We have a right to self defence.

Until John Howard took it, we had an implied right

to armed self defence. Our rights are not listed on paper, they are part of our
heritage.

Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 - 1954), Wednesday 23 August 1933, page 10

FIREARMS ACT.

Position of Householders. SIR FRANK CLARKE'S APPEAL.

Man's Right to Defend Himself. IMPORTANT COURT RULING.

In the belief that there is too much interference nowadays with the liberty of the
subject and that a man is entitled to defend himself and his property by what ever
force is necessary, Sir Frank Clarke, President of the Legislative Council,
appeared in Prahran court yesterday to appeal against the refusal of the Police
department to grant his application for registration of a pistol because he had not
shown sufficient reasons for requiring possession of such a weapon. The appeal was
heard by Mr. Brown, P.M., and Mr. C. H. Eager (instructed by Messrs. Elliott,
Downing and Oldham) appeared for the appellant, and Inspector J. M. Hevey appeared
for the Commissioner of Police. Mr. Eager, after explaining the sections of the
Firearms Act dealing with the conditions of granting permission to possess or carry
pistols, said the appellant was practised in the use of these weapons, and he
desired to have one in his possession for the protection of himself, his family and
household and his goods. In the House last year the Chief Secretary (Mr.
MacFarlane) expressed the opinion that it was obligatory on the Commissioner of
Police or the authorised police officer to grant a certificate to an applicant
unless there existed any of the disabilities set out in the act. "In all matters
relevant to that point the law was unchanged. The burden of proof was on the police
to show that, the appellant, having once had permission to possess a pistol, had
recently, through change of character or other disability, become unfit. Sir Frank
Clarke regarded the matter as something more than a personal one, for he
represented 45,000 householders in his province of the Legislative Council, and he
was not the only one who had been refused a permit. The appeal was a test case, as
there were 931 applications of a similar nature that had been refused. It was
submitted not that the appellant: was entitled to the issue of a registration
certificate merely as an indulgence, but that he desired to establish the position
as a matter of his strict legal rights as a householder and as "a person who would
not be a menace to the public and the peace." Appellant did not wish to detract
from the high reputation of the police, hut many householders in similar
circumstances had arbitrarily been deprived of a lawful privilege, and it had
become his duty as their representative in Parliament to rescue them from illegal
oppression. He had come to court for a ruling that would be a common ruling for
nearly 1999 other householders who desired to have pistols in their homes.
Inspector Harvey said his answer to the appeal was that the grounds on which it was
based had ceased to exist, as the certificate asked for had been granted. Mr.
Eager: It may have been issued, but Sir Frank Clarke has not received it. Inspector
Hervey said the question had never been raised that the appellant was not a fit and
proper person to possess a pistol. The Commissioner of Police had the power to deal
with all registrations. He appointed a deputy� an authorised officer � who was an
inspector of police. This officer had seen fit to refuse the appellant's
application, which was an oversight on his part, but that inspector had retired
from the service, and consequently was not present to explain his actions. There
were many thousands of pistols in Victoria � thousands of them in the metropolis�
and through an oversight appellant's file had been marked "not approved." Since Sir
Frank Clarke's appeal the facts had been brought under the notice of the
Commissioner, who had immediately given instructions for the permit to be issued.
The appellant had been approached personally, and had been informed of all the
details, but he apparently felt that it was not a personal matter, but that.it was
something that others were also entitled to. Sir Frank Clarke had seen act in the
making of it, and he evidently wanted to see that it was carried out. Section 35 of
the act provided that any person feeling aggrieved by a refusal of the police to
register a pistol might within a month lodge an appeal. Appellant had no doubt felt
aggrieved, and had appealed. The reply was the withdrawal of the refusal and the
granting of his application. If appellant's solicitor refused to accept the permit,
the police could not do anything more. The inspector submitted that there were 110
grounds for the appeal, and no order should be made, as the permit had already,
been granted. Mr. Eager said, application for the permit was made on 20th July, and
a reply was received the same day refusing it on the ground that appellant had not
shown sufficient reason for desiring to acquire the pistol. On 29th July notice of
appeal was given, and the hearing was set down for 7th August. Then on 11th inst.,
for the first time, appellant was informed that the police were prepared to issue
the certificate. It was a case of "don't shoot: we will come down" � (laughter) �
and counsel asked that an order he made by the court. Inspector Hevey said he could
see no reason for the proceedings, as since the appeal was lodged the application
had been granted.
Appellant had been personally made aware of this fact before the 7th August. Mr.
Brown, P.M., ' allowed the appeal, but made no order for costs. He said he was
sorry the circumstances necessitated the attendance at court of Sir Frank Clarke,
who possessed all the qualifications necessary for possessing a pistol, Inspector
Hevey had done his best to explain the position .and to assure the applicant that
there had not been the slightest intention of hindering his application.