I never suggested arresting someone 'in the hope' that we could gain evidence. You would obviously collect the evidence first. So in the example I gave you'd generally move to lawfully collect phone and banking records etc before approaching the suspect. Nor do we have to arrest before charging. No Bill of Rights as such. Just legislated legal protections against, false arrest, access to legal advice if arrested, etc etc I could send you a list of some of the Acts (State and Federal) relating to Criminal Codes and the like but the Acts governing the conduct of criminal trials and sentencing provisions etc are voluminous - and unless you are studying law make an excellent substitute for sleeping pills.
What if there is no other evidence to actually corroborate how and where the firearm was acquired? Or what if the last known legal owner of the firearm alleges the current illegal possessor must having stolen the firearm from them, since they are not in a daily habit of inspecting their inventory to ensure and confirm it is present at all times?
Monash, I’ll try to respond to what you said in one shot… We have background checks here as well. All new firearm purchases go through a licensed dealer, and a background check is required for that purchase. These checks do not implicate the 5th Amendment self-incrimination privilege because no one forces you to go buy a gun from a dealer. Since the decision to purchase the gun (or not) is voluntary, there is no compelled self-incrimination issue. Registration, however, does create the 5th Amendment issue in my county for felons and others for whom it is a crime to possess firearms. Registration orders the felon to openly declare his possession of a firearm, and thus it compels him to admit a crime. A felon who already possesses one or more of the several million firearms already in circulation when the registration law is passed will have immunity from registering that firearm. It is a similar problem for any firearm the felon obtains after the registration law passes. To enforce the registration law you have to punish the refusal to register. In the case of felons, that amounts to passing a law that makes it a crime (fail to register) for not confessing to a different crime (unlawful possession). Assuming registration is otherwise deemed constitutional, then a forward looking database of all new FFL dealer gun sales is easily compiled. The practical difficulty in registration lies in enforcing a demand that north of 355 million private guns already in private hands must now also be registered. For good or ill, my government has simply no way to know who already possesses what gun that now needs to be registered, and no way to know when or to whom they are transferred absent voluntary compliance with the law. This difficulty cannot be overstated, particularly when felons will be immune from its requirements. Yes both of us offered similar scenarios. The problem I want to make everyone over here aware of is the frequent necessity to have the violent offender testify to get a conviction on the unregistered seller, and how difficult it is to justify doing so. Don’t worry, neither one of us have given away tradecraft secrets. There is nothing you said that is not already widely known over here. Historical cell site and historical GPS data searches are also well known over here, particularly after last year’s SCOTUS case of U.S. v. Carpenter, which found a privacy interest in your cell phones historical location data. We also try to go after illicit gun sellers (straw purchasers, those knowingly selling to felons, etc.). It is difficult to do, and I do not foresee it getting much easier with a registration requirement added to the mix. I’m sorry to suggest you might arrest first and look for evidence later. I mistakenly took the tone of your post to be something like arrest them all and let God and the judge sort them out. I am happy to hear you say that is not the practice. I don’t need to see all of your criminal code. I just wanted to know if you had a link to the licensing/registration statute(s). Oh and I agree reading legislation is a solid sleeping aid. Watching legislation being made, however, can be a terrifying experience—watching how little thought goes into some legislative proposals will give you nightmares….
This fascinates me. My civil liberties are protected in my nation's charter, and I ascribe to this belief: “The great ideals of liberty and equality are preserved against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles, by enshrining them in constitutions, and consecrating to the task of their protection a body of defenders.” Justice Benjamin Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process, Lecture II, 1921. Placing them in the Constitution was intentionally done to make it difficult to simply change them at the whim of some transient majority. When you say your civil liberties are legislated legal protections, does that mean they are in statutes or were they written into a controlling government charter that requires the direct input of the people to change them? I ask that because over here statutes are made, modified, and repealed with a simple majority vote of each side of a bicameral legislature and a signature approval of the governor/president, with an ability of the legislature to supermajority override an executive veto. In other words, a simple majority of legislators can change any law (if the chief executive also agrees). If this were all it took to modify or remove a protection for a civil liberty (free speech, right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure), then the protection of our civil liberties would have been built on shifting sand. Our civil liberties would become mere privileges which the government allows us to have until a simple majority of a legislative body decides we don’t think you should have them anymore. Is that how it works with you? Can you tell me the process for changing or removing one of your legislated legal protections?
Not having any evidence as to how the weapon was acquired leads back to the need for proper registration and licensing. As for alleging the firearm was stolen? No problem, as long as they reported it as soon as it happened, waiting until Police showed up at their door asking to speak to them (6 months after the supposed theft) would, over here probably get their license revoked unless there were extenuating circumstances. The same would apply if Police had to come a-knocking three times in succession only to be told 'oh that gun, that got stolen to.' As for worrying bout inspection your firearms every day? again the obligation here is that they are to be secured away when not in the hands of the owner. If it is secured and you have the keys there should be no need.
Easiest way to answer is to just copy and paste from the Australian Human Rights Commission website. 'Unlike most similar liberal democracies, Australia does not have a Bill of Rights. Instead, protections for human rights may be found in the Constitution and in legislation passed by the Commonwealth Parliament or State or Territory Parliaments. There are five explicit individual rights in the Constitution. These are the right to vote (Section 41), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)), the right to a trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116) and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117). The High Court has found that additional rights for individuals may be necessarily implied by the language and structure of the Constitution. In 1992 the Court decided that Australia's form of parliamentary democracy (dictated by the Constitution) necessarily requires a degree of freedom for individuals to discuss and debate political issues. Australia's common law was inherited from the United Kingdom. Common law is often called 'judge-made' law. This distinguishes it from laws made in Parliament....' The High Court is our version of the US Supreme Court and has the same legal authority to overturn lower court decision or interpret Government Legislation. In summary and as surprising as it may be to hear Australian manages to score pretty highly on every index of international human rights. It also means while I can't buy any firearm I want any time I want, I can (should I choose) offer to help run religious education classes in State public schools. Which BTW ,which are a thing over here. Not mandatory I might add, just an option that parents can elect to send their kids to if they think it is a good idea. So by one metric I have less rights than a citizen of the United States and by another more rights. Not saying one path is better or worse mind you, just that we've managed to do pretty well without a Bill of Rights for the best part of 120 years.
Oh, and P.S. While the 'right to vote' is enshrined in the Constitution voting in Australia is actually compulsory and these days most polling booths run charity barbecues at the same same time to cash in on the our universal appetite for sausages, onions and your choice of sauce. IMO a 'win, win' situation.
The common law is alive and well in America as well. In my state, and I presume most others, the Common Law remains the law of the land unless specifically modified by the Virginia Constitution or a law passed by the legislature. For example, the Common Law right of self-defense (no-fault stand your ground and defend yourself) is very much alive and well where I live. You may not call it a Bill of Rights, but that is what the list of your Constitutional protections sounds like. The important thing is you have individual rights specifically recognized and enshrined in your Constitution—making it much more difficult for a transient and ill-tempered simple majority of legislators to change the law and take these rights away. They deserve this special protection because they are not granted by the government but belong to you simply because you are a citizen. We have the same five rights you list in our Bill of Rights. To these, we also have recognized and protected the following additional rights: Freedom of Speech; Freedom of Assembly; Right to petition the government for a redress of grievances; Right to keep and bear arms; Right not to have soldiers quartered in your house; Right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure; Right to due process; Right to be free from compelled self-incrimination; Right to a grand jury to determine charges against you; Right to counsel; Right against double jeopardy; Right to a speedy trial; Right to a public trial; Right to confront witnesses against you; Right to compel witness testimony; Right against the imposition of excessive bail; Right against excessive fines; Right against cruel and unusual punishment; and we add two other amendments which tell us that rights not specifically mentioned still exist and are still retained by the people, and powers not specifically granted to the federal government are retained by the states and the people. Our “equal protection” anti-discrimination clause was not included in our Bill of Rights. It was added to the Constitution in the 14th Amendment. The “implication” of a right to free political speech that your source says a High Court decision implied in your Constitution in a 1992 case sounds a lot like what we in America call the “penumbra doctrine”—a judicial doctrine that says some enumerated rights necessarily cast a shadow of protection over other unenumerated rights. It is also called “substantive due process” here. Here is a description of the doctrine: “(T)he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This “liberty” is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints….” Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 543 (1961) (Harlan, dissenting). This dissenting opinion quote has been championed by many SCOTUS justices as they have sought to increase individual liberty under the due process clause. Interestingly, although many “liberal” justices love to use this quote when it suits them, they mysteriously lose track of it when the RKBA is discussed…despite it being specifically mentioned by the Justice they quote from…. What I find fascinating from what you cited is this: It does appear from what you have cited that your Constitution does not offer any explicit protection for freedom of speech. It appears that until the 1992 case “implied” protection for at least political speech there was no constitutional restraint on your legislators from enacting a law that would jail you for publicly daring to criticize their actions. And without this one case implying the right is protected, then you could have also been jailed for expressing your political views on this blog site if your legislators wanted to approve such a law. At least that is how it appears from what you cited. The point I want to make is this: If an individual right is specifically protected in your nation’s charter, then you don’t have to rely upon the shifting sandbank hope that legislators will appoint judges who have the courage to tell the legislator that they are wrong and they can’t do want the want to do—that there are limits to their encroachment upon individual liberty even if they believe they are acting for the greater good. This is why the 2nd Amendment recognition of the RKBA confounds so many anti-gun legislators. It is a clear roadblock to the power they want to claim. Their good (and bad) intentions aside, there are certain policies that an enshrined right removes from the table—precisely because the people as a whole chose to remove them from consideration when the rights were added—thereby requiring an equally protective and solemn act of the people to change the document. And as an aside, if they removed the 2nd Amendment, it would merely transfer the protection of the RKBA to the 9th and 10th Amendments. Finally, maybe I need to talk to my county Registrar. BBQ with voting sounds awesome.
Noted, but for some reason apart certain historical arguments around the classification of specific books, plays, art works etc as 'immoral' or 'pornographic (or not) plus the odd court case where blanket prohibitions on reporting have been granted on a temporary basis there have never been any circumstances where the lack of a 'right to free speech' or similar in the Constitution has been seen as a major problem. No political party has attempted to seriously limit the public's right of expression in any kind of wholesale manner over the entire history of the Commonwealth. There might be an issue now with legislation designed to limit accessibility certain information on the web but that is aimed at terrorist related material designed to insight violence etc. There are clearly strong arguments for framing an increased number of rights within the constitution or in a separate 'Bill of Rights' the problem is getting a consensus now, on the number, scope and type etc of 'rights' to be included. Every fringe group with a cause to push, having failed repeatedly to gain traction for their issue at the ballot box would pile in with a wish list of proposed rights. SO there might be an argument for leaving things be that way if a law governing free speech is later found to be 'oppressive it can be overturned at the ballot box three years later. Just Imagine trying the draft the US Bill of Rights in 2020.
Because the qualities that make a gun useful for a patrol officer are the same qualities that make a gun useful for self defense.
So why have 5 people been shot in Texas with 21 injured after a routine traffic stop? You have a trained officer with a gun but it would appear to have been of no use up against the same or greater type of gun. America has been running with the idea, "More guns" for 300 years and it ain't better. Self defense hasn't gone well. What does a self defense gun/rifle look like?
And exactly how many 'criminals' have made the news recently attacking citizens in their own homes while fully rigged out in level 2A or above ballistic protection armor? I have more chance of dating Cameron Diaz than you have of confronting a criminal wearing 'kevlar'.
Then why is there so much political support for prohibiting the ownership of kevlar vests and ballistic plates by private citizens?
If the chances of encountering someone committing a crime while wearing body armor are currently extremely low because the widespread use of such armor is prohibited then the answer to your question is obvious. If its not freely available in the marketplace then its not freely available to criminals either.
It is not being stated that body armor is prohibited on the private market. Rather it is being stated that there is political support for prohibiting the private ownership of body armor, suggesting that its availability is a problem in need of being addressed, thus suggesting the number of criminals who are making use of body armor is growing substantially. Therefore the chances of encountering a random criminal who is making use of body armor in the commission of their crimes is obviously growing, and thus warrants private individuals having access to firearms capable of defeating said body armor.
For what it's worth, the Second Amendment protects the right to have body armor as well as the right to have effective self defense guns.
Is there information about what guns the bad guy had versus what guns the police had? It seems pretty good to me. It should have the ability to rapidly and accurately shoot rounds that are capable of incapacitating an aggressor wearing Kevlar.
