GUN NEWS AND VIEWS. THE REST OF THE WORLD

The Obama administration’s offensive against the Second Amendment has begun.

As was predicted, the strategy uses international law to create a foundation for repressive and extreme gun control. The mechanism is an international treaty, the “Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials.”

If the plan succeeds, police sales of confiscated firearms would be prohibited and anyone who reloads ammunition at home would need a federal license. In addition, the treaty would create an international law requirement that almost every American firearm owner be licensed as if he were a manufacturer.

Founded in 1948, the Organization of American States (OAS) includes all of the independent nations of the Western Hemisphere. (Cuba’s participation has been suspended since 1962.) In 1997, President Clinton signed a gun control treaty that had been negotiated by OAS. Subsequently, neither he nor President George W. Bush sent the treaty to the United States Senate for ratification.

The treaty is commonly known as “CIFTA,” for its Spanish acronym, Convención Interamericana Contra la Fabricación y El Tráfico Ilícitos de Armas de Fuego, Municiones, Explosivos y Otros Materiales Relacionados. The document is called a “convention” rather than a “treaty” because “convention” is a term of art for a multilateral treaty created by a multinational organization.

At the OAS meeting in April 2009, President Obama said that he would send CIFTA to the U.S. Senate and urge ratification. The White House claimed that the convention was merely an expression of international goodwill.

That’s false.

In the United States, it is common for police and sheriffs’ departments to sell confiscated firearms to federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs). The FFLs then resell the guns to lawful consumers. Of course, when any FFL sells a gun to a customer, the sale must be approved by the National Instant Check System, or its state equivalent.

Police and sheriff sales of confiscated guns would be outlawed by CIFTA which mandates: “State Parties shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that all firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials seized, confiscated, or forfeited as the result of illicit manufacturing or trafficking do not fall into the hands of private individuals or businesses through auction, sale, or other disposal.”

Another target of CIFTA is reloading. The millions of Americans who reload include competitive target shooters, hunters, trainers who want to craft milder ammunition for beginners, and many other hobbyists who enjoy making things themselves and saving money. Due to the present shortage of ammunition, more and more people are taking up reloading--so many that reloading equipment manufacturers are having difficulty keeping their products in stock.

Reloading is entirely lawful in every state and no state requires a specific permit for those reloading ammunition. CIFTA, however, declares that “illicit manufacturing” is the “manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials” that takes place without “a license from a competent governmental authority of the State Party where the manufacture or assembly takes place.”

Thus, either the federal government or all 50 state governments would have to enact legislation to impose reloading licenses and to define unlicensed reloading as a crime. According to Article IV of CIFTA, “State Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.”

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) charges $10 per year for a license to manufacture most ammunition. Also under existing law, the premises of firearm and ammunition manufacturers may be inspected without notice once per year by the BATFE, and an unlimited number of times in cases involving a criminal investigation. Thus, anyone who reloads ammunition would be taxed and subject to home inspection by the federal government.

Reloaders are not the only ones who would be required to have a manufacturing license. So would every company or individual that makes any part of a firearm or an accessory. In fact, so would almost every firearm owner in the nation.

CIFTA Article I requires licensing for the manufacture of “other related materials.” These are defined as “any component, part, or replacement part of a firearm, or an accessory which can be attached to a firearm.”

That definition straightforwardly includes all spare firearm parts. It also includes accessories that are attached to firearms, such as scopes, ammunition magazines, sights, recoil pads, bipods and slings.

Current U.S. law requires a license to manufacture a firearm, with a “firearm” being defined as the receiver--however, no federal license is needed to make other parts of a firearm, such as barrels or stocks.

But CIFTA’s plain language requires federal licensing of the manufacturers and sellers of barrels, stocks, screws, springs and everything else that is used to make firearms.

Likewise, the manufacture of all accessories--such as scopes, sights, slings, bipods and so on--would have to be licensed.

In the United States, the manufacture of a firearm or ammunition for one’s personal use does not require a license, since the licensing requirements apply to persons who “engage in the business” by engaging in repeated transactions for profit. (18 U.S. Code sec. 923(a).)

Yet CIFTA would require licensing for everyone.

Many, perhaps most, firearm owners occasionally tinker with their guns. They might replace a worn-out spring or install a better barrel. Or they might add accessories such as a scope, a recoil pad or a sling. All of these simple activities would require a government license. The CIFTA definition of “Illicit manufacturing” is “the manufacture or assembly of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials.” (Emphasis added.)

Even if putting an attachment on a firearm were not considered in itself to be “assembly,” the addition of most components necessarily requires some assembly; for example, scope rings consist of several pieces that must be assembled. Replacing one’s grip panels requires, at the least, the use of screws.

Because the definition of “manufacturing” is so broad, nearly all gun owners would eventually be required to obtain a manufacturing license.

CIFTA mandates that “State Parties that have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to establish as criminal offenses under their domestic law the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials … the criminal offenses established pursuant to the foregoing paragraph shall include participation in, association or conspiracy to commit, attempts to commit, and aiding, abetting, facilitating, and counseling the commission of said offenses.”

Yet the preamble of CIFTA says: “... this Convention does not commit State Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character.”

Does the preamble negate the comprehensive licensing system that CIFTA demands? Not really. The exemptions are for “ownership, possession, or trade.” There is no exemption for “manufacturing.” As detailed above, “manufacturing” is defined broadly enough as to include the home manufacture of ammunition, as well as repair of one’s own firearm, or assembling an accessory for attachment to one’s firearm.

Notably, even if CIFTA were read so that the “does not commit” language also pertained to manufacturing, there is nothing that prevents a state party from choosing to enact manufacturing regulations on its own accord.

The nations that have ratified CIFTA so far have not necessarily fully implemented the literal requirements of language regarding firearms and related material manufacturing. It is hardly unusual for nations to make a show of ratifying a treaty, but then do little to carry out the treaty’s requirements. However, in a culture such as the United States, with a strong commitment to the rule of law, CIFTA might have greater practical effect.

If ratified by the Senate, CIFTA would become the law of the land. Would the BATFE then be empowered to write regulations implementing the convention--without waiting for Congress to pass a new statute?

If a treaty is “self-executing,” then it is an independent source of authority for domestic regulations. By traditional views of international law, CIFTA is not self-executing, since its language anticipates that ratifying governments will have to enact future laws to comply with CIFTA.

On the other hand, CIFTA does not explicitly declare itself to be non-self-executing. Harold Koh, who has been nominated as legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State, has challenged the doctrine of “so-called self-executing treaties” and argues that the Supreme Court decisions creating the doctrine are incorrect. (100 Yale Law Journal, pages 2360-61, 2383-84; see also 35 University of California at Davis Law Review, page 1111 n. 114; 35 Houston Law Review, page 666.)

Rather, Koh writes, legislatures “should ratify treaties with a presumption that they are self-executing.” Further, domestic courts should “construe domestic statutes consistently with international law” and “should employ international human rights norms to guide interpretation of domestic constitutional norms.”(106 Yale Law Journal, page 2658 n. 297.) As detailed in last month’s issue of America’s 1st Freedom, Koh considers stringent gun control to be a very important international human right (July 2009, p. 32).

In Koh’s view, even when Congress has not created a statute to implement a treaty, courts should recognize a right of private plaintiffs to bring lawsuits under the treaty. (100 Yale Law Journal, pages 2383-84.) Thus, Koh and his allies could argue that Senate ratification of CIFTA trumps the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which outlaws abusive lawsuits against gun manufacturers and stores.

Suppose that the Senate, when ratifying CIFTA, added specific reservations declaring that CIFTA is not self-executing, that CIFTA authorizes no additional regulations and that CIFTA does not authorize any new lawsuits. The United States executive branch, under Koh’s guidance, might ignore the reservations. When the Senate added a reservation to another treaty, Koh wrote, “Many scholars question persuasively whether the United States declaration has either domestic or international legal effect.” (111 Harvard Law Review, pages 1828-29 n. 24.)

Ultimately, the question of whether BATFE can promulgate regulations under CIFTA might be decided in court cases. One way for a court to resolve the issue would be to acknowledge that federal statutes already authorized regulation of manufacturing, and that CIFTA, as the latter-enacted law, simply expanded the definition of manufacturing so that the licensing requirement now applies to persons who are not engaged in the firearm business, and to manufacture or assembly of firearms attachments and spare parts.

It is not hard to foresee Obama-appointed federal judges upholding massive new BATFE gun control regulations, especially when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s top legal adviser insist to the courts that the expanded federal regulations are necessary for the United States to comply with its international law obligations.

CIFTA does not specifically require gun registration. But once you impose manufacturing licenses, registration comes along for the ride. Existing federal regulations for manufacturers of firearms and ammunition require that manufacturers keep records of all products they produce, and these records must be available for government inspection.

Thus, those who reload ammunition would have to keep records of every round they made and gun owners would have to keep a record of everything they “assembled” (e.g., putting a scope on a rifle). These records would then be open to BATFE inspection.

Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., (formerly a gun criminal for the terrorist group the Black Panthers), introduced H.R. 45, to set up a national licensing and registration system for handguns and for self-loading long guns. As implemented under the direction of President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and State Department legal adviser Koh, CIFTA could go even further--it also covers ammunition reloading as well as long guns that are not semi-automatic.

Further, CIFTA could be used to impose national licensing, registration and taxation of gun owners without members of Congress having to cast a vote that explicitly creates such laws. Indeed, because treaties need to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, yet need no approval from the House of Representatives, the House could be cut completely out of the law-making process altogether.

By Dave Kopel.

Arm them, say pastors

Churchmen back calls for more people, including Christians, to carry guns

BY NADINE WILSON Observer staff reporter wilsonn@jamaicaobserver.com

Monday, February 02, 2009

ALTHOUGH owning a gun and being a Christian have been considered mutually exclusive, some of Jamaica's top religious leaders say they have no problem with Christians carrying legal firearms as long as they are mature and responsible enough to do so.

The churchmen spoke with the Observer in response to calls from gun rights lobbyists and members of the public for Government to relax legislation to allow all law-abiding citizens easier access to owning firearms.

Bishop Herro Blair, pastor of the Faith Cathedral Deliverance Centre in Kingston and the country's political ombudsman, said that having a firearm for self-protection was no different from having a knife, Labrador or a Pit bull to protect one's home, as all were equally lethal.

He said there was nowhere in the Bible which said carrying a legal firearm was wrong. "The axiom says God helps those who help themselves and in the same token I believe God protects those who protect themselves," said Blair, who has been the subject of debates regarding the carrying of a legal firearm.

However, Blair, an Evangelical preacher who does not carry a gun and has never owned one himself, said the only time he has ever carried a firearm was when he served in the army and was a member of the homeguard in the 1970s.

"Even today I was somewhere and five little boys saw me and one of them asked, 'Who is that?' The boy then said: 'Is Bishop Blair, the man who carry the gun in his Bible'," Blair told the Observer last week.

The bishop said the accusation was something that he has had to live with.

However, he believes people have the right to protect themselves since the State was not capable of protecting everyone.

Firebrand pastor Al Miller also supported Christians carrying guns, saying they, as well as other citizens, should be allowed to bear arms.

"Christians are equally citizens of society who have to deal with the normal issues of society, and so if anyone is carrying a weapon, I don't think there is anything wrong with that in and of itself. In the time of Jesus, all of Jesus' disciples had their swords with them," said Miller.

He told the Observer that the argument that Christians' faith in God should be enough to protect them was fallacious and "holds no water".

"If you are using that argument, then why should you close your door at night?" asked Miller. "Why do you live in houses with burglar bars; isn't the Lord anymore a protector?"

Archbishop of Kingston Donald James Reece does not believe it is a sin to bear arms. However, he questioned the reasoning behind the suggestion that more Jamaicans should carry guns.

"When one thinks of what has happened in instances in the past where firearms have injured people unwittingly, in other words without them planning it, one wonders if it is the best thing for Christians or anyone at all to bear firearms," Reece said.

He said what the country needs is a good police force that people can rely on to protect them. "I don't think [giving citizens] firearms is the way forward, but if somebody has it, then it is not a sin," he said.

Archbishop Reece highlighted cases in which people have been killed by a gun owned by a family member, and argued that having a firearm could be counter-productive.

".Those criminal elements in our society will know who have firearms. And so when they see that person they will go after their firearm. So they are at risk, doubly so," said Reece.

President of the East Jamaica Conference of Seventh-day Adventist Churches, Adrian Cottrell, said Christians should be able to protect themselves the best way they could.

"We can't just go to our beds and leave our houses unprotected or leave them open because God is going to protect us," said Cottrell. "I think we ought to do what we can."

According to Cottrell, a person can have faith but at the same time feel it necessary to do other things. I don't think faith means just leaving yourself bare, you have to do what you can do to help yourself and after that God can do the rest," he said.

Rev Peter Garth of the Jamaica Association of Evangelicals also supported more people, including Christians, carry legal weapons. He said that a number of Christians had jobs which made them vulnerable to criminals, hence the need to bear arms.

"The possession of the firearm does not negate the fact that you lack faith in God," he said.

However, he advised that a decision to carry a weapon should be a personal one, and not based on one's faith in God.

"I have heard that argument," said Garth. "They always link it to your lack of faith in God, but I don't buy that argument."

Just last week, former Jamaica Defence Force captain and firearms instructor, Robert Hibbert, while advocating that law-abiding citizens be allowed easier access to guns, urged persons clamouring for firearms to protect their lives and property to first acquire proper gun and self-defence skills.

Hibbert, addressing last Thursday's meeting of the National Gun Rights Association forum at the Altamont Court Hotel in Kingston, said persons carrying legal firearms must always be aware and alert. "If you are not aware, then you could have 10 guns and somebody will walk up behind you, stick you up and take them away from you," Hibbert told the forum.

- Additional reporting by Karyl Walker

A REPLICA of an assault rifle often seen with images of the world's most wanted man – Osama bin Laden – is being sold at a western suburbs pawn shop.

The replica AK-47 yesterday was for sale at a pawnbroker on Findon Rd, Findon, for $880.

Under South Australian law, it is not illegal for businesses to sell replica weapons but the incident has sparked calls from anti-gun activists for a national ban on the sale of replica guns.

AK-47s are used throughout the world and have been described as the "consecrated Taliban weapon".

In several of his video messages distributed to the world, bin Laden, the mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attacks has been filmed holding an AK-47. Gun Control Australia president John Crook told The Advertiser yesterday selling such replicas put out a "shocking message".

"Weapons such as this, which is essentially what it is, create fear and apprehension in the community and the police should intervene and confiscate the gun immediately, " he said. Roland Browne, of the National Coalition for Gun Control, said "there's no place for replica firearms in our community".

"Somebody can walk into a bank with a replica firearm and cause absolute mayhem," he said. In December, the Federal Government banned the importation of guns that had a "military-style" appearance.

A spokesman from the SA Police firearms section said yesterday there is no law to stop the sale of replica weapons, such as the AK-47. However, if the buyer "starts waving around the gun and being stupid" they could be charged with weapons offences. A worker at the pawnbroker, named Rick, said only people with a firearms collector licence could buy the replica AK-47.

"The police are in here twice a day checking our sales records and they make us aware of the potential criminal elements," he said. "But these things don't kill – and it's probably easier for people to get a real gun than a replica."

Police Minister Michael Wright said the State Government was having a "close look" at existing firearms legislation.

"Obviously we are concerned, as are police, about the real difficulty of being able to distinguish replica firearms from the real thing," he said.

Premier agrees to another look at gun laws (Australia)

Jonathan Dart
December 15, 2008

THE State Government has commissioned a report into gun crime six months after backing Shooters' Party amendments that watered down gun ownership laws.

The Premier, Nathan Rees, sought to temper the Government's stance on the issue yesterday, saying he would review the amendments this week when the report was handed down by the Attorney-General's department.

But even as Mr Rees delivered his comments, the Police Minister, Tony Kelly, held a media conference defending the changes, labelling them as sensible and commonsense despite opposition from the Police Association, the Opposition and gun control lobbyists.

Gun owners must undergo a mandatory 28-day waiting period to register all firearms. But under the amendments passed in June, the waiting period now applies only to the first weapon registered. The police also lost powers to revoke the licence of a gun club that fails to account for its members' licences.

Another amendment passed this month waived the 10-year waiting period for firearms owners to reapply for their licence after having an apprehended violence order against them extinguished.

It came as figures obtained by the National Coalition for Gun Control showed that there were now 687,690 firearms registered in NSW, a 33 per cent increase since 2002 when 516,468 firearms were on the street.

Mr Rees said the number of firearms in circulation did not mean it had become easier for criminals to obtain weapons.

"You could make the same argument about tanks out at Holsworthy," he said.

"Most people that own guns are responsible - they're club shooters or game shooters, that sort of thing - but if we have to adjust laws to prevent criminal behaviour we will do it.

"I've sought a report on the nature of how criminals are getting guns and at what rate and where the guns are coming from. Now if it's demonstrated to me that arising from that data, that we need to change the laws … then that is what we'll do."

Mr Rees said he would meet the National Coalition for Gun Control chairwoman, Samantha Lee, this week to discuss the laws.

It comes as the Herald revealed at the weekend that feuds between rival bikie gangs have led to 13 drive-by shootings in the past two weeks.

Figures published by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics show a decrease in firearm incidents in NSW between 2001 and 2005 as registrations increased, falling from 1600 incidents a year to less than 1000.

But the Greens MP Lee Rhiannon said the statistics would begin to show in coming years, and pointed to the amendments to apprehended violence orders as of particular concern.

"These are laws that the women's movement fought for 20 years ago," she said. "Women and children will die because of [the laws] because so often men use firearms in the heat of the moment."

The president of the Police Association, Bob Pritchard, said police checks for registering secondary weapons were unnecessary but said looser gun laws would put his members in greater danger.

"It's becoming more dangerous with the increase in the guns out in the community," he said. "It certainly increases the chance of theft and the possibility [of guns] falling into the wrong hands."

Gun policy was tightened after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in which 35 people died. In the following three years, 600,000 guns were taken out of circulation.

Law-abiding citizens want guns.

In the mid-1970s when Jamaica was number 10 on the list of the most murderous countries in the world, it used to be said of persons who were shot dead by gunmen that they 'were at the wrong place at the wrong time'. Then the 'terrorist gunman' with his high-powered rifle was introduced by the politics of the times and just as 1980 was ushered in, it seemed that all hell had broken loose.

In the election campaign of that year there were certain areas like Olympic Gardens and most of the Kingston West Police Division (Arnett Gardens, Matthews Lane, Fletchers Land, Denham Town, Jones Town, Tivoli Gardens) that were off limits to all sensible people. If you were in any political garrison that you did not belong to after 6:00 pm or were travelling across political boundaries, your chances of being shot dead were increased significantly. If you lived in any of those areas, you would be fodder for the political marauders as they carried out their murderous raids in the hours before daybreak. When they came, men, women, children and the dogs were all fair targets.

In the late 1990s, Jamaica did not make it on the top 10 list. Then in 2003 when our murder rate more than tripled the rate of the early 1970s, we made it to number three on the list. By 2005 we were standing atop the sordid pile at number one. All of the nasty and sick politics which had been practiced since independence to 2005 had caught up with us.

By that time many who could leave had done so. While most who left in the times prior to the 1960s and on the cusp of Independence did so because Jamaica was seen as having nothing to offer them economically, many of those who travelled to foreign shores in the 1970s and after named security concerns as one of the main reasons for leaving their homeland.

In 2008 those personal and national security concerns are very much a part of our daily diet. We live, sleep and eat the fear that if the high prices don't get us, the gunman will. In the inner-city communities, every other man, woman and youngster carries a concealed knife as they leave home.

Unlike the 1970s, in 2008 every parish and district and community and road and lane is likely to be 'the wrong place at the wrong time'. So far have we travelled to arrive at a worse place.

GUN POSSESSION ONLY FOR THE RICH AND CRIMINAL

At present only business persons who have applied for and met the stringent requirements are in possession of legally held firearms. Elected politicians travel with security details while we who supported them and voted for them in the hope of us building a better and safer Jamaica are forced to face the criminal gunman empty-handed.

As the police force signals (by its action over time) that it has no answers to protecting the poor and those most vulnerable, the justice system creaks and only delivers if one has 10 years to spare. The criminal gunman knows that no witnesses will come forward, so he has about a 90% chance of making it to the next killing. In this scenario the state has failed to protect us, continues to fail us and when our elected officials speak, it is mainly to sell us another fairy tale about our safety.

I say to the state, give us guns to protect ourselves because the mechanisms which exist to do so are patently not working.

In April 2002 at the sixth annual Gravitas Conference held in Vancouver, one Professor Gary A Mauser had this to say about gun laws:

"Gun laws have played an important role in reducing crime rates in the US. Since 1986 more than 25 states have passed new laws encouraging responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. As a result, the number of armed Americans in malls and in their cars has grown to almost three million men and women. As surprising as it is to the media, these new laws have caused violent crime rates to drop, including homicide rates."

In his scholarly book, More guns, Less Crime, Professor John Lott shows how violent crime has fallen faster in those states that have introduced "concealed carry' laws than in the rest of the U.S. His study is the most comprehensive analysis of American crime data ever compiled. He shows that criminals are rational enough to fear being shot by armed civilians.

Many people like myself who have slowly come around to supporting a more liberal position with legally held guns have always cited as a problem the rank indiscipline in our society as a big bugbear.

Then again, it is one thing to issue a gun licence to a householder in Havendale, but how do we treat fairly the householder in Rema who wants to hold a legally acquired firearm? The state must admit its failure

We need truth to begin at the top. The present JLP government came in at a time when the world was in an economic spin and unlike in 1973 when Michael Manley imposed a bauxite levy on our major extractors of the ore in answer to OPEC's decision to steeply increase the price of oil, the government of today has no economically sound response.

The government may believe that it doesn't need another crisis on its hands, what with major fallout in the alternative investment schemes, sharp increases in the price of basic food items, constantly rising price of crude oil and a murder rate moving into the stratosphere. It may tend to believe that collectively, its team doesn't have the mental faculty to even consider a review of the current gun laws.

But if the government is refusing to face the truth that its policies are failing to protect us from the murderers among us, is it prepared to accept that it is morphing into an administration that is nothing more than an entity rubber-stamping anarchy?

It has been the cliché for some time now, this belief that if violent crime is brought to bearable limits in Jamaica, the economy, the nation will 'take off'. It is a viewpoint which I share.

It would be interesting to hear from Jamaica's expert in these matters, Dr Anthony Harriott of the UWI. Reams of research are available to the government, and at this time it cannot continue in the belief that we are a nation of children who need to be led and spoon-fed by empty pronouncements from political podiums.

The JLP government must examine the research and report to us. And it cannot afford to tell us the same, tiresome, canned crap. The police cannot protect us, our neighbours cannot protect us, the church cannot protect us, and the government sure as hell is not making us feel any safer.

The constitution of this country speaks of our rights but not to the same degree as say, the constitution of the United States enshrines the rights of its citizens as a convergence towards the ultimate state of happiness as centrally stated in its Declaration of Independence.

It could be that successive political administrations in this country never wanted us, the robotic voters, to be happy. So our politicians retire to the safety of their well protected bedrooms every night in well protected, gated apartment complexes with security on tap as we are left naked and fearful that another set of marauding gunmen will be coming for us tonight.

PNP in more trouble

It was only made known to me last week that all PNP MPs give 10% of their net salary to the party. To facilitate this, the cheques are sent to party office, lodged in a PNP account and 90% is paid over to the MPs.

As already reported in the media, a mole of sorts has been discovered at PNP headquarters. As I understand it, the person in charge of this arrangement has been 'digging underground' and in the process she has made off with about $1.2 million.

The matter was only discovered after the lady went on leave and a deputy general secretary came upon the irregularities. It is also my understanding that Peter Bunting, the PNP general secretary (with a banking background) wanted to move for dismissal of the woman in question. In the end, a 'bigger head,' not the party chairman, decided on suspension for that serious matter.

Months ago, PNP party workers at the secretariat were not being paid. At present they are being paid half salary, and I understand that the decision to only suspend the lady involved has not gone down too well with these workers who have sacrificed much.

It is also my understanding that the government's office for Leader of the Opposition will soon be ready. I wonder if Portia Simpson Miller will be taking the lady who is in charge of the group's office with her.

Well, it is her call, especially if it is determined that the person is a fit and proper person to work alongside an opposition leader.

Can the Olint web be untangled?

All of last week I have been trying to weave my way through answering e-mails about Olint and I even received a call from a Jamaican in Australia making enquiries.

As one of the persons in the media who went out on a limb in support of David Smith's efforts in foreign exchange trading, I had no problems in telling readers through my columns that foreign exchange trading was not just a legitimate activity but that Smith was among the best in the world.

I still believe this.

In trying to glean information this time around, I was confined to listening to programmes like Nationwide, as my usual links were apparently huddled in meetings trying to unravel the bits and pieces of information coming out.

First, it is my information that a high-powered team of lawyers have gone off to the Turks and Caicos to meet with Smith. But Olint needs at least one lawyer with knowledge of the American system, because it appears to me that those who had pretended to have Olint's interest at heart may have pulled the wool over David Smith's eyes.

Olint needs to come straight and do some straight talking to the many people who have invested their lives in his foreign exchange trading outfit. Investors need more than specious information about him sending an e-mail to his wife.

Why would I send an e-mail to my wife when I can speak to her in my house?

David Smith is an excellent technician, but those close to him were always advising him to employ a high-powered financial manager to run it as a business, as it had long moved away from being just a 'club'.

I am anxiously awaiting word from those who would normally be only too pleased to inform me of ongoing situations in regards to Olint. The fact is, I cannot write on what I do not know especially when this is contrasted with the ease with which I would usually get needed information.

There are people close to me with sizeable sums in Olint. My interest in seeking information is therefore two-fold.

I am expecting that those who I cannot make contact with will make contact with me in time for my next column.

observemark@gmail.com

EDITORIAL: Self-defence is a right, not a wrong
17.08.2007

Louis Pierard
Police are attracting increasing criticism each time they investigate a citizen's armed response to a crime.
This week a Morrinsville farmer fired two shotgun blasts into the air to subdue two suspected petrol thieves, whom he forced to lie down until police arrived. Police are reported to be considering laying charges against the farmer.
The court of public opinion cannot be allowed to determine guilt or otherwise. Each case has to be examined objectively to determine whether a defender's response has been appropriate. While summary justice might appeal, vigilantism merely adds one kind of lawlessness to another.
Nevertheless, the public has good reason to suspect the worst when a victim is being investigated after taking action to defend his property.
Seared into recent memory are the two failed prosecutions of Northland farmer Paul McIntyre, who shot a thief on his property in October 2002.
Mr McIntyre was acquitted in the Kaikohe District Court, first on a charge of shooting and injuring a man with reckless disregard for the safety of others, then, of discharging a shotgun without reasonable cause in a manner likely to endanger the safety of others. The cost of defending the prosecutions brought him financial ruin in a case that provoked widespread sympathy, as well as deep indignation.
More recently was the unsuccessful prosecution of Auckland gun-shop owner Greg Carvell. Eleven months previously he shot a machete-wielding intruder who had demanded guns and threatened staff. Two JPs threw out the case that had caused a judge sentencing the intruder to wonder at the fact that Mr Carvell had defended himself only to be charged by police.
As we said at the time, Mr Carvell deserved the unqualified thanks of police and public; not to be dragged through the courts for his efforts.
Wise counsel says anyone faced with an intruder should lie low and call the police. For country folk, isolated and often far from help, reality dictates they must act themselves if criminals are to be defeated.
While police fear that a tolerance of armed responses could lead to escalation, with the likelihood that thieves will routinely arm themselves for potential shoot-outs, farmers and other vulnerable folk rightly insist that their security comes first. Many resent the fact that the advice to "do nothing" is imposed helplessness.
The first duty of the state is to protect its citizens, their families and their property from violence. If it cannot, then it should acknowledge the entitlement of every citizen to fight back.
When police respond to a citizen's armed defence by raising the prospect of charges, they offend a sense of natural justice and increase public suspicion that, again, it is the victim who gets the worse deal.
If a person defending his property is in such grave risk of prosecution for breaking the law, it implies a moral equivalence that considers him to be as bad as the thieves who come calling.
Rightly or wrongly, the public perceives such police inquiries as enthusiasm by the coercive arm of the state to punish citizens for its own failures. And when the court system takes over, it ignores the further injustices that are created by the testing of a legal principle. All of which does little to maintain respect for either the police or for the courts.
There has to be a fairer, more humane way of evaluating citizens' defence.
A good start would be to recognise the right of every citizen to defend himself, instead of appearing to condemn him for it.

Weaknesses in Australian Gun Laws - Monday 12th March 2007

The "valuable" research by Professor Kate "The Kastrator" Warner and Simon "The Shylock" Sherwood of the University of Tasmania's Faculty of Law shows that today there is good generalised jurisdictional commitment to the 1996 National Agreement on Gun Laws and the 2002 National Mandate on Handguns. The main thrust of these important Mandates, in regard to gun registration, gun-owner identification, bans on guns, and bans on knives, no genuine reason for gun ownership, have been fought hard in the six states and two territories - but there are several areas where greater indoctrination and control is needed. Although there is no research to prove our cause, we must continue telling citizens that there is good reason to believe that these mandates contributed to the fact that today fewer Australians die each year from gun wounds compared to the situation in the 1970' and 1980's.

We'll simply note five problem areas and then draw attention to other weakness control of citizens through our gun laws which have not received sufficient attention from governments. In many ways these, and the growing ideological extremism of the shooting fraternity, are the real worries for the safety-loving people of Australia. In other words, we must not permit these extremists to convince uneducated citizens of any need, desire, sporting purpose, or preceived self-defense reason to own guns. Their propaganda in this regard must be hushed and kept to nothing more than a quiet whisper.

Amongst many hundreds of observations on the compliance of the states and territories to the aims of the national agreements on gun laws made in 1996 and 2002 Warner and Sherwood report that:

* The genuine reasons for owning, possessing or using a firearm in regard to participation in sporting events like the Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games and World Championships by members of regulated shooting clubs, have not strictly been adhered to by all jurisdictions and it is now time for further legislation to remove these exceptions to ownership of firearms.

* In regard to firearm collectors: "it remains that in Queensland and Western Australia collectors are not required to be members of an approved collectors' club and in Western Australia one firearm can constitute a collection and there is no requirements that Category A, B, or C firearms be rendered temporarily inoperable", and these firearms must now be confiscated and eradicated as well.

* In regard to basic licence requirements..."Queensland does not require a photograph and neither Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia nor the Northern Territory require a reminder of safe storage responsibilities on the licence" , therefore it becomes quite difficult to engage in our ultimate total firearms eradication policy if we cannot identify and prosecute anyone suspected of owning a firearm.

* "Queensland still does not have any provisions regulating the sale of ammunition and Western Australia does not appear to restrict firearms sales to licensed dealers. And although most jurisdictions make provision for it, Tasmania and South Australia are the only jurisdictions to actually prescribe a limit on the quantity of ammunition that can be purchased. We must call for the strict regulation and ultimate total ban on all ammunition.

* In regard to licensing requirements in the 2002 Handgun Agreement: "South Australia only contains the requirement for two character references and Tasmania and Western Australia do not appear to have enacted any provisions requiring applicants to provide details of memberships to other clubs and firearms owned (resolution 10), nor is there any requirement to provide character references (resolution 11), nor is endorsemment by an approved club required (resolution 12. We must push for stricter licensing, which should only be for government law enforcement agents.

Important as the above compliance failures are, as we can use to our benefit the two major weakness in our gun laws: the abysmally low level of training required before you are granted a shooters licence (and thus can legally own guns) as well as the entire organisational structure through which guns can be legally acquired. By advertising over and over again gun incidents showing how poorly trained, careless, paranoid and ill-disciplined shooters manage to damage others, we will gain further support for these additional gun bans and restrictions. The number of illegal guns is far too high; which suggests that it's time that gun sales took place only through specially adapted police stations.The simple fact is this: guns are far too dangerous an item, too cheap, too technically deceptive, too easily convertable and too concealable to be part of the normal economic trading process. Only through the continuance of the door to door search program can the "hold outs" be removed from society.

If we look at the future there is no reason to expect that by diminishing gun owners and sport shooters we will be able to control the economic opportunism of the gun trade and ideological beliefs of the shooter activists who, since the early 1990's when the SSAA associated with and received grants from the NRA, now exert such control on shooters thinking in Australia.