Still thanking John Howard now, Australia?
The case of the Albury farmer who used his .22 rifle to defend himself against a knife wielding home invader has taken an unsurprising turn. NSW Police have seized David Dunstan’s firearms after detaining an armed offender on his rural property at gunpoint last week.
The Border Mail reports:
A FATHER who armed himself with an unloaded rifle during a home invasion has been left wondering what he could have done differently, after having his guns seized. Police took David Dunstan’s three firearms from his farming property at Bungowannah on Thursday afternoon.
A man armed with a knife and piece of wood had knocked on his back door about 3.30am. Mr Dunstan, who has a gun licence, went to his nearby gun safe and grabbed a .22 rifle after finding the man outside his home. He said he didn’t point the weapon at the offender, and essentially used the gun as a “prop”.
Mr Dunstan then went on 3AW on Neil Mitchell’s program to further explain that NSW Police seized his firearms a day earlier than an agreed time for an allegedly routine inspection. In other words, he was ambushed by Police and had his property taken.
Mr Dunstan even alluded at interview that NSW Police Detectives had told him initially that there was no problem, but there was a sudden change in attitude as soon as the divisional firearms officer got involved.
A few people have stated that it’s “standard process” and that after an investigation he will get his guns back. The question I have to the “muh bureaucracy” crowd is why?
No one was killed, injured and no firearm was discharged. The offender was refused bail and more than likely already known to Police. Prima facie, it’s a clear case of self-defence. Why should this man then have all three of his legally owned firearms confiscated and his licence revoked at great detriment to his farming business? Why should he then potentially also have to go through an excruciating process through a tribunal to get his licence and firearms back?
The kicker of this was the advice provided by NSW Police in regards to self-defence, and that according to them, the farmer would only be allowed to act if the offender attacked first.
Well, under Section 418 of the NSW Crimes Act:
418 SELF-DEFENCE–WHEN AVAILABLE
(a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or
(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or
(d) to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass,
and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.
Ticks most of the boxes wouldn’t you think?
What do NSW Police seriously think the public should do in a situation like that? 18kms out of town on a rural property, family inside and you find a man with a knife on your property at 3:30am? Don’t forget these are the same people lobbying to be able to take their firearms home for self-defence.
This isn’t the first time NSW Police have issued similar advice over self-defence. Back in November 2016 they said “do not confront a person in your house” after a man shot a home invader with an arrow.
It would also not be surprising at all if there was “pressure from the top” to attempt to send a message to others who may be thinking of using firearms for self-defence. It wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility, considering the latest NSW Firearm Regulations containing a provision for the Police Commissioner to cancel anyone’s licence on the basis if he suspects they would use it for the purpose of self-defence.
Yep, can’t have the plebs using firearms effectively and safely to protect themselves and their families now, can we? Only employees of the state are entitled to that. Just don’t mention Hornsby. Or the wave of home invasion and violent crime victims in Melbourne right now.
We’ve said this before but we’ll say it again: having the legal right to self-defence is meaningless when you are denied the practical means to self-defence.
Sure, more information may come out about this case and things could change. However, taken at face value this whole scenario is an absolute farce and highlights how just whose side Australian self-defence and firearm law is on and it’s not the law abiding.
We will continue to follow this case as it develops.