A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER of shooters believe that we should be able to have firearms for self-defence.
Even those who disagree couldn’t argue that there can be times when you need to be able to use a firearm to defend yourself.
For example, when someone comes at you with a knife.
The David Dunstan story
You might recall the story of David Dunstan from 2017 – the NSW farmer who lost his guns after grabbing his gun to stop a knife wielding intruder at the back of his property, even though he (David) did not use his gun.
His wife had called the police – but they were a good half hour away, while David had to act quickly to protect his family.
David’s ‘genuine reason’ was that he is a farmer, yet he was thrown into a situation when he clearly had to protect himself – and a legal battle to get his guns back.
Attack in Alice Springs
NOW we have a similar story from the gateway to the Red Centre.
One evening in late April, “Ron” heard a commotion near his house and saw that his neighbour had been stabbed in the back. She was laying in a neighbour’s driveway, quite motionless with Ron fearing the worst.
Another neighbour called an ambulance while Ron grabbed his first aid kit – and his 1917 Eddystone rifle – an Enfield (similar to the one pictured here) and ran to help the victim.
The gun had rounds in the magazine but was unchambered and had the safety on so could not be fired.
It was just as well Ron was there because he was an experienced first aider.
However, it was night-time and an assailant was on the loose in a town that had been dubbed the ‘world stabbing capital’.
It was a dangerous situation for Ron to be in, so having his gun with him was the insurance he needed to make sure he didn’t become the next victim.
Ron gave his neighbour first aid (with the gun on the ground nearby and under his control) until the ambos turned up when he let them do their bit.
The police rolled up around the same time at which point Ron let them know why he had his rifle with him. The officers told him to get the rifle out of there, which he started to do by heading home.
Other officers who turned up in another car stopped Ron and seized his firearm and licence. They returned the next day to take his other guns and ammo. All without providing any paperwork.
Ron is understandably concerned about what happened, so turned to the NSC after being advised by Shooting Stuff Australia.
The NSC then turned to the Northern Territory Firearms Council who kindly recommended a top local lawyer who the NSC has hired to help Ron.
On the lawyer’s recommendation, we are unable to say what happened to next or what the legal approach will be. However, we intend to make sure that this matter reaches the right legal conclusion.
NT’s legal requirement to respond
Sure, we get the problem when people carry loaded / chambered firearms in public, but the reason it was required in this instance is self-evident.
As we saw with David Dunstan, Ron only wanted to make sure he was safe. His only option was to stay inside and let his neighbour die. Except that this would have been illegal.
The NT’s Criminal Code Act imposes a ‘general duty’ on people to provide assistance to persons in need of it.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers state on their website that “Failing to help a person in danger has now been made a crime in the Northern Territory”.
The site says that the Act “now imposes a general duty to rescue, stating that any person who is able to provide rescue, resuscitation, medical treatment, first aid or succour of any kind to a person who is urgently in need of it and whose life may be endangered but “callously fails to act” is committing an offence.”
The penalty for not complying is up to seven years imprisonment.
Ron had no choice.
Help Ron – join the NSC
If you’d like to support Ron – and all the other people we’re helping push back against bad gun laws right across Australia – then the best way to do it is by becoming a member of the NSC. Every cent goes to our fights.
Simply click here to join.
Do those police ever think that one day an officer my be on the ground being cut up by a drug fueled idiot and no one can help even though they may have firearms which would save the day
ground. Because they don’t want the grief from other brainless police.
This case is going to be extremely important . We all should have the right of self defence . I think a lot of shooters have been waiting for a situation like this . We need to win this .
I wholeheartedly support Ron’s actions and the NSC’s support to put this right.
A question worth asking is whether the police officers took the common way out and went for the good guy, or whether is there an additional underlying problem? Are there maybe (flawed) standing orders that compel the officers to take this course of action, with consequences for them personally if they fail to do so?
As the owning, carrying and using a firearm for self defence is not a legal defence in this country, why has no one brought a class action against the police for failure of duty? “Protect and Serve” is the motto of the police. They appear to be failing that. If the police cannot protect everyone all the time then it is high time that that onus be given back to the individual.
I live in a rural area and on occasion when I have had to call triple 0 the response time has been around 30 – 60 minutes. Luckily it has never been a life threatening situation for me or my family. If that day comes I will have a firearm with me and deal with the fallout later. I would rather be judged by 12 good people than carried by 6 friends.
Unfortunately the police can’t be everywhere or standing on the street corner.
The government makes the laws and the police are required to enforce them, so it’s no use attacking the police. Attack the government.
Actually, they are not. All police “power” is discretionary, except in specific cases.
Unfortunately, “Protect and Serve” isn’t the motto of all police departments and there is a large number who are at the ready to play the political game rather than the common-sense game.
Many officers have common sense and the first officers were clearly aware of the firearm being present and most-likely said for him to get it the hell out of there before some (Marxist) Politically-Correct turd saw him with it and decided that he went into public with it to create fear and panic.
For the second pair of officers who took the firearm based purely on their supposition, the motto of “Protect and Serve” is an altered quote which, in full, reads: “Protect the doughnuts and Serve the coffee!”
I agree with everything that has been said. But it is not the police who are to blame , it is the elected members of parliament who make these moronic laws not the police they are sworn to uphold the laws. The only to fix these problems it to take matters on in legal system in all jurisdictions including Federal, then vote the twits out in the next election the ballot box is a mighty tool if attacked with commonsense.
I’m sorry but it’s both. You don’t give a pass to a person who can quit their job but instead do evil and claim they have to do it .
That argument was dismissed in 1946 at the Nuremberg trials. They can refuse or quit or both.
If you have to disarm people who are only doing their best to save a neighbor. . . . .It’s time to QUIT!
If enough Officers Quit, the law would go away either by being changed or by lack of officers willing to do evil. . . .and this is an evil there is no way around it.
Self defence in the eyes or the law needs to be completely overhauled!
The use of the term REASONABLE FOREC should be abolished in any self defence case because when you are in the fight of your life, you simply cannot judge when you should stop!!
Self defence should be completely legal in the family home and or when helping someone who’s been hurt or injured and the person defending themselves should not be charged.
It’s amazing how the law enforcement can defend themselves but citizens are prosecuted we need a 2 amendment and the law changed to trespassing is punishable by any means necessary
Totally agree . Right to bear arms
Did the Police catch the knifer? or were they spending too much time arresting a hero?
Get your priorities in order!
The law says that a firearm may not be used for self protection. A firearm may only be used for the purpose that it has been licenced, eg. Target shooting. If this is so, then why are the police carrying a firearm. So by Australian law, a police officer may not use his firearm to protect themselves or anyone else. So why are the Australian police armed at all. They should be unarmed like the police in the UK. Either this or the law needs to be changed giving people the right to protect themselves and their property.
I totally agree!
If we as shooters used the same reasons which are explained to the enquiries after these shootings, we would lose our licenses, our guns, and be imprisoned!
Of course you can judge when to stop when defending yourself. You should stop when the threat has ceased. If you’ve somehow injured or disabled your attacker to the point that they’re no longer posing an immediate threat to you can’t continue to beat/stab/shoot them. That’s the definition of reasonable force. Unreasonable force would be beating someone to death with a pick handle after you’d knocked them unconscious with the first blow.
Though I do wholeheartedly agree that it should be legal for a licensed firearms owner to use a firearm in the unlikely event that they must defend themselves or others. Self defense may not be one of the acceptable reasons to be granted a firearms license but once a person is legally licensed using a firearm in a genuine self defense situation should not be grounds for confiscating their firearms and canceling their license.
Firstly, if his firearm was stored correctly, the time taken to get it out and load the magazine and then leave the house the stabbing ‘offence’ would have already been completed, Ron would have had no idea if the offender was still there and once outside with his firearm was now committing a new offence. The next issue is what did he do with his firearm while giving first aid to the victim? There was a potential for him to have his firearm taken and a possible escalation of damage caused. trying to justify the use of a firearm in any potential domestic conflict (unless in the hands of Police or Licenced Security staff) will only cause more issues for all licenced firearm owners by the anti-gun lobby. Ron would have been better off with a lump off wood, if needed there would be less chance of him injuring an innocent bystander as a round from his Enfield would probably pass straight through the offender and could end up anywhere.
If he had a lump of wood he would also be committing an offence under the same law
He was carrying a lump of wood. An unloaded rifle is inert, it is just a wood and metal object.
the law says that you are allowed to protect your self and your property by what ever means is deemed necessary but what the Police say and what the Courts say depends on their own interpretation on what is politically viable to them.
Problem herin being that the next “TWIT” you elect will be just as stupid and gutless…..