IMAGINE if you went to provide first aid to someone who had been stabbed, but took something with you to protect yourself so you could return home, unharmed.

That’s what one good Samaritan did – before being charged by police simply for staying safe.

That’s the story you’re about to read here – and why we’ve started this fundraiser to make sure people like us can defend ourselves when we need to.

A FEW DAYS AGO we brought you the story of Ron, the Alice Springs local, who provided first aid to his neighbour who had been stabbed.

It was night-time, an assailant was on the loose in the ‘world stabbing capital’ armed with a knife, so Ron took his rifle with him so he didn’t become a second victim.

The ambulance then turned up to take over and then the police rolled up.

At first the instructions to Ron were for him to take his rifle away from the scene. This was all going well until another officer had a different idea and seized his rifle. The following day his other firearms were seized along with his ammo, apparently floating the prospect of destroying his firearms. Ok

The NSC hired a top NT barrister, Jon Bortoli, who came recommended to us from the NT Firearms Council, to help Ron.

Mr Bortoli demanded the NT police comply with the law which required several things, including a notice before this licence was suspended, that the firearms not be destroyed, and return his firearms.

Ron faces charges

In an apparent retaliation, NT Police have now hit Ron with five charges, and a summons to appear in court on June 10.

The charges, which will be confirmed at the hearing, are:

  1. Possess, carry and use a controlled weapon at night;
  2. Carry exposed firearm in a public place;
  3. Carry a loaded firearm in a public place;
  4. Possess or use a firearm contrary to licence;
  5. Going armed in public

Whilst taking a firearm to a tense public situation isn’t ideal, it’s easy to understand why he did this in this situation – as he could easily have become the second victim.

For that reason, it seems logical thing to take something with you to protect yourself – and why Ron should have not been charged – especially as the firearm was ‘safe’ and not used. That’s what the police do in most similar situations.

We previously reported on the situation of NSW farmer David Dunstan who had an unloaded firearm with him when confronting an armed burglar.

As with this case, the police seemed more interested in why victims feel they have to defend themselves, rather than encouraging them for doing what they did.

What you can do

The NSC has been paying the legal bills to help Ron, and has started a fundraiser to help Ron have a properly run legal defence.

If you are appalled by this treatment of someone who was clearly out to do the right thing, then here’s what you can do:

  1. Become a member of the NSC if you aren’t already one (click here to join)
  2. Donate to Ron’s fighting fund through PayPal by clicking here
  3. Share this article with other shooters you know so we can get the coverage this story needs.

Obviously we’ll be giving updates as they come in.

We’re sure that the neighbour is grateful that Ron intervened.

She is probably alive because of him – and we hope our help will see this turn out well for Ron and shooters more broadly.

34 thoughts on “SELF-DEFENCE: How you can help first aid hero fight unnecessary gun charges

  1. allan bennett says:

    Does this mean a person must let themselves be murdered to remain legal –that is a genuine question –not a stir up.

    • Silvan says:

      This country is a JOKE. I can’t wait to get out of here and move to a country where defending yourself and saving someone’s life is looked upon as a heroic act and not a crime. Shame on you police for bending over to your superiors and comply and passing on the tyranny.

      • Derek Itzstein says:

        Unfortunately there’s very few countries where using a firearm to defend yourself or others is still looked upon with favour. The United States, a handful of ex eastern block European countries, Russia, Philippines and a couple in South America.
        We can’t have morons arming themselves over minor disputes claiming self defense but the situation described in the NT should’ve resulted with a commendation not criminal charges.

        • richard f says:

          “WE” do you speak for all of us do you? I am more than happy for women to be armed to stop rapes, men and women to be armed to stop violent attacks, citizenry to be allowed to stand their ground and protect their bodies, loved ones, income and assets with force.

          anyone advocating otherwise is advocating for more rights for criminals, and such a person is detestable.

    • Lawrence Lyons says:

      There is the individual, and there is the community— the poor need to feel secure; the rich can pay for gated communities and security guards, and some politicians have armed Police standing nearby while delivering speeches in public about keeping us safe.

  2. Joshua fulloon says:

    This is the reason people don’t feel safe in Australia especially men who instinctively protect their families, and friends it’s bullshit and something needs to be done about it now! Major gun legislation reforms need to happen now!

    • Keith says:

      What do you mean? There are small pockets of troublesome areas with youth crime issues, but its a bit overstated to suggest people dont feel safe in Australia because they cant carry a gun for self defense. Quite the opposite. I feel safer here than America where rhe likelihood of being shot or involved in a firearm incident is 100 times higher.

      This guys situation is frightening and I think the police and justice system need to show discretion when considering the facts. Did this guy actually pose an imminent threat to the community? But we are happy to release juveniles on immediate bail over n over again to continuously reoffend. Discretionary powers is the way to go.

      • Jap says:

        No, the right to protect yourself and others needs to be written into LAW not a discretionary power which will be shat upon by the various governments.

      • richard f says:

        your chances of being shot in America only escalate if you are involved in organized crime/gangs, are you involved in such things?

        cartel controlled anti gun pushing countries however you have every chance of a violent group murdering masses of people in your village or town due to some sick revenge/making an example of their “power”. Personally give me the right to own guns.

      • Lawrence Lyons says:

        When there is harmony in a community the police to citizen ratio is about one as to 900, when there is civil unrest the ratio is about one as to 400. In Alice Springs where this incident occurred (correct me if in error) it is often about 1 as to 200. There is a great deal of civil unrest and at times a very dangerous situation coming to the aid of someone who has been knife attacked. We don’t acquire a license for a firearm for self defence, however if incidentally it is the best deterrent to an unexpected grievous event than a law of prohibition and the removal of that deterrent followed by charges is in direct conflict with Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR ) signed by Australia in 1948. Article 3 “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” What is protected by Article 3 is the physical security of a person, acts and omissions of the State. The UDHR falls under customary international law and is not set down in treaties or other documents. However, Australia later signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This is a multilateral treaty and “security of the person” within the context of UDHR explanatory notes is a requirement upon the Australian Government to create appropriate legislation. Laws of prohibition for after the fact events are in direct conflict with this human rights treaty. Self defence is a legal right not a human right, however for the State to create a dangerous outcome is a contravention of the human right of physical protection. Hope the lawyers recognise this opportunity to bring the Police Minister before a human rights court.

  3. Brett says:

    What needs to occur here, once the Police drop the charges, which they most likely will, is that a civil case should then be filed for malicious prosecution and unlawful seizure of his weapon (if they did not issue the relevant licence suspension paperwork prior to the seizure of the firearm, then, unless there was some justified immediate action required by Police for preservation of life etc, the seizure is unlawful. At present, there is no deterrent to Police “urring on the side of caution” and laying charges knowing full well in most cases that they will not be followed through i.e. withdrawn, if the individual has the means to defend the charges, without consequence for the Police. Currently, at least in NSW, the Police are not being ‘overseen’ by any effective body, primarily due to the fact that the Police Minister is ex NSW Police himself and as such, they pretty much do as they like because neither the Ombudsman nor the LECC are investigating complaints against them. Civil recourse is the only option – but even then it is simply the NSW Attorney General’s Department (us taxpayers effectively) that forks out for costs awarded against them and any onflowing compensation awards!

  4. David says:

    Disgusting…. What a country we seem to be living in now days. There seems to be more legal penalties for the people doing the right thing than there are for violent criminals essentially committing murder. The police should SHAKE THE HEROS HAND AND THANK HIM!!!!

  5. Daniel Hickson says:

    It is beginning to look more and more credible, that both Federal and State Governments want subjects, not citizens. They want to rule without question of their actions or authority and not be accountable to law, or the public who (foolishly) elect them into government.

    The most fundamental human right, is the right to defend yourself, others and your resources. Without this, the rest don’t matter.


    “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations.”

    “Article 3
    Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

    I won’t list all of the articles that are relevant. But, there has been a significant erosion of the fundamentals of law in the last few decades. We are seeing more and more examples of Police in all states ignoring “… innocent until proven guilty”, twisting the “onus of proof” and using the legal system to punitively punish people. Knowing full well the charges will not be upheld, but also knowing it causes emotional and financial stress in defending the legal action. Not to mention the cost to the taxpayer for this disgraceful misuse of public money.

    I will always be a staunch believer in “self defence”. It’s long overdue that we elect people to our government that refuse to listen to the “…I don’t like it, so you can’t do it” crowd. Instead of the spineless morons we currently have. They have weakened our society, not made it stronger.

    It’s utterly astounding how law abiding firearms owners can be asked to go a property to defend the property owners stock (and them) from feral vermin (especially wild dogs). However they can’t use those same firearms, or any other, to defend themselves in their own homes or apparently anyone in danger. The basic legal premise of self defence.

    Good luck Ron on the fight ahead. Thank you and well done to the NSC for taking on Ron’s fight.

  6. Paul Mc Brien says:

    The criminals in this country have more rights and protection the honest lawful citizens
    Prime example of that is the case of D.Dunstan who was on his property and protected his family from a criminal who was on an Ice fuelled rage was armed with a weapon Dunstan used an UNLOADED firearm to disarm him and delivered the criminal to Police to then be chared himself !
    He was told to ring 000 next time he needed help . He lives on a rural property 45 minutes from the nearest Police station . It is no longer a joke that you can’t defend yourself and your family because of the attitude of Police and Politicians who have no idea what people have to deal with on a daily basis .Criminals are everywhere Drugs are everywhere and you’re not safe in your own home.
    Things have to change and common sense needs to be used ????

  7. Jay says:

    I wish Ron all the best, but as far I am aware it is unlawful to use a firearm outside of condition of licence.
    He should have accidentally run over the assailant in his car instead.

  8. Mark says:

    Plenty of morons armed with illegal weapons already. Just asking to level the playing field for the law abiding.

  9. Richard Thompson says:

    Thanks for setting up the GoFundMe.

    Challenging cases like this with high level representation and competent, confident publicity is how firearm ownership improves in Australia.

    The NSC is measurably making gains for firearm owners in Australia and I’m grateful for the opportunity to support another step forward.

  10. jack says:

    As far as I am aware ,the “Bill of Rights “,and ” The Magna Carta ” are still relevant in Australia ,being a Commonwealth Country , somewhere in these documents ,I’m sure it states the right to keep and bear Arms to protect ones self . But Politicians will tell you these two documents dont exist .
    Could the NSC check if what I’M saying is correct ?

  11. Lawrence Lyons says:

    The Dunstan incident: 2017, a farmer went to the back door of his house with an unloaded 22 rifle, after hearing someone trying to get in. The farmer disarmed the intruder and arrested him. The intruder was carrying a long length of wood (a club) and a knife. Police were already looking for the knifeman because the farmer’s neighbour had reported seeing him earlier. The Police met the farmer and took the intruder into their custody. All was good until the Police turned up at the farmer’s place the following day to seize his licensed firearm […] The Police wrote to the farmer and said, “It is important that you understand that the legislation prohibits you from possessing or using a firearm for the purpose of personal protection” (NSW Police reference no. 1110 53032/IR:SG). Look carefully at the police terminology, […] LEGISLATION PROHIBITS YOU. […]. It was not illegal for the farmer to do what he did, however he was prohibited from using a firearm to do it. […] Prevailing law: Australia signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In summary, (1) the human right of the security of person, acts or omissions by the State; and (2) lawful right of self-defense – acts or omissions by a person. The act of the State was to remove the visual deterrent in the possession of the farmer that kept the knifeman from entering the family home. Has the State diminished the physical security of the farmer and his family? i.e. (1) not (2) above is the point being made.

  12. Richard Bolam says:

    Hi, We as shooters whether it be be rifle or hand gun abide by the licence requirements needed to hold such guns in our care. We have a greater understanding @ respect of the possible outcomes of using such firearms against a fellow human being than the general public. It would be the last resort to use a firearm in self defence being confronted & in fear of our lives, family, or friends knowing for well the possible outcomes. The powers to be would be advised to look harder @ the assailants ( criminals) & not treat us as the threat.

  13. Michael Mazur says:

    What we need is embedded in stone the identical wording of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution..

    ” A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed “.

    The only way to do it is to get candidates for political office who pledge that this will be central to their platform when elected.

    • David M says:

      Not true. The Mutt Department Of Defence funded the disarmament campaign in the hope you would say that – and about their constitution as a whole. They are the source of the money.
      Documented here with references:

      [Removed by admin on report of viruses. Sorry :)]

        • David M says:

          Thank you for that. I’m using an old OS, downloaded it, got the file I remember and no talk of viruses. Is there somewhere else I could upload it? The file size is correct too (viruses take up space – so there could be malicious script on the website or page).

          • David M says:

            Here’s the relevant text. Sorry for the length:

            Dr Peters page:


            Non Government Organisations (NGO’s) manipulate a country by directing money,
            marketing/protests and doctrine through their networks. The one country to most openly
            clamp down on NGO’s is Russia. The effect can be seen in those countries where the lie of
            man made ‘Global Warming’ is enforced with fanaticism, even in the face of scientific
            measurements that all planets in the solar system warmed up, then began cooling. With this
            came a dramatic increase in the sun’s magnetic field, an increase in cosmic radiation, both
            from the sun and further out in space, and possibly an increase in ultraviolet light – the most
            likely source of the extra heat. Suppressing dissent is characterised by the same hatred and
            accusations as the disarmament campaign.

            The country where this lie is most obviously not prevalent is Russia. There the reality of
            Grand Solar Minimums are openly discussed: where throughout history the earth’s
            temperature temporarily increases before the sun cools by around seven degrees, with
            dramatic effects on the earth’s temperature, rainfall, agricultural production and civilizations.
            (Look up Valentina Zharkova, her interviews are in English).

            Russia has built the Palace of the Farmers, like the headquarters of Australia’s National
            Farmer’s Federation, but it’s a small palace in the neoclassical style. Around it is a publicly
            accessible park, so the public use it, see the palace and relate to the nation’s farmers. Rather
            than the habit in Australia, where farmers oppose banning guns and so must be punished:
            dairy deregulation, removal of tariff protection, imposition of Primary Producers’ Licenses
            and a raft of red tape since the 1990’s. Just in time for the coming crisis. Of course all this is
            fueled by money, funding for NGO’s and political donations. A dramatic shortage of food
            not only increases the price of food, and therefore the profit, but creates a crisis. Political
            parties tolerated by NGO’s see crisis as a political opportunity – witness the initial reaction to
            the Chinese Flu: in New South Wales the Liberal Party wanted to use the pandemic as an
            excuse to confiscate all guns (initially it received far more attention than the Ruby Princess,
            an infected cruise ship).

            It’s government by money, unaccountable and not transparent to anyone else. These require

            “In Australia, the “gun control” compact deployed as a network of NGO’s” and a Labour
            politician, Duncan Kerr, oversaw the appointment of one of their members, Darly Smeaton, to
            draft firearms legislation for the States and Territories to enact in November 1995. It was
            obeying the source of the money. The largest source, at least US$317 million, came from the
            American Department of Defence. The second largest source would appear to be the Soros
            Foundation (where does that get its funding?). That’s the government represented by the ‘non
            government organisations’.

            It is worth noting that the phenomenon of large massacres with a firearm only occurred in
            Australia and New Zealand after the arrival of one Rebecca Peters in Australia, an american
            whom the money seems to follow. These stopped once she left for her home country, where
            the new phenomenon of school massacres began to be a regular occurrence. Whilst she was
            here in Australia disarmament advocates began insisting on defining ‘massacre’ as four or
            more people. It didn’t have a numerical definition before that, and, if you use that definition,
            then ‘massacres’ have been a regular occurrence in Australia since at least the arrival of
            British convicts and have continued unabated ever since. It’s smoke screening.


            After the Port Arthur Massacre John Howard did everything he could to stop a coronial

            Rebecca Peters’ citizen disarmament agenda is far flung, including Australia, New Zealand,
            the sub continent, South America, Great Britain and Europe. The benefiting interest should
            be seen in the sources of the funding.

            I just looked up the Dr Peter’s Page and it’s still up.

  14. Michael Mazur says:

    David M, read the article in which this Rebecca Peters activities were detailed, and see that while Australia was a soft target, not having the equivalent of the US 2nd Amendment, much harder, if not impossible will be cancelling the 2nd Amendment in the US, short of a coup against the American people, where the vote fraud of the stolen election last Nov3 was the beginning, but which will be thwarted by growing massive awareness that this was the intention.

  15. Steve says:

    We the people need to demand the right to use firearmns as self defence tools, I am former military and am certain I want to be judged by 12, not carried by 6.

  16. B-4 says:

    Just remember if you find yourself in a position where you need to defend yourself never say to the police “it was self defense” all you literally say is “I just tried to stop him/her, I had no intent on hurting/killing them, I just wanted them to stop”
    saying Self Defence means you thought about what you were going to do before it happened, that’s pre meditated planned to bring harm to someone.

    • Neil Jenkins says:

      Correct. All you want to say is that you wanted to stop the threat. .. .and you shot at the centre of the seen mass. Of course if you do point a firearm at someone and/ OR pull the trigger, then you will need to be very, very sure of why you did it otherwise you will be charged, and there’s not only the criminal charges, there’s the civil suit as well where you could lose your house. So you would not want to risk any of that that unless you was sure it is necessary to save a life…

  17. Lawrence Lyons says:

    The UDHR falls under customary international law and is not set down in treaties or other documents. However, Australia later signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
    This is a multilateral treaty and “security of the person” within the context of UDHR explanatory notes is a requirement upon the Australian Government to create appropriate legislation.

    The two primary aspects considered by the Bill are:

    the human right of the security of person, acts or omissions by the State; and
    lawful right of self-defense – acts or omissions by a person.
    Human rights and lawful rights are different but related concepts. The following is a conceptional presentation about strategies to preserve life, protect the community, strengthen democracy, and enhance the trust of the public in the justice system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *