[A. G. Maisey]

The actual process for the drafting and passing of laws is a long drawn out and complex one, at least it is in this country---Australia--- and I imagine that what I know to be true here would also be true in many other countries.

The hands-on writing of the legislation to be brought into law is most often done by a fairly junior member of the relevant department, passed through a review process carried out by more senior people, and then submitted to the minister for approval. Often it will be bounced backwards and forth a number of times before the minister is satisfied that he can get it passed, and make no mistake about it, getting the new legislation accepted by all involved, and its politically positive impact, is what the game is all about. That proposed legislation needs to be designed to be acceptable to not only the politician who is responsible for its administration, but also to the other politicians, perhaps from different parties, upon whom he will rely to see the proposed legislation passed into law.

After such a long drawn out process a reasonable person may expect that the final draft of the legislation would reflect an attitude that was representative of the prevailing attitude in the broad community.

Regrettably, in so far as weapons related legislation is concerned, this is not always so.

The mindset of the original person who prepared the initial draft is often still evident in the final draft. In recent years these initial writers of weapons legislation in at least one state in Australia have been socially aware ladies of relatively immature years and with a minor degree in something like arts-law, or sociology.

I believe that politicians in general see the issue of possession and carriage of weapons other than firearms as a fairly minor issue, and because of this they are loathe to spend more than a bare minimum of resources on it.So it is that the original draft suffers only cosmetic changes before it becomes law.

Now, when that vague and very non-prescriptive law falls into the hands of an officer of the law, such as the one whom has been described by Barry, you create a situation that can only result in the law being badly administered, unenforced, or perhaps unenforceable, by the courts, and laughed at by the general public. When that situation has been created we have the exact opposite of what was intended when the law was brought into being:- widespread non-compliance, a loss of respect for the police, and contempt for the lawful regulation of society.

Going back a few years a law was introduced into the state of NSW , that prohibited the carriage of any bladed implement. It was directed at certain types of individual and certain areas where it was known that knives were being carried for the specific purpose of being used as weapons in crime.
Nobody could have a knife or other bladed implement in his possession in a public place without a lawful excuse for having that implement. The legislation provided an example of a lawful excuse as "being for the preparation and consumption of food".

Heavy reliance was placed on the good judgement of police officers in the administration of this law.

Some months after this law came into force trainee police officers from the police academy in a large provincial town were directed to raid the local stock auction and confiscate all knives found in the possession of people attending the auction. Most people who live in rural areas in Australia, particularly those who run stock, or who farm, habitually carry a pocket knife in a small belt pouch. The police cadets confiscated all the knives from all the farmers and graziers present at that auction, took names, and issued cautions. No prosecutions were launched..

Another incident occurred when an apprentice carpenter who had forgotten to remove his fishing basket from the boot of his car was stopped for a traffic offence. The police officer considered that it was necessary to search his vehicle, he found the knife in the fishing basket, and because that apprentice carpenter had not been fishing that day, nor did he intend going fishing that day, he was charged with being in possession of a knife without lawful excuse.

Then there was the 50 year old lady who was in the habit of carrying her large knife to and from her job in a fruit market. She used the knife to cut pumpkin and did not want to leave it at work because she had nowhere at her place of work that was a secure place to keep her property, and a previous knife had been stolen. This lady was cautioned by a police officer and the knife was confiscated, she was not charged, but she lost the knife.

These are just a few incidents that occurred when that law was introduced. The situation has now pretty much settled back to what it was before the law was introduced. Mostly people take little or no notice of it, and the police only use it as incidental to the apprehension of somebody who is acting in a socially unacceptable way. But during the first few years the law was in force, it was very badly administered by many police officers.

Because the law was non-prescriptive and largely left to the discretion of the police in its application, the predictable thing happened:- society as a whole has decided to ignore that law. When one law is treated with contempt, it is a very short step before other laws are treated with contempt. When the courts fail to convict people who have offended against the letter of the law, but not against its intent , those non-convictions can be used as precedent by people who have offended against both letter and intent of the law, leading to non-conviction of persons who should have been convicted.

Poorly drafted, non-prescriptive laws that rely in their application upon the judgement of police officers have the effect of causing widespread disrespect for the law, for those who administer it, and bring about a weakening of the fabric of society.