Frightening ruling by High Court judges

B

Bruce in West Oz

New member
Scenario:
A gunowner in Queensland is challenging the legality of the 1996 Uniform Firearms Legislation in Australia, based on the fact that it contravenes, explicitly, the provisions of both the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights (1688), especially the latter which defines the right to carry arms for self-defence. Further, that Australian law has been based on these documents.

In his High Court appeal, the judges, in rejecting the case, made the following statements:


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>(1) Parliament is supreme

(2) That the Magna Carta (1297) and the bill of Rights (1688) are only political statements and have never had force in law

(3) That if the Parliament wanted to make a law killing all blue-eyed babies, they are legally able to do so.[/quote]

Dunno about you, but that scares the bejabbers outta me.

B
 
Humm, do the judges plan on having the Australian flag changed from showing the Southern Cross to twin lighting bolts?

You lads sound as if you have big troubles.

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
 
sounds like a wonderful guy, too bad we can't kill him like he thinks he has the legal right to kill those kids.



[This message has been edited by scud (edited June 27, 2000).]
 
The English Bill of Rights he's referring was in fact passed by the British parliament as law there. Whether it is today or not, either in G.B. or in Austrialia I don't know. In short, that judge is completely wrong when he says that the Declaration of Rights (original name) or Bill of Rights (as later recodified) are only political statements and not the law.

But you can see why the gun grabbers don't like it. Here is paragraph 7:

"That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."

Americans shouldn't get too hung up on the court saying that Parliament is supreme. It just means that there is no constitution or monarch who can restrain or overturn their decisions (nor can judges generally overturn laws there.) It doesn't mean that the people can't change parliament. It's a relic of the struggle against absolute kings and doesn't mean what it would if someone said it in this country.

[This message has been edited by RHC (edited June 28, 2000).]
 
Sad. You fellows definitely need firearms more than we do right now.

When I read this, it reminds me that we're in a critical fight for freedom.

Regards from AZ
 
Bruce - can you find me a link to that anywhere? I'd like to pass it on to people who may question the source.

Battler.
 
About a year ago I corresponded with a Brit about the gun control situation.

He said that when they raised hell about abrogating the 1688 BOR, they were told "it no longer had the force of law" by the pols,
but they couldn't say when that happened.

Thank God for our Constitution (what's left of it). Seems like our forefathers had good examples to draw from.

------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
(1) Parliament is supreme.

Hey no surprise here, typical arrogance of British aristocracy. One of the primary reasons for the American revolution.

(2) That the Magna Carta (1297) and the bill of Rights (1688) are only political statements and have never had force in law.

Oh, what were we thinking?! History classes must link our current judicial system to those documents for entertainment.

(3) That if the Parliament wanted to make a law killing all blue-eyed babies, they are legally able to do so.

This is a bad joke...right? If not, you guys are in a world of hurt. America seems to moving in that direction sometimes.



[This message has been edited by Zensho (edited June 28, 2000).]
 
They could make that law--and it would have force of law if they and their police survived long enough to enforce it. Must be a disgusting time to be an honest policeman in Australia.
 
Guess they never read Blackstone or any of the early court cases in England.... But, afterall any constitution, bill of rights or anything is not worth the paper it is written on, unless one has the means to inforce it.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
Richard,
Couldn't have said it better myself. That is the real point, isn't it?
The ability, rather, will of the epople to enforce, or force their will.

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms;
History shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
-----------------
"Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, and destroy their rugged- ness.
Get control of all means of publicity, and thereby get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities.
Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance."

Vladimir Ilich Lenin, former leader of USSR
 
If they want to kill blue eyed babies?
Our Supreme Court judges just ruled on
that it is legal to punch a hole in the skull of a nine month old baby aka fetus,
suck his brains out and collapse his skull and remove him at the request of
his so-called mother.It would appear that we all should be worrying.
 
Tony, states are still allowed to ban abortion in the last three months, per Roe v. Wade.

I too would like to see this well documented, and would hesitate to use it without some actuall proof or official transcript.
 
It seems the Judge mentioned exhibits a contemptous nature toward the masses. I dare say he chooses to read the words of the documents, The Magna Carta, and the Bill of Rights.
Without a serious atempt to understand what the driving forces were(are) for the creation of such historic documents, were doomed to repeat the processes. I think it a serious threat to Freedom that a Judicial seat make such a statement.
It shows that this Judge has no interests in History to Judge. If this is the case, he apparently doesn't spend much time in research reviewing HIstory, and precedence cases. He must then wish to make precedence for others to follow. This is a very dangerous situation when coupled with the statement he made about laws concerning the legality of State sanctioned genocide of selected individuals. This is a dangerous man. He needs to discover life anew.

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms;
History shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
-----------------
"Corrupt the young, get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial, and destroy their rugged- ness.
Get control of all means of publicity, and thereby get the peoples' mind off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books and plays, and other trivialities.
Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance."

Vladimir Ilich Lenin, former leader of USSR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top