Those of you who live in countries that did not start life as a penal colony, might like to consider this:-
AUSTRALIA IS THE ONLY COMMON LAW COUNTRY WITHOUT A BILL OF RIGHTS.
That's right, Australia has no Bill of Rights.
The result of this is that in Australia citizens really cannot claim to have the right to anything, but they have been given numerous "privileges" by their elected governments.
Thus, in Australia we may possess certain specified firearms, under extremely stringent conditions, but that possession is a privilege, it is not a right.
Similarly, possession of various other objects is subject to "privilege", not to any inherent right.
These "privileges" do not stop just with ownership of certain things, they extend to actions in which citizens may wish to engage.
In respect of the possibility of the existence of legal avenues which could give some protection to the continued existence of a sword, but not necessarily ensure its ownership by any particular person, it might not be a bad idea to have a look at United Nations Agreements dealing with the preservation of important cultural heritage. I've forgotten the details, but I used an argument that included this, in a fight against some proposed NSW legislation of perhaps 15 or 16 years ago.
I suspect that a strong case could be mounted on the foundation of United Nations Agreements, that could argue against the destruction of many items of historic weaponry.
|