Nov
23

Shooter Union ‘Eye Witness’ to Betrayal on 15th November in Parliament.

 

Dear Ron
Shooter Union Queensland was present in the public gallery at parliament house to watch the vote on the Weapons Amendment Bill last Tuesday. We had earlier been in touch with one of the Independents and several other politicians. Both the Katter’s Australian Party representatives in parliament came up to have a chat on a couple of occasions. All of those we were in contact with on the issue were asked about calling for a division when it came time for a vote and all agreed.

To explain, as a general rule, when a vote is taken in Parliament, it’s by show of hands and it’s so quick that nobody knows who voted for what. When a division is called, the vote is taken much more graphically. If the bill is presented by the government, those who wish to vote FOR the bill cross the floor to the government’s side of the House. Those who wish to vote AGAINST the bill cross the floor to the opposition’s side of the House. If there are 5 or more to vote against the bill, the names are recorded in Handsard. This is the process that occurred when the Weapons Act was originally voted in and when registration was voted for as well. On that occasion (1996), the only one who voted against the bill was Liz Cunningham.

Last Tuesday, there were six who voted against the bill: the Independents Liz Cunningham, Dorothy Pratt, Rob Messenger and Chris Foley and the two Katter’s Australian Party members Aiden McLindon and Shane Knuth.

Whilst some of the opposition spoke during the debate, ALL of them crossed the floor to vote with the government – again! Only those six stood up for shooters.

Of the debate on the individual clauses that followed in the evening, there was only one item where a division was called again. This was on the penalty for theatrical ordance suppliers without a licence. Your local high school production could very well be in breach of this clause, if they use “replica” firearms in their production and they don’t have a theatrical ordnance supplier with a licence to supply the replicas. Yes, really!

Remember the names of those who voted against this atrocious piece of legislation. They are the only ones we as shooters, can rely on to stand up for us. The rest of the parliament let us down. You can read the whole transcript of the debate in Handsard. Follow the link below and access the record for Tuesday 15th November.

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/en/work-of-assembly/hansard

Happy reading!

Kind regards
Rob Harrold
Shooters Union

Nov
18

‘Our Hero’s’ who voted against the LABOUR/LNP Coalition Weapons Amendment Bill of 2011,

The Letter below Was sent ont he 18th November 2011  to ‘Our Hero’s’ who voted against the LABOUR/LNP Coalition Weapons Amendment Bill of 2011,

Mrs (Liz) Cunningham

Mrs Dorothy Pratt

Mr Chris Foley

Mr Aidan McLindon

Mr Rob Messenger

 

Mr Shane Knuth

An Open Letter toMrs Cunningham, Mrs Dorothy Pratt, Chris Foley, Rob Messenger, Aiden Mc Lindon, Shane Knuth.

Dear
After reading Hansard of the 15th November 2011 and being very pleased to see that six valiant defenders of the rights of Queenslanders, voted against the latest Weapons Bill 2011, one of those, being yourself. I felt moved to write to you to thank you on behalf of myself, and the law abiding firearm owners of the State. Even though we knew that the thousands of submissions we sent to the members of parliament would make no difference to the outcome, this time, your actions combined with the other five will enable us to publish the infamous names of those that voted for it.
We also realised that our little show of force at this date would go to remind the LNP on the next election day, of why they lost again. When they are looking at the tally board they will remember the 15th of November 2011. I’m sure the 250,000 licenced firearm owners, multiplied by 6 for their families and friends, will all vote accordingly, against the coalition of LNP/LABOUR in the forth coming election.
The LNP either, have to face complete extinction as a party or, change their voting pattern, and stop betraying the people of Queensland, stop voting with Labour and be an effective opposition. They have to accept that Russell Coopers Gun Laws are a billion dollar debacle. The Long Arm registry, has solved no crimes or saved any lives, is just a useless imposition on the people of Queensland and they should commit to scrapping the Long Arm Registry, or face political oblivion. In fact, the reaction to the National Party betrayal of Firearm Owners the National Party as an entity ceases to exist.
I read the earlier speeches and the ones of the 15th of November. I always had a very low opinion of the morals, intellect and lack of ability to read, of your contemporaries in the established main parties. Reading those pages shows that the majority of major party politicians must be chosen for their ability to be primary school bullies, lying, bickering, spoilt ignoramus whose sole skill is to join in the gang and steal one another’s jelly beans. Excepting the valiant few from your independent and Australian party, the level of debate could be heard in the primary school toilets, name calling, uninformed, ill read garbage.
One of the Crowns Minister’s Mr Roberts, a member of the cabinet, an advisor to the Governor in Council, made it very plain that he had not read the Weapons Act 1990, or the Regulations, that he had not read the amendments that he was proposing, that he did not understand the effect of the provisions within those clauses and what’s more had no idea of the doctrine of the sovereignty of the Parliament, and his function is a part of it. He referred to a definition of a magazine, that is within the current Act that includes the word ‘detachable’, yet was oblivious that sovereignty of parliament doctrine ensures that the words in his current amendments replace and repeal the previous definition. A magazine will now be defined as the “capacity of the weapon”, a box that holds ammunition will be just a separate box and the firearm may only have the capacity of one as the space in the chamber, once the box is removed. Ludicrous. I will not bother you with the other Monty Python idiocies within the amendments as sadly, even though they are so bazaar they still will wreck further havoc on the law abiding firearm owners of Queensland.
Thank you again for standing above the crowd.
Yours
Ron Owen J.P (Qual)
24 Mc Mahon Road
Gympie, 4570

Nov
16

78 Thieves Stole More of Your Rights. 6 Hero’s Defended Them.

 78 Thieves Stole More of Your Rights. 6 Hero’s Defended Them

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2011/2011_11_15_DAILY.pdf

Page 3615
AYES, 78—
 Attwood, Bates, Bleijie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Crandon, Cripps, Croft, Darling, Davis, Dempsey, Dick, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Farmer, Finn, Flegg, Fraser, Gibson, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Langbroek, Lawlor, Lucas, McArdle, Menkens, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Powell, Reeves, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Robinson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt,Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. T: Keech, Male

 NOES, 6—
Cunningham, Knuth, McLindon, Pratt. Messenger, Foley

The Betrayal.
If you wrote to any of the LNP members and received a response it would have talked glowingly about the LNP s efforts to protect firearm owners.  Well when the blarney is over. They show their real colours, the are the Quislings the collaborators of modern times. Please write and support the brave six  who voted No.

We did not lose.
We did not lose, as such. The thousands of submissions recieved by the members, some of them read out by Mrs Cunningham has told parlaiment that there is a force out there in the electorates that they have to deal with. They know that 200,000 firearm owners, (47,000 recent ones) are going to dictate the next election. (Coming Soon). They are afraid, there worst fear is that this 200,000 or 250,000 votes are not unified, they are not controlled by one organisation, they cannot infiltrate that organisation, they cannot buy off that organisation. Ultimately they will lose for this days betrayal. 

Ron Owen

Nov
15

Weapons Amendment Bill Voted on by LNP & Labour Today.

Government are Todays Criminals.

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2011/2011_11_15_DAILY.pdf
For anyone who wishes the proceedings are reported in the link above.

Betrayed

Today the 15th November will be a date remembered in infamy by the 200,000 licensed firearm owners that it affects. We morn the loss of more of the few remaining human rights of our brothers in arms. Again, we were betrayed by the Labour Party the party that used to respect freedom, a party that produced Andrew Fisher, King o Mally, and Curtain. We betrayed, yet again by the National Party, the party that sold us out in 1996. Now amalgamated with the Liberal Party that also betrayed us today as it did with its decietfull leader John Howard in 1996. Howard, who signed letters in 1996 prior to his election stating that he would defend the rights of firearm owners then betrayed us in an instant after the Port Arthur murders. Instead investigating and prosecuting the Perpertrators he prosecuted the innocent. This process has just been an ongoing enslavement of  law abiding Australians. Instead of prosecuting the guilty they fine the innocent, its easier for them to blame us.

Defended By Independents and Two Katter members.

Today though as usual, the independents and now the two members of Katters Australia Party voted against and all the LNP and Labour voted to support the Bill. They will still be debating it tomorrow but the Vote has been cast. Tomorrow we will be distributing the list of ‘fors’ and ‘against’. These lists will be very handy as guides of who to vote for in the up and coming election. We must become political activists and insure that all Firearm Owners, shooters , hunters, collectors know who to voter for and who to vote against. Firearm owners have to write to local papers letters to the editor, write to your clubs, write to other clubs inform them of  this further betrayal.

Free Men Own Guns Slaves Don't.

Free Men Own Guns Slaves Don't.

The Police have just been given another small book of legislation to punish us with, they write it for the politicians and then they carry it out.  Did they consult with you, did you give your assent for them to pass this further list of impositions? No. We have to train our politicians to stop ignoring us. How many of you wrote to the LNP and they  wrote back and said they were going to object about the rights of shooter being over ridden. Yet they went and voted with Labour. In other times they would be branded collaborationist, Quislings, and held in suitable disrepute. It is our duty to remind the people of this betrayal. The LNP are so close to Labour there is no difference. They are not the opposition they are a part of the twin duopoly that tyrannise Firearm Owners.

 Hansard Today WEAPONS AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Resumed from 8 September (see p. 2922), on motion of Mr Roberts—
That the bill be now read a second time.
Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.21 pm): I rise to speak to the Weapons Amendment
Bill 2011. Every time one of these bills is presented to parliament, there is a reaction in the community. I am sure I, along with other members, have received correspondence, particularly from current licensed weapons owners who have expressed concerns. I will get to some of those soon. Mrs Cunningham goes to bat for the shooters. Page 358

Nov
01

Arrest The Prime Minister? Request to Act Under Bill of Rights 1689.

Arrest The Prime Minister? Request to Act Under Bill of Rights 1689

Dear All

This is a letter to Commissioner of Police, United Kingdom, it is well researched and gives a short History of the Bill of Rights 1689 and explains some of the legal chains that bind the parliament and the Her Royal Highness. There are more chains much more but this is a very good start. If you wish to support him in the UK you, we are all subjects under our Constitution and it is just as relevant to us, and you, maybe more so, as we have more to lose then what the UK have already lost. So send an email or a letter to the Police Commissioner and ask for David Cameron’s arrest and prosecution and then we can plan making a similar complaint here to the Federal Police Commissioner. Got to keep the axeman busy, Ron Owen.

Poor Ron, I had another Red Head in Mind For Arrest.

Poor Ron, I had another Red Head in Mind For Arrest.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To Bernard Hogan-Howe

Commissioner of the Metropolis

New Scotland Yard

Broadway

SW1A 1AA United Kingdom

Sir

You will be aware that Mr Cameron, Her Majesty’s Prime Minister, has been talking to the other heads of Commonwealth countries about changing the Bill of Rights 1689 to allow the sovereign to marry a Roman Catholic. You are probably not aware of the history surrounding this Major Constitutional Law. I will therefore explain the history and reasoning behind this most important constitutional law.

I fully realise our police are not taught constitutional law, it being only very rarely that it raises its head, however it is not only law it is higher law which Parliament is required to legislate within the restrictions imposed upon it by the English Constitution, and which our police are duty bound to enforce. The Act of Settlement 1701 is a simple clarification on the rules of accession and in no way amends the Declaration or Bill of Rights 1689.

The Police service use Blackburn vs the Commissioner of the Metropolis 1968 as an excuse for not doing their job under the law, this court ruling is in fact ultra vires. The court had no authority to allow an enquiry to be dropped into an allegation of crime, which effectively grants a dispensation to those who break the law from suffering the penalty for their criminal activity.

I would refer you to the judgement on the dispensing powers of the King in Thomas vs Sorrel 1674 by Chief Justice Vaughn of the Common Pleas whose explanation is very clear as to the powers of the King to grant a dispensation from a penalty for a crime. Because this Ruling is dealing with the powers of the King to act, or not act ,as the case may be it is, by its very nature, a constitutional ruling on higher constitutional law.

Queen Elizabeth I demonstrated this dispensing power perfectly when she forgave the Earl of Essex for a personal treason against her, but she removed his head when his treason was against her subjects.

King James II was ruling outside the rule of law and appointing Roman Catholics to positions of authority in the armed forces which the law forbad him the right to do. Parliament spoke to King James about this and asked him to change his ways, his response was to prorogue parliament and carry on as before.

The now out of office politicians and the Peerage asked Prince William of Orange if he would come to England to protect the Protestant faith as established by law. William landed at Torbay, with a much smaller army than James, but James’ army deserted in droves forcing James to send his wife and son to France. James attempted to follow them but was captured and taken to William who placed him in a palace on the banks of the Thames. James escaped and took a boat down river to France.

William was asked to take on the administration of the country, but he despised the English and sacked a lot of our prominent military leaders and civil servants replacing them with Dutchmen. The still out-of-work politicians spoke to the Aldermen and 50 of the common council about this, and William hearing about this ordered that writs should be sent to every borough in England for representatives to be sent to Westminster to tell him how we the English wished to be ruled.

A convention, and not a Parliament, took place at Westminster in January 1689 and a document the ‘Declaration of Rights’ was drawn up and shown to William and Mary and they were told that if they wanted the Crown they could have it conditional upon them accepting the terms laid down by the representatives of the people.

William and Mary accepted the terms and were jointly offered the Crown, which they accepted, William them called a parliament consisting of the representatives of the People and the Baronage and the Declaration of Rights was passed into law as the Bill of Rights 1689. With two codicils:

Any amendments to this Bill must be made before 23 September 1689 or they are void, and not lawful, and this Bill is for all time. Because this was put through parliament by people who were specifically sent to tell William how we the English wanted to be ruled and not by a properly elected parliament, and as the will of the people in England is supreme over parliament, and the sovereign, under English law, and custom and practice this Bill can never be repealed, or amended, by any normal parliament only by another convention of the people.

I am enclosing a copy of the oath taken on that occasion. If you read the oath you will discover that this oath, from the Bill of Rights 1689, refuses the right of parliament to sign any EEC or EU treaty’s which transfer powers to govern away from the Queen in Parliament to any foreign power.

What Her Majesty is forbidden by law to do Parliament, who operates in Her Majesty’s name, cannot do without committing High Treason in the same way David Cameron’s actions constitute an act of High Treason against the Sovereign and Constitution of this country.

William III and Queen Mary accepted terms offered to them and the Bill of Rights is not a parliamentary act in the normal sense it is a binding contract between the sovereign and people of England, a contract Her Majesty can not break without forfeiting the Crown. If she does the law is quite clear, the next in line will become King the second the contract is broken and it is as if Her Majesty had died.

This letter constitutes a formal allegation against David Cameron, Prime Minster of Her Majesty’s United Kingdom of Great Britain, of High Treason against Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and the Constitution of England, by attempting to amend the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, which lays down the inheritance of the Crown, and which, if done, will forcefully remove Her Majesty from her titles, and temporalities, as Queen of England. As though she were dead. This is consistent with David Cameron imagining her Death, which is an act of High Treason, contrary to the 1351 Treason Act.

You, Sir, took an oath to uphold the laws of England to the best of your ability, and without favour, fear, malice, or ill will. You took that oath to Her Majesty and Her Majesty took an oath to her subjects to rule England according to our laws. You have a clear duty to do every thing in your power to assist her in keeping her oath, taken before God, to her subjects.

Sir, you are on record as saying it is not for the police but the victim to decide if a crime is investigated. Any assault on Her Majesty’s honour, and the constitution, are an assault upon all Her Majesty’s subjects, you included; we are all victims in Mr Cameron’s act of High Treason. You are therefore requested, and required, to fulfil your oath and deal with Mr Cameron for his High Treason against Her Majesty, the English Constitution and subjects of Her Majesty. For your information I am enclosing a copy of my book Layman’s Guide to the English Constitution. Which I hope you find to be a good read and informative.

Respectfully submitted

Albert Burgess

Oct
27

Another Reprieve on Amendments

Another Reprieve, but the Amendments Bill is back before Parliament,
first in the list of Orders of the Day, see below,

Notice Paper for Tuesday, 15 November 2011 3

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

1. WEAPONS AMENDMENT BILL (Explanatory Notes)

Introduced by: Minister for Police, Corrective Services and Emergency Services (Mr Roberts)

Date introduced: 12 May 2011 (Record of Proceedings p. 1463)

Debated: 8 September 2011 (Record of Proceedings p. 2922)

Status: Resumption of second reading debate.

Shooters Union MEDIA Release.

(Something funny in Queensland politics.) A slipped Bill in Queensland.

“On the 12th May of this year the Labour government introduced into Parliament a Weapons Amendment Bill and the second reading speeches commenced.

Since then the Bill has repeatedly appeared in Government business on the parliamentary agenda and at times has reached the position of being the next item for debate, only to be relegated down the list before the debate commenced.

Tuesday 25th October is the next sitting day. On the morning of Monday 24th the Amendment Bill was second on the list of Government business for the day. By afternoon it had dropped several places to 5th on the agenda.

A Claytons bill being presented by a Claytons government? Or an admission that it is an ill informed fiasco of a Bill?”         From Shooters Union.

THE SPLIT IN THE LNP  GROWS WIDER.

Well the longer that Labour drag this out, the greater split within the LNP, from the Pro shooter members to the Anti -Gun Members such as John Paul Langbroek. Of course the insistence of LNP to support these further impositions on shooters will send even more to Katters Party weakening the LNP. Labour will consider this good politics, but if LNP had any scruples they would represent their electorates instead of the party and vote against it with all the independents.

The secretary of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia’s Queensland branch (SSAA Qld), Geoff Tarring, said he “did not expect it to happen.”

The legislation is not going to go through for a long time yet because Mrs Bligh won’t want to anger anybody else in the next few months,” he said.

The legislation may be poorly written, but nothing’s going to happen.”

In a newsletter issued today, SSAA National said, “There are no legislative changes planned that will disadvantage members” regarding magazine capacities.

Mr Tarring said that fears about the Bill’s wording regarding magazine capacity came from people taking it out of context.

However, critics such as the Shooters Union continue to argue that the detail of the legislation’s wording is vital.

Also, below is some interesting reading, a response to all the publicity being generated concerning these amendments????

Our publicity for the first time (that I can remember) has finally forced SSAA out of the smoke house to make its first ‘debut’ a public statement on the Qld Weapons Amendments.

The secretary of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia’s Queensland branch (SSAA Qld), Geoff Tarring stated that, “nothing will happen.’ ‘The legislation is not going to go through for a long time yet because Mrs Bligh won’t want to anger anybody else in the next few months.”

And then in the SSAA E-newsletter

SSAA Queensland negotiates with and lobbies the Queensland Government in relation to any changes to relevant legislation, and news of concern or interest and any planned amendments will be communicated to members when it comes to hand.”

It contradicts itself, both cannot be the truth???

We have to ask? What does he think then is within that legislation, that will anger anybody else? If it does not anger Shooters, what is the difference for the SSAA if is a “long Time yet”, or a “short Time yet”. The only difference is an election and he is expressing the wish that it should a save Mrs Bligh some anger if it came after the election rather than before the election. We would have to suggest that Mr Tarring is privy to information that no one else has access to, some insider information no less. Some communication with the Labour Party that he does not wish to impart to other shooters who are just ordinary mortals.

We have grown to expect the SLEEPING SNORING Association (SSAA) to keep on sleeping, as has always been the case, sleeping, as our rights as shooters are stolen before our very eyes. Ron Owen