Occupational Health and Safety

[A. G. Maisey]

Lew, we can look at this and we can see the humour in it. There is no doubt that it is funny.

However, we have not seen the relevant legislation. It is quite probable that there is a solid foundation for the action these thespians have taken.

The people who draft the laws for politicians to pass are very often 25 year old ladies with a degree in arts-law who are members of the local "Save the Trees" club. Their supervisors who approve the drafts are frequently tired old career public servants who just want to get the papers into the "outbox". Legislation that is considered as being non-volatile from a political point of view is very often passed without being read by any politician. They will give it to somebody on their staff to review and request a precis and a recommendation.

The legislation that seemingly caused this theatre group to lock up their plastic swords was legislation dealing with occupational health and safety. It was not weapons legislation. You can bet on it that from the perspective of a 25 year old female arts-law graduate that legislation makes a lot of sense. You can bet on it that whoever drafted the legislation can defend every clause in it. But that does not mean that it makes any sense.

Prior to the legislation being passed into law, it is probable that it was submitted to interested parties and members of the public for comment. It seems to me to be highly unlikely that anybody with an interest in and an understanding of the issues concerning weaponry would have seen that draft legislation. Insurance companies, unions, employers---these people would have seen it. The Antique Arms Collectors Society of Great Britain would probably not have been aware of the passage of this legislation.

Some years ago legislation was introduced in the state of New South Wales that was targetted at stopping the carriage by persons of offensive weapons, especially knives. The early drafts of this legislation would have made it impossible for a person under the age of 18 years to eat breakfast in a McDonalds restaurant unless accompanied by a responsible adult.

Why?

Because McDonalds would not have been permitted to give, and the person under 18 years of age would not have been permitted to be in possession of, the plastic knife used to eat that breakfast.

We did finish up with good, solid, workable legislation, but that was only because of the review of the drafts carried out by people other than those who drafted the legislation. People such as working police officers and interested members of the public.

The time to get involved with any undesirable legislation is during the period prior to it being passed into law. Once it becomes law you will not get it changed.

[A. G. Maisey]

Tim, more than 15 years ago I made a recommendation that certain officers of a semi-government body be micro-chipped for security reasons.

I made the recommendation as a black joke, because of certain other things that were happening in this organisation at the time.

The recommendation was taken seriously but was finally not implemented, principally because of health concerns.

I recently heard that some officers in some organisations in this country (Australia) are now micro-chipped. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this information, but the source was good.

[kronckew]

the world must enact legislation like this for your own good, you are too stupid to be trusted to do what we know is best for you. our goal is to have you placed in a armoured pod at birth, wrapped in bubble wrap, wired up to a virtual reality computer and fed and medicated intravenously (and a nice tube up your bum and whats-it for waste). do not be concerned, we can also remotely stimulate your pain and pleasure centres to enable virtual sex.

you will be able to work tirelessly for the party goals and world peace. surely this is better than having to make decisions yourself. your selfless leaders will forgo this and remain vulnerable and pod-less on our estates in order to ensure your protection at the expense of ours as good leaders should.

as you will all be in a bunker in the rockies, we will be able to cut global warming and protect our fragile ecology and allow a proper balance of nature where endangered cougar and wolves are allowed to roam freely and pursue a more balanced vegetarian lifestyle as they i am sure would prefer in the absence of humanity. i shall remain serving you behind the walls and armed robot guards of my estates (which have been expanded into the confiscated lands you no longer need to ensure your safety and continued happiness.).

enjoy. krill soup is good for you and tasty and nutritious. i will be forced to subside on nasty old fashioned steaks and lobster myself in order to better serve my children.

this has been a public service announcement by the nanny party.
-HC.

note to self, have this published today on the interweb, maybe we should make a movie about this to get people used to the idea. - or have we done that already?

[A. G. Maisey]

Kronckew, I can appreciate your humour.

However.

For those of us who live in societies which function only because of the maintenance of order which permits a viable economic base to exist, that in turn keeps the members of the society employed, and provides the wealth that funds the health care that the society members not only need, but expect, it could be considered as irresponsible for any government to permit the existence of implements that could cause, or be used to cause injury. The treatment of that injury will cost the society, as will the control of the user of the implement.

It would be possible to quantify in financial terms the cost to a society of allowing members of that society to possess personal weaponry.

As the number of people in any societal unit increases, so does the risk of injury from privately owned weaponry.

There are solid economic reasons for the restrictions that we are increasingly having placed upon us.

I do not like these restrictions any more than any of us does, but I do understand the perceived need for their existence. It is no good trying to swim against the tide. We need to recognise that this environment is here to stay and put our minds to finding ways that will enable to live within the restrictions imposed upon us.

All these things that we do not like can be expressed in dollar terms. That's what its all about:- the bottom line.

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Department of Justice?

Within the Commonwealth system of government?

Possibly you mean the Attorney-General's Department, Gavin?

Some states have a Department of Justice, but on the commonwealth level the responsibilities for law and justice are handled by the Attorney-General's Department.

Attorney-General's Department is absolutely correct Alan or Dept of Justice, one and the same, any google search will show this relationship.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Perhaps you could explain to me why it would be so desirable for us to have uniform weapons legislation here in Australia. I'm probably little bit slow in my understanding of what the benefits of such legislation might be for collectors and students of weaponry, and for sporting shooters and other users of weapons.

Why would collectors not want the best of all state regulations under the one "Umbrella" so to speak?

Example; In Qld, to import or own a double edged knife under 40cms in length (I am sure some Kris will fit this description) is of no concern to governing bodies, but other states need federal permission to import and a special license to own. Again in Victoria you can own a sword cane on license, sure I can own it QLD but I need a Special license, federal permission to import if from overseas and once I get it here I have to have it rendered inert (Have the timber sheath filled) by a approved Armourer. I know I would like the best solutions to these problems above to make collecting more enjoyable under state laws, which would also make dealing within different states much easier.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

What would be proposed as the normative model?

The moderate legislation of Tasmania, or the draconian laws of New South Wales and Victoria?

Could we expect to see the governments and bureaucracies of New South Wales and Victoria accept the more relaxed regulation of Tasmania ? Could we expect to see these two states relax their grip on the prohibitions that they have taken 50 or more years to gain?

I rather think not.

In a perfect world, of course collectors would want the best of all current State laws (And Territories too Alan), lets not dismiss it and work towards it as a collective.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

In the event of any uniformity of legislation occurring in Australia in respect of weapons legislation, what would happen would be the adoption by all states of a uniform draconian code which reflected the most stringent restrictions present in all individual states.

In my opinion uniform legislation is the last thing we want.

Sure we can all lay down Alan, it is typical of the Australian populace, no one wants to try. We don't voice our concerns as avid collectors in the right direction, we all just throw our voices to the wind and hope someone will answer our words... we continue to Suck eggs and stay complacent instead of taking an interest in these matters.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

It would be far more sensible for interested parties to work on a state by state basis to try to bring some moderation and common sense to our weapons legislation. However, in the current political climate probably the best we can hope for is that we do not lose any of the "privileges" which we presently have.

Never forget:- the things that might be considered as "rights" in some other countries are written into law as PRIVILEGES in Australia.

Never a truer sentence spoken above Alan, but does anyone really want to make a difference to these "PRIVILEGES", I mean really want to?

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Incidentally, Australia has six states, not seven. The Northern Territory is a territory, as the name suggests, and so is the Australian Capital Territory; there's another little territory too, that most people tend to overlook:- Jervis Bay Territory.

I'll look into the Hutt river province too and see how their laws stand with regards to these issues, maybe I can buy a knighthood and set up camp in WA and forget the rest of this mumbo jumbo that is Australian law.


On a final note, with regards to mentioning the "economy", grab a copy of "Deer Hunting With Jesus". It is a great read and a great laugh too, it is about this false ecenomy that we all live in, no matter where we live.

[VANDOO]

SOCIETYS TWO GROUPS

1. THOSE WHO ARE LAW ABIDING ARE NOT A DANGER TO SOCIETY AND DO AND WILL OBEY ITS LAWS.
2.THOSE WHO WILL BREAK ALL LAWS AND BECOME CRIMINALS WHO PREY ON THE SOCIETY AND CONTRIBUTE NOTHING GOOD AND DO NOT AND WILL NOT OBEY ANY LAWS OLD OR NEW.

SO LETS MAKE NEW LAWS THAT TAKE ALL MEANS OF PROTECTING THEMSELVES AWAY FROM GROUP ONE. THAT WILL ALSO AUTOMATICALLY PLACE THOSE WHO DO NOT COMPLY INTO GROUP 2 STATUS EVEN IF THEY ARE GOOD CITIZENS.

GROUP TWO WILL THEN HAVE FREE REGIN TO COMMIT ANY CRIMES THEY PLEASE ON GROUP ONE WITHOUT DANGER TO THEMSELVES. IF A PERSON FROM GROUP ONE HAS BROKEN THE LAW AND KEPT THE MEANS TO SUCCESFULLY PROTECT HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCYS WILL MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF HIM TREATING HIM EVEN WORSE THAN THEY WOULD TREAT A CRIMINAL WITH MANY CRIMES TO HIS CREDIT. THIS IN TURN WILL SEND THE MESSAGE TO THE GOOD WORKING PEOPLE IN GROUP ONE THAT IT IS BETTER TO LET THE CRIMINALS DO AS THEY WISH WITH THEM AND THEIR FAMILYS THAN TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

GROUP TWO IN THE MEANTIME ARE JUST MISUNDERSTOOD AND HAVE HAD A ROUGH CHILDHOOD OR BEEN ABUSED IN SOME WAY SO SHOULD BE SHOWN ALL CONSIDERATION SO LAWS SHOULD BE ENACTED TO GIVE THEM SPECIAL CONSIDERATION AND MANY CHANCES TO REFORM IN SOCIETY ON THEIR OWN.

ALL THESE THINGS HAVE ACTUALLY HAPPENED ALREADY IN THE USA IN CERTAN PLACES WHERE SUCH LAWS HAVE BEEN INACTED. SO FAR THE RIGHT TO OWN ARMS STILL EXHISTS IN MOST OF THE COUNTRY DESPITE MANY ATTEMPTS TO DO AWAY WITH IT. I AM FOR REMOVING THE CRIMINALS FROM THE SOCIETY, NOT REMOVING A MEANS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THE GOOD PEOPLE.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gavin, let me get this on record:- I have actively opposed restrictive arms legislation in NSW since the 1950's.

I have been a hunter and competitive target shooter with both rifle and pistol since I was a child, and I am very familiar with the efforts that have been made by NSW state governments to restrict use and ownership of firearms.Over recent years these governmental efforts have been extended to edged implements, and I have similarly been active in opposing restrictive legislation in respect of knives & etc.

Add to this a 40 year career in government bureaucracies as an internal auditor, and close to 20 years of providing consultancy services to bureaucrats in respect of internal audit and risk management.

Now factor in a few years of sitting on a government committee.

I think I can claim to have an adequate understanding of the way in which government administration functions.

To attain uniformity across the states in any legislation, it would first be necessary for all states to agree to transfer their powers relevant to the matter under consideration, to the Commonwealth. Let us assume that a miracle occurred and the states really did agree to transfer their powers in respect of weapons to the Commonwealth. It would then become the responsibility of the Attorney-General's department to incorporate into Commonwealth law the laws which had previously been the responsibility of the states.

The way in which this would be achieved would be by ensuring that all clauses in existing state legislations were incorporated into the new Commonwealth legislation. No restrictions would be lost, but NSW would gain the restrictions of all other states.

Now, what do you think that would do to Tasmania?

Just to clarify a point, in spite of what Dr. Google may tell you, there is no "Department of Justice" within the Australian Commonwealth system. Matters concerning justice and law are the responsibility of the Attorney-General's Department, which is not known as the "Department of Justice".

At the present time in Australia we have a Labor government as our national government, and all states also have Labor governments.

In US terms, the Labor Party in Australia is essentially a party of democrats . Politically they are aligned with the green movement and in opposition to the domination of capital.I think we are all very well aware of the philosophies of both democrats and greens in respect of the private ownership of weapons. The Australian Labor party holds exactly these same philosophies.

It is all very well to talk about what collectors of weaponry may want, and lets not forget firearms owners, but the cold hard facts are that the tide of population density has made it impossible for any administration to allow the freedoms which earlier ages took for granted. This applies not only in the matter of weaponry, but in other things as well. In order to manage our societies with their ever increasing populations, to keep those societies calm and economically viable, it is necessary to impose restrictions upon the society as a whole that will disadvantage minority groups within the society.

Collectors of edged weapons are most definitely a minority group.

Like it or not, our societies are managed by bureaucrats who for the most part work in accord with the directives of the politicians whom we elected to office.

The only way that you can get a politician to move in either one direction, or another, is to clearly demonstrate political advantage.

If collectors of edged weapons in Australia, or anywhere else for that matter, want to get legislation changed, they need to demonstrate political advantage for the desired change. If political advantage cannot be demonstrated then those collectors need to work within the system to find ways that will give the politicians what they want, without seriously inconveniencing the collectors. To dream that we can get existing legislation softened is indeed a dream. No politician would run the risk of the public relations disaster that would ensue in the event of injury or death being able to be associated with the removal of some restriction or other.

What we have now, we will always have. All we can do is try to influence future legislation, and we can do that by maintaining a very close watch on the review of existing legislation and attempting to ensure that whatever new restrictions may be imposed, they are restrictions that we can live with. This is best achieved on an organisational basis by collector's societies, shooter's societies, and so forth making approaches to the relevant ministers, and by employing lobbiests.On a grassroots level a letter writing campaign can also be effective:- it is very difficult for any politician to ignore a letter, especially when directed through a local member of parliament. Every politician knows that a letter from one person represents ten people who are unhappy.

The ultimate protection for any minority group is to have a dedicated member elected to the Upper House. In NSW , firearms owners and users have achieved this and now have not one, but two senators who are members of The Shooters Party , sitting in the Upper House.

In order for us to achieve the best possible outcomes from any future legislation that could impact upon our interests, it is necessary to stop dreaming of what we might like to have, and face the realities of the political world in which we live. To survive in this political world we need to understand how this world functions, and we need to use the weapons of this world to our own advantage. These weapons are a clear understanding of the legislation that sets the rules, and a clear understanding of how we can influence the people who make the rules.

I strongly recommend a reading of "The Prince", for those of you who have not yet read it. Combined with Sun Tzu it will teach you all you need to know about achieving any objective.

Barry, the only reason that you still have the right to firearms ownership in the USA is because many years ago the NRA realised that in order to protect the rights enshrined in your Constitution they needed to become political. If you had not had NRA political activity do you think that you would still enjoy the right to own firearms?

As for the criminal element, it is a fact that the more dense a population becomes, the more likely it is for criminal activity within that population to increase. It is also a fact that as the gap between the wealthiest in any population, and the poorest in any population gets wider, the criminal activity in that population will increase. What is the population of the USA? What percentage of the national wealth is held by the top two percent of that population? What percentage of wealth is held by the bottom ten percent of the population? Consider the answers to these questions and I think that perhaps you will be able to see the future.