New State Constitution.

SKULLANDCROSSBONES65 · March 7, 2010, 04:09 PM

G'day. The Northern Territory (Australia) is calling for submissions to a proposed constitution. It is needed before the Territory can become a State.
What would you put in (firearms related) if you could have some input?
What would you want kept out (anti gun)?

Samurai Penguin · March 7, 2010, 04:25 PM

"The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for defense of person or property, shall in no way be infringed."

10-96 · March 7, 2010, 04:33 PM

Well said Mr. Penguin!

wally626 · March 7, 2010, 10:00 PM

Quote:

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

This is the Commonwealth of Virginia Gun Clause.

Since the militia preambles have often caused issues with the US second admenment, I might change it to

Quote:

The body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

johnwilliamson062 · March 7, 2010, 11:21 PM

I would use the word individual.

rwilson452 · March 7, 2010, 11:45 PM

From the PA constitution

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

SKULLANDCROSSBONES65 · March 8, 2010, 03:22 PM

G'day. I've been thinking that these could 'sound to American', as much as I like the concept.

wally626 I like this one you had with one changed word.

The body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be encroached

Here is a link to a website if anyone wants more information.

HarrySchell · March 8, 2010, 06:13 PM

I dunno how to work it in, but anything referring to a "body of people" opens the door to those who want to sell the collective rights idea. The first point to make is the right is individual, not collective, and that the militia is formed from individuals.

I think I would reverse the language, along something like this:

"The right of an individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This individual right is to secure the self-defense of liberty, person and property, or, by an assembly of individuals the defense of this free state or subdivisions thereof, against threats small or large, local or foreign."

johnwilliamson062 · March 8, 2010, 11:29 PM

I said to use the word individual somehow b/c I agree leaving it out is going to lead to a mess just as it has in the US.

Quote:

The body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people, as individuals, to keep and bear arms shall not be encroached.

Specifying the type of arms may not be a bad idea. you don't want to run into the "hunting arms" argument.

svaz · March 8, 2010, 11:55 PM

Quote:

G'day. I've been thinking that these could 'sound to American', as much as I like the concept.

Quote:

... anything referring to a "body of people" opens the door to those who want to sell the collective rights idea.

I've just read a bit of the Aussie federal Constitution (the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act) and I can't find anything that protects individual rights. Actually, to me anyway, everything seemed gear towards granting/prohibiting collective rights with a few exceptions (section 118, for example).

Indeed, Wikipedia states, "The Australian Constitution does not include a Bill of Rights. Some delegates to the 1898 Constitutional Convention favoured a section similar to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, but the majority felt that the traditional rights and freedoms of British subjects were sufficiently guaranteed by the Parliamentary system and independent judiciary which the Constitution would create."

Given that, how about:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law prohibiting the body of the people to keep and bear arms for the purposes of sport, self defense, and defense of the State.

or maybe,

A subject of the Queen, resident in this State, shall not be debarred the use and possession of arms for the purposes of sport, self defense, and defense of the State.

SKULLANDCROSSBONES65 · March 9, 2010, 07:06 AM

G'day.

Quote:

A subject of the Queen

This could have a few issues.
But, "An Australian citizen"...... Might by a suitable change.

March 7, 2010, 04:09 PM	#1
SKULLANDCROSSBONES65 Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 2008 Location: Far Nth Wst QLD Australia Posts: 992	New State Constitution. G'day. The Northern Territory (Australia) is calling for submissions to a proposed constitution. It is needed before the Territory can become a State. What would you put in (firearms related) if you could have some input? What would you want kept out (anti gun)? __________________ If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough! When you're confused, I'll try to use smaller words!!! Last edited by SKULLANDCROSSBONES65; March 8, 2010 at 02:57 PM.

March 7, 2010, 04:25 PM	#2
Samurai Penguin Member Join Date: May 18, 2004 Location: Central AZ Posts: 15	"The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for defense of person or property, shall in no way be infringed." __________________ "Government: A group of elected and unelected officials you pay to make decisions for you that you'd never make for yourself." --Mark Driver

March 7, 2010, 04:33 PM	#3
10-96 Senior Member Join Date: October 19, 2005 Location: Tx Panhandle Territory Posts: 4,159	Well said Mr. Penguin! __________________ Rednecks... Keeping the woods critter-free since March 2, 1836. (TX Independence Day) I suspect a thing or two... because I've seen a thing or two.

March 7, 2010, 11:45 PM	#6
rwilson452 Senior Member Join Date: June 10, 2004 Location: Tioga co. PA Posts: 2,647	From the PA constitution "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." __________________ USNRET '61-'81

March 8, 2010, 03:22 PM	#7
SKULLANDCROSSBONES65 Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 2008 Location: Far Nth Wst QLD Australia Posts: 992	G'day. I've been thinking that these could 'sound to American', as much as I like the concept. wally626 I like this one you had with one changed word. The body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be encroached Here is a link to a website if anyone wants more information. __________________ If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough! When you're confused, I'll try to use smaller words!!! Last edited by SKULLANDCROSSBONES65; March 8, 2010 at 03:33 PM. Reason: add link

March 7, 2010, 11:21 PM	#5
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	I would use the word individual.

March 8, 2010, 06:13 PM	#8
HarrySchell Senior Member Join Date: March 30, 2007 Location: South CA Posts: 566	I dunno how to work it in, but anything referring to a "body of people" opens the door to those who want to sell the collective rights idea. The first point to make is the right is individual, not collective, and that the militia is formed from individuals. I think I would reverse the language, along something like this: "The right of an individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This individual right is to secure the self-defense of liberty, person and property, or, by an assembly of individuals the defense of this free state or subdivisions thereof, against threats small or large, local or foreign." __________________ Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search