, and our duty, to oppose any goverment that becomes oppressive. That would include even the UN (or its principles) were it to become oppressive.

[iverglas]

99. you got me

I look back, and I see:

Those sophisticated thinkers in 1948 placed a restriction (art 29, sec #3)on the rights they had laid out

I did indeed miss the "sec #3" and, seeing the whole thing reproduced, imagined that you objected to #2. (Do you not?) I mean, since it actually contains something that I might expect someone who asserts that the rights listed in the US Constitution are not subject to limitation to object to ... and Section 3 actually doesn't. Really. It just doesn't.

The Declaration of Independence says that is the people's right, and our duty, to oppose any goverment that becomes oppressive. That would include even the UN (or its principles) were it to become oppressive.

Yes, I see I was right. You don't know what the "principles and purposes of the United Nations" are, and to whom they apply. And you've decided to completely disregard my helpful, and substantiated, explanation.

The UN is not a "government", for pity's sake. The United Nations HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER ANY INDIVIDUAL IN THE WORLD ... other than maybe individuals whom it employs.

If your COUNTRY believed that the UN had "become oppressive", i.e. were "oppressing" your COUNTRY, then your country could do what it had to do, eh?

The UN really is not some big world government, making rules that apply to people in every corner of the earth. THE UNITED NATIONS IS NOT A GOVERNMENT.

It is an association of states, just as states are associations of individuals. Its rules apply TO ITS MEMBERS and to its members only, just as your USAmerican rules apply to you and my Canadian rules apply to me. Really. Honestly. I don't know how much clearer this could be.

If this Article 29, Section 3, is so contrary to your constitution, why on earth did your country vote to adopt it, and remain a member of an organization that adopted it?

You might want to read Article 2, Section 7, of the Charter again:

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

The Charter, and the UN, are all about relations among states, NOT relations between states and the individuals subject to their jurisdiction.

Put 'em together:

- the UN Charter governs relations among states

- the UN Charter precludes states from intervening in other states' domestic affairs

and you get an absence of problem in Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is simply NOTHING WHATSOEVER in that Article that precludes you or anyone else from overthrowing his/her own government.

If there had been something similar to this in the US's Constitution, it would have said something like how individuals may not use their USAmerican constitutional rights to invade other countries, I guess, or maybe other states in the union, eh?

And hey, one might even think that the concept of "the security of a free state" kind of conveys that notion. I don't think that the framers thought much of anybody else exercising their own rights in order to interfere in the security and freedom of the state they had just set up (which is pretty much what that Article 29, Section 3, of the Universal Declaration requires UN member states not to permit) ... or in the security and freedom of the member states of that state ... and I assume they'd have said the same thing if the situation were vice versa, i.e. if the question were their own citizens interfering in someone else's state's freedom and security.

I'm seeing desperate straw-grasping in an attempt to characterize the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as somehow inferior to the US's constitutional Bill of Rights, and I'm seeing an unqualified failure.

And now, back to the subject? The nature of rights, and the content of rights, and like that?

To which subject the question of when it is legitimate to limit the exercise of rights -- which kind of depends on one's concept of "rights" -- is rather obviously relevant?

[hansberrym]

100. Are you saying the UN is currently only a paper tiger?

Well we would agree on that score.

Are you saying that member states are not obligated, nor never will be obligated, to enforce article 29, sec 3 ? Then why is it there?

No -you were saying that the UN can not directly enforce these provisions on individuals, but you seem to forget that the member states are none the less obligated even though the UN currently lacks any real power to compel the member states to enforce them. Without power it can not be a government, but most of the structures are in place so it is not that far from it.

That the UN is currently a pushover is no reason to believe that it will always be so. The plan from the beginning was to gradually increase the power fo the UN while also gradually eroding the sovereignty of the individual member states until there essentially is a world government. Certainly the UN is in no position at the present to demand and compel by force members states to enforce any provision, but that could change in the near future as the supporters of the UN are well on thier way to accomplishing the ultimate goal as espoused by G.BUsh the 1st in his New World Order speech.


Back to the issue:
To which subject the question of when it is legitimate to limit the exercise of rights -- which kind of depends on one's concept of "rights" -- is rather obviously relevant?

True enough, if one believes that all rights are but allowances of government, then all rights can be swept aside if there is a finding of need, whether actual or pretended. But if rights are thought to pre-exist government and are inherent, Inalienable, then they remain despite other claims.

Governments can take back whatever it gives, but they can not legitimately steal away or deny something that is truly inherent in the people.


That brings me back to my earlier comment that those who are the biggest supporters of the UN also are likely to fudge a little on the meaning of inherent rights. For instance, You see them as not quite as inherent as I do.

[iverglas]

96. here's a problem

Maybe you missed something about the argument,
so I will lay it out for you stepwise.
1) Do inherenent rights exist (y or n) ?
2) If no, then we have nothing more to argue about.
3) If yes, then the argument is whether RKBA is inherent
or not. and how does one distinguish it <from>
other inherent rights.

The problem is that you had actually said:

But if we agree that inherent rights do exist,
then the argument becomes focused on how does
your side separate the RKBA from other inherent
rights such as free speech.

The underlining emphasis in the current bit is the bit that was just kinda omitted from the first version, this having been my point.

Of course, we're still not quite there. We're still omitting the part about whether the "right to keep and bear arms" is a right.

The mere fact that something can be formulated as a right does not mean that it is. Otherwise, I could just ask you why you don't agree with me that the right to keep and arm bears is an inherent right.

From my point of view, the RKBA is inherent, hence I used the word "other" in step #3, but if it pleases you, simply remove the word.

So: from your point of view, the right to keep and bear arms is a right (quite apart, of course, from what that right actually would be, if it were what it is stated to be in the US Constitution ...).

There can simply be no quesiton of whether anybody separates
(distinguishes) one inherent right from another unless it has
been established that each is an inherent right.
Why would one need to "distinguish" if each were already
established to be of the same type?

Excuuuuse me? Are you not the one who asked "how does your side separate the RKBA from other inherent rights"? -- and now "how does one distinguish it <from> other inherent rights"? Why am I not understanding why you would now tell me that there is no need to distinguish them, when you asked twice how one would do that??

I understood your point to be that someone is distinguishing two rights of the same type in terms of the protections to be granted to them and the limitations to be placed on their exercise, and that you were asking how (i.e. why) this was to be done.

Now, perhaps I do see more clearly what you want. You want a distinction between those rights we might recognize as "inherent" and the "right" to possess firearms, which we do not recognize as inherent.

And I'm still wanting demonstration that the "right" to possess firearms is a right.

Or, if you like (i.e. if you want to say it's a right because your constitution says it is), why YOU say that it is an inherent right like "other" inherent rights.

One needs only to establish that at least ONE right
is of that type, then ask why any other right is NOT
also of that type. If NONE are of that type, then
no more discussion is needed.

Lordy lordy. Maybe so -- IF someone has first established that this "other right" IS a RIGHT.

IF you are saying that it IS a right because your founders and framers said it was, then we have got precisely nowhere.

MY framers say that there is a right to equal protection of the law without discrimination against (as the constitution has been interpreted) any negatively stereotyped and historically disadvantaged group.

YOUR framers hadn't even figured out that slavery was a violation of the rights they enshrined in their instrument.

No, I'm not saying my framers were better than yours. I'm saying that far more was to be expected of mine, them having had a couple of centuries of extra human evolution and progress to learn from. So I *am* saying that my rights instrument is better than yours, as is pretty obvious. I mean, OBVIOUSLY, yours just had not achieved the pinnacle of perfection when it came to spotting and protecting rights, or they would have done something about that slavery stuff.

So we have two points.

First, there are no authorities to appeal to when it comes to this question of what "inherent rights" are.

Because, obviously, everybody who's tried to answer the question so far has done so imperfectly.

Second, there are no authorities to appeal to when it comes to the other question, whether there are any "inherent rights" at all.

Because, obviously ... well, obviously, there just aren't. How in hell would we determine who is or is not an authority on the question of whether "inherent rights" exist??

You can cite your framers if you like. And you can go ahead and prove to me that they are authorities on the question of whether "inherent rights" exist. I'll wait.

What *I* am saying is that we all agree that there are "inherent rights", for the sake of argument -- for the purpose of further discussion as to what they are, and of how best to protect them and when limits may be placed on their exercise.

You can call them "inherent rights" and I'll call them "Juanita", and it just won't matter as long as the concept we're talking about is the same thing -- that human beings have human rights, a characteristic that I'm quite reasonably happy to call "inherent".

There is then general agreement that these rights, the fundamental sine qua non of "human being-ness", are life and liberty. Security of the person strikes me as maybe just slightly different, although not necessarily; it really is as fundamentally essential to the living of a human life, the being of a human being, as life and liberty.

Those are the ones that *I* recognize as "inherent": inextricable from the things that have them.

That, after all, is what "inherent" means: "existing in something, esp. as a permanent or characteristic attribute". Hence, also, "inalienable" -- cannot be transferred or taken, because it is an attribute.

So -- how on earth can I have an "inherent" right to something that may not even exist?? Did the baby Jesus have an inherent right to a mini-14?


The RKBA IS the right to security of person and estate in the US. It just has a finer point on it than your amorphous "right of security of person" in that the RKBA specifically mentions having arms.

That's an interesting take, except it's bullshit. Your "RKBA" is a right to possess something. It places no conditions on the purposes for which it is possessed, as far as I understand it -- the right is not conditional on it being exercised for some particular purpose, by your interpretation.

Certainly, USAmericans do have some right to "security of the person". For instance, here I would be protected against, say, the government using me for medical experimentation, by my constitutional right to security of the person. In the US, the right to privacy that has been discerned in your constitution would appear to achieve much the same end.

But no, the "right to keep and bear arms" really is not a right that you could assert against a government decision to use you for medical experimentation.

You seem to be abandoning what I have understood to be your own basic premise that rights are what protect you against government action --

All forms of government are based on certain assumptions about individual rights, the common good, due process, and legitimate powers of governments (as opposed to oppression).

All of the rights in your Bill of Rights are addressed in terms of what your government may not do to infringe them. Where I have difficulty with what I understand to be the theories you hold to is that these rights have some other existence, some other function, than to protect individuals against the actions of the group they belong to.

The "natural rights" theorists seem to think that I have a "right" vis-à-vis the bear that wants to steal my fish. I think that's abject nonsense. I also think it's abject nonsense to say that I have a right vis-à-vis you if you want to steal my fish. What I do have is a right not to have my group permit you to steal my fish.

All of the provisions of your Bill of Rights express my view of things -- it enumerates rights and protects them from violation by the government. I don't see anything different in your second amendment. It asserts a right, and protects you from interference by the government in your exercise of that right.

If the right to keep and bear arms is a right in itself, why is the right to own a loudspeaker not a right in itself? If the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is to protect the individual from interference by the government in the exercise of his/her right to security of the person, why is there no similar protection of the individual from interference by the government in the exercise of his/her right of free speech?

But if your second amendment is intended to protect a right that is *not* a right that may be asserted against the government, but rather to protect a "right" that may be asserted against someone or something else, why is it in your constitution?

If you are entitled to protection of your freedom of speech against interference by someone other than the government, why does it not guarantee you the right to own and use loudspeakers, so that you may resist the efforts of someone who tries to shout you down -- just as you may use a firearm to resist the efforts of someone who tries to knock you down?


So I dunno. It looks to me like I've distinguished between the right to life and the right to liberty, say, and the "right" to possess firearms.

The possession and use of firearms are arguably an exercise of the right to life or liberty or security of the person, just as the possession and use of a loudspeaker are arguably an exercise of the right to freedom of speech (or, more basically, the right to liberty).

And as such, the right to possess and use firearms is subject to justifiable limits on exactly the same basis as the right to possess and use a loudspeaker. And of course (and back the the point I made in my previous post), your government does place limits on the exercise of that second amendment right (as you interpret it) all the time. And again, do we imagine that your framers did not assume that their government was entitled to do so -- that the right did not come with the same kind of, uh, inherent limitations that they evidently thought applied to all the others?

Since your framers didn't protect other specific exercises of fundamental rights -- life, liberty, security of the person -- why would they have protected this particular one?

Of course, we know that I don't think they did. But that's just by the bye.

The point is that there are differences between the "inherent" rights of life and liberty and the "right" to possess firearms that are so obvious one couldn't miss them in the dark blindfolded.

[hansberrym]

102. No problems...

"First, there are no authorities to appeal to when it comes to this question of what "inherent rights" are.

Because, obviously, everybody who's tried to answer the question so far has done so imperfectly.

Second, there are no authorities to appeal to when it comes to the other question, whether there are any "inherent rights" at all.

Because, obviously ... well, obviously, there just aren't. How in hell would we determine who is or is not an authority on the question of whether "inherent rights" exist?

You can cite your framers if you like. And you can go ahead and prove to me that they are authorities on the question of whether "inherent rights" exist. I'll wait.


Well I can cite my framers and ...yours too as a matter of fact.
But I don't really need to since the existence of inherent rights is self-evident.


From the Canadian Charter:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.


Oh look at that odd Fundamental Freedom "b" above. It includes specific "exercises" of the freedom of expression. Why those specific exercises must be so fundamental themselves as to be included in that list of Fundamental Freedoms.

Since your framers didn't protect other specific exercises of fundamental rights -- life, liberty, security of the person -- why would they have protected this particular one?

Hey my framers and your framers both see the freedom of the press as fundamental all by itself even though it is just one aspect or exercise of the rights of conscience. (same with speech for that matter)



All kidding aside:

Why do your framers make a disctinction between "freedoms" and "rights". In the US that is merely stylistic. We do not say for instance the Bill of Rights and Freedoms. Some "rights" are expressed as "freedoms" such as "the freedom of the press" (although together the freedoms/rights of the First Smendment were known as the rights of conscience) But is it the same in Canada?


Also you refer to "life, Liberty, and security of person" as a fundamental right, but in the Canadian Charter they are under the heading of "Legal Rights" -which sounds less than fundamental,
what gives?




You can call them "inherent rights" and I'll call them "Juanita", and it just won't matter as long as the concept we're talking about is the same thing -- that human beings have human rights, a characteristic that I'm quite reasonably happy to call "inherent".

There is then general agreement that these rights, the fundamental sine qua non of "human being-ness", are life and liberty. Security of the person strikes me as maybe just slightly different, although not necessarily; it really is as fundamentally essential to the living of a human life, the being of a human being, as life and liberty.


You come very close to saying what I believe but allow yourself wiggle room by saying that the right to security of person is "slightly different" than the right to life and liberty. This is where we disagree.

A guarantee not to infringe on Liberty is a sham if that does not also include the Liberty to seek security. The seeking of security is just about the first thing humans naturally do next to the seeking of life sustaining food. To be "free" but not at liberty to take steps insure to the security of person does not add up to liberty in my view.


Further I would point out that one of the essential qualities of human-ness is the crafting of effective tools including weapons. Whereas nature did not endow us with claws, a beak, or a strong shell for our security and defense, nature did provide us with the ability and also the need to use tools in that we have hands not claws.

Evolutionary anthopologists view effective tool and weapon making as an essential quality of human-ness.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_3.htm


When governments deny the right to use arms (weapons) for defense, they undercut thier supposed guarantee not to infinge on the right to the security of the person in that they deny people effective means of defense.




I thought the Magi brought incense, myrrh, and a mini-14. Anyways,
from the statues I've seen, it seems that Joseph always had a hatchet handy in case the lead ran out.

The word "arms" is sort of like the "other media" referred to in the Charter. It is a general term. Certainly "arms" existed two millenia ago.

[hansberrym]

93. The importance of defining terms can not be understated.

Otherwise we are just talking past each other.

Pert_UK said:
"How the FUCK can anybody who understands the phrase "objective right" base a claim for an "objective right" purely on the fact that some guys said it was one? The definition of an "objective right" would specifically exclude any reliance on people's opinions or views." (end quote)

So between Pert_UK and myself, at least we understand each other somewhat on the intended meaning of the terms (though I suspect not completely). But your use of the term "inherent" at times indicates that you have a very different meaning in mind.

You said:
"It still takes a human group to define human beings as those things which have rights, i.e. to make rights "inherent". It is simply abject nonsense to talk about rights in any other sense."

However inherent rights are not "made" inherent by agreement among people. While a group of people can "recognize" a right as inherent, or choose not to recognize a right as inherent, they can not "make" a right "inherent" by agreement, nor "make" a right NOT inherent.


Even in your Universal Declaration, inalienable inherent Human Rights are recognized, not created. At least on its face the Universal Declaration recognizes that people are "endowed with reason..." whether by nature or Natures God is left unsaid, but I don't think it could be argued that human beings are endowed by the UN, or any group of people, with reason and conscience, so it is unlikely that the right to conscience spoken of in Arts 18/19 of that document was presumed by its authors to have been created by that document.

However Article 29, sec 3 undercuts the lofty language that the Universal Declaration at times shares with the US Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.

[goju]

85. Not me Pert

Im certainly not the one going round and round. And I cant help the fact that you dont read previous posts. Until you do so, you probably will just continue with nonsense.

Here is a hint, you might take note of MY question to Iverglas as to whether "objective truths" actually exist (not objective "rights", as a "right" is certainly more concrete and verifiable than is a truth). As I said, I will leave that question to the philosophers. But you go right ahead and answer it for us all.

Perhaps you can give us an example of an "objective truth"?

[Jack_DeLeon]

68. Self Defense is absolutely a right...

I'll never allow any law to trump my right to self defense which by extension my right to keep and bear arms.

Unjust laws should never be followed, lest you legitimize them.

[alwynsw]

70. Well, Pert

When the UK, Canada, and the rest have had democracy around long enough to have as much experience with it as we have, get back to us about democratic freedoms.

(Just had to mention that.)

[iverglas]

71. and of course

when the US gets around to having an educational system (the evidence being that it apparently has not, as yet), y'all let us know too.

[alwynsw]

74. Read my anecdote in post 69.

Aside from that, people learn what they choose to learn. People do with what they've learned as they choose.

Let's compare Nobel Prizes and patents (for two measures), shall we?

[Pert_UK]

101. Nope...you didn't have to mention that at all......

it just makes me think, "Wow! They're that far out of arguments that they have to resort to this rubbish?!?!....Again!"

[iverglas]

103. do you suppose they even know

where that whole "bill of rights" business came from?

http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.txt

snippets

BILL OF RIGHTS <1689>

An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;

... By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;

By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;

Okay, so far we've got no religious persecution by the state, no taxation without representation, no standing army under executive control only, no quartering of soldiers in homes ...

By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

Oh my.

By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;

Huh, representative government.

By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;

... And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;

And excessive fines have been imposed;

And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;

And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;

And there's the stuff about having to have fair trials, and due process, and no cruel punishment.

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein.

Ah, the Glorious Revolution.

Maybe when they've been practising that democracy stuff for a long as ... but wait! That was them! It's part of their history too!

How odd that all that history stopped in 1776, or whenever that other Bill of Rights thing was written. And that the rest of us didn't notice.