Gun Control, Part 1: Yes It’s UN-led

UN

by Terry Shulze, retired barrister, NSW

Editor’s Note: This very informative essay will appear at Gumshoe in three parts. It first appeared under the title “Gun Runner” at ‘Keep and Bear Arms’ on September 11, 1999 – what a day!  Still fresh as a daisy.

“The United Nations has played no role in Australia’s new gun laws” – Lisa Gates, Policy Advisor to the Deputy Prime Minister, April 1997. “The specific answer to your question (of whether the UN influenced Australia’s gun laws) is no” – John Olsen, Premier of SA, April 1997. “This is not an external matter, it is a matter for Australians only, I must assure you of that.” – Alan Cadman, Federal Member for Mitchell, Chief Government Whip, March 1997.

The statement of Alan Cadman’s is comical in the extreme, he is either badly informed or a willing participant in a misinformation campaign – he should at the very least read his own mail. I have in my possession a letter that was forwarded to one of his constituents on 17 May 1996. Note that date, that is just one week after the infamous 10th of May 1996 Australian Police Ministers Council (APMC) meeting that gave rise to the “tough new gun laws”. The aforementioned letter was in response to an inquiry dated 15 January 1996, requesting certain information about the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) and the United Nations (UN). The letter from the Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department (A-G) was dated just four days after the APMC resolutions.

Now remember this is a letter from the Commonwealth Attorney General’s office, that is, Daryl Williams’s office – the person in charge of implementing the new gun laws. As wont by all slick lawyers, the constituent’s questions were redefined by the A-G’s office (why answer a question you don’t like) and the answers cleverly composed with omissions. After reading the correspondence, I now know why he got the job as top-lawyer.

For example, the first question asked about the relationship between the AIC and the UN. In the answer to the inquiry the A-G’s office referred to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed on 7 July 1988 between the AIC and the UN. The A-G’s letter states “Under this MoU, the institute provides advice on division programs“. That statement in itself seems innocent enough, but wait there’s more! Go to the actual MoU between the AIC and the UN and look what the A-G omitted.

(a) provide advice on the implementation of the substantive program of the (division):

Substantive things are things of substance, “expressing existence”, you know – real things. Implementation means to implement, that is, “carry (contract, promise, etc.) Into effect”. In a nutshell, this subsection means that the AIC is to provide advice on carrying into effect the real programs of the UN. And yes, firearm regulation is one of those real programs.

The best obfuscation in the A-G’s letter was left for the last question. In that question it was asked “What is in it for Australia, that is, what benefit is supposed to flow to the people, or the government for the compliance with those terms?” Again the A-G rewrote the question, but the rewriting gave the game away. The A-G rewrote the question as-

“To what extent will they benefit Australia or world peace?”

World peace? Where did that come from? What does an Australian farmer’s .22 rifle have to do with World Peace? Further, the actual answer to that question did not list any benefit to Australia or the Australian people, but what it did say should have woke Mr. Cadman up from his afternoon nap with a bolt. It stated, “There has been increasing interest in the UN system in recent years in the disarmament of the people…Increasing UN interest in Microdisarmament (controlling and eliminating small arms etc.) is reflected by the number of resolutions passed by the General Assembly in this area.”

The AIC/NCV relationship

As already stated, the AIC signed a MoU with the UN division (UNICRI) that is foremost involved with implementing gun control regulations world wide. The person who signed that MoU was Duncan Chappell, the Director of the AIC. The signing of that MoU took place just three months before the convening of the National Committee on Violence (NCV) in October 1988. The NCV is the origin of the “tough new gun laws” in Australia. Duncan Chappell was not only the Director of the AIC; he was also the Chairman of the NCV. Later, after leaving the AIC, he went overseas and worked with his friends at UNICRI. (There are lots of dots to connect, getting them in the right order to see the hidden shape is the objective!)

The NCV did not support any of the gun control measures with any research; it simply stated them as objectives. The same objectives that, just by coincidence of course, the international gun control community was advocating. As will be shown, the NCV couldn’t justify any of the gun control measures.

How Does Public Health Get into the Act?

A Freedom of Information request for the internal documents from the NCV was informative, it stated that gun control was “to be marketed as a public health issue, rather than a crime issue”. That connection still exits, just click on The Australian Coalition of Gun Control homepage on the Internet, it states “Gun Control: A public health issue”. The homepage is maintained by the Department of Public Health and Community Medicine and is associated with Simon Chapman at Sydney University. The public health system approach to gun control coincides with the public health system approach in America. The “globalization” mirror image of this relationship is found with the John Hopkins University School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland.

John Hopkins School of Public Health has a “Center for Gun Policy and Research”. Three-quarters of the faculty of the Center is legally trained, the Director has nine years experience as a trial lawyer. This is the organization that is in the forefront of promoting gun control through litigation. If you’re wondering how law degrees are related to public health, then consider the disarmament agenda within the American context. The problem in America for the global elites is that since both Federal and State Constitutions have Bills of Rights protecting the individual right to arms, a way had to be found to bypass both the Legislatures and the Constitutions. It now appears that civil litigation (along with judicious propaganda) was the chosen method.

I mentioned “global elites”, well, you may have heard of the recent Brooklyn, New York case of Hamilton -v- Accu-Tek wherein various gun manufacturers were absurdly held legally responsible for the illegal activities of someone who had illegally obtained firearms. This in a case where there was no firearm recovered to show a nexus to any of the manufacturers. As you might expect, the litigation was very expensive, the Plaintiff’s representative stated that the matter would not have proceeded without the funding of the Soros Foundation. Soros? – That is right, George Soros, the international financier. (The MAI isn’t the only pie he has a finger in!) The use of tax-free foundations by the financial elite to manipulate a society has been going on for years, but the disarmament of the people has not been a serious objective, until now.

There was also someone who is familiar to Australians that attended the Brooklyn court case every day. You may remember her; short hair, got lots of media coverage, showed up in Australia about the time gun control became an issue – then left when the new laws were in place? If you guessed Rebecca Peters, your’ right! Peters was awarded a Senior Fellowship in March 1997 by the Soros Foundation (stipend and all) and completed her postdoctoral fellowship with the Center for Gun Policy and Research at John Hopkins School of Public Health. Peters is still being bankrolled by the Soros foundation as she continues to work out of New York on international firearm issues. (Perhaps it is because the pomo-left are offended by concepts of logic and linear thinking, that they will never be able to connect-the-dots).

Advertisements

Comments

  1. REPLY TO SHULZE QUESTION OF 14 JULY
    In WA anyone can file an application for stay of prosecution on the basis that a charge is an abuse of the process of the court: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2004 – SECT 76

    The pleas were that:
    1) the respective allegations didn’t tee up with any prescribed offence
    2) they were convoluted with extant/outstanding State government abuses
    3) the officers concerned were directly involved in the State’s attempted cover-up of a “civil” rort that had affected the entire family

    No. 1 was rejected on the basis that the issue could be dealt with “at trial”. Said ruling was upheld by the High Court. No one was prepared to so much as acknowledge nos. 2& 3. The family is still in the thick of dealing with (3).

    My youngest son maintains that:
    * A tactical defeat was superceded by a strategic victory.
    * Re the PAM: One win in the woods is worth two on the battlefield.

    • Dear Berry, what case are you referring to when you say the rejection was upheld by the High Court?

      • Oops, never mind. I see that may be personal.

      • The decision was made on 28 Aug ’08: “His Honour held that the issues raised by the applicants were properly matters for the trial or for another forum altogether ( e.g. complaints bodies)”
        I have the file no. stashed away somewhere. High court website doesn’t seem to work. WA Court of Appeal no. is CACR 121 & 122 of 2008

  2. Another aspect of AVOs is that anyone can lodge one against anybody without any sort of proof of anything and any firearms owned by a hapless target of petty revenge will be automatically confiscated.

    • Terry Shulze says:

      The AVO is usually the START of the problems. When the police arrive to take custody of the firearms, they will often find some aspect of ‘not safe keeping’ in order to charge the person. It could just be a tin of air gun pellets left out on a bench – opps, unsecured ammunition. (even a used bent airgun pellet laying on the bench would qualify as ‘ammunition’ under the Act).

      Then off to Court for a charge of ‘not safe keeping’, conviction and fine, 10 year ban from having a firearm license. Any firearm subject to the actual charge is ‘automatically forfeited to the Crown’ – even if the Magistrate decides not to convict and place the person on a good behavior bond instead.

      People are finally starting to wake up to the fact this is a DISARMAMENT agenda.

      • Terry Shulze says:

        The original title to the article was ‘Gun Runner’ and the by-line was –

        ‘Gun control’ is not about GUNS, it is about CONTROL.

        • Its no different to life in the Warsaw Getto: Most folk aren’t focused on anything more than setting themselves up nicely which inevitably means buttering up their oppressor.

          Entire walls could be blown apart simply by refraining from any sort of “plea bargain” re the type of prosecution you mention.

          In 2007 two of my sons dealt with a nefarious firearms prosecution by filing an application for stay. They soon found out that the provision had virtually never been invoked!

        • Terry Shulze says:

          Berry, what was the nature of the ‘stay’? That is, what was pleaded in the application for the stay? Was the stay granted?

          I mentioned in another post I’d like to see someone front up with an application for a stay as the legislation is based upon fraud, then present evidence to the court about the PAM.

          In other words, challenging the legislation as not having a ‘rational basis’. The substance of law is reason, a law without a reason doesn’t have the substance of law – it is a void.

  3. Great article Terry, very interesting. Looking forward to reading more…

    • Part 2 and 3 are scheduled for tomorrow and Tuesday. Great series.

      • Terry Shulze says:

        I first started on this article in 1987 and then things just kept occurring and I kept adding to it. As long as it is, it has actually been trimmed back quite a bit. It was this article that Andrew MacGregor read and then called me up to discuss it. He then sent information on the Port Arthur Massacre which started me researching and writing about the massacre.

        The 1980-90s was back in the dark ages before the internet. The MSM had free reign to tell any lies it wanted and there was virtually no way to counter the lies. The header to the article mentioned it was published on an American website – that’s because nobody in Australia would publish it.

        Some of it is dated, I noticed the reference to the ‘pomo left’, which was a term about 25 years ago. Here’s a reference to the term I pulled from the ‘net – “We have left the realm of reality and entered the world, previousy exclusively occupied by the pomo-left, of identity as truth. “We are right because we are white” is no different in logic than “we are right because we are black”. Essentially, if you were ‘anti-gun’ you were right.

        I also mentioned logic and linear thinking and connecting the dots. The logic would be ‘A’ leads to ‘B’, which leads to ‘C’, which takes us to ‘D’. When trying to discuss the issues with the freak show that was going on back then they would argue it wasn’t A-B-C-D, it was A-M-F-Q (or A-O-E-Z, or any other nonsense they could come up with). I would then try to further explain it to them, which would result in more ‘identity crisis’ as their cognitive dissonance mounted – eventually it would always lead to an insane outburst where I would be accused of all sorts of ugliness (something like, “you’re a demonic person who rapes fuzzy animals under the full moon”).

        Although there is a younger generation that avoided the propaganda from back then and now has the internet for research, there are still heaps of these mind controlled zombies walking around. I remind Gumshoes of the NSW Solicitor at the Environmental Law function that stated, “I don’t care if Martin Bryant is innocent, I don’t like guns!”

        • Terry Shulze says:

          “The same objectives that, just by coincidence of course, the international gun control community was advocating.”

          One of those objectives was ‘genuine reasons’ for owning a firearm – ‘self defense’ is not a GENUINE reason under the legislation. Some people think that if they are being stalked that they could get a firearm for protection – wrong.

          They can however apply for an Apprehended Violence Order (if they know who the stalker is). However, an AVO, although a court order, is in reality a piece if paper.

          There was an interesting case where a woman held up the AVO in front of her former spouse – like it was some sort of ‘force field’. He grabbed the piece of paper, crumpled it up and tried to push it down her throat. His intention was to make her eat it, unfortunately she choked to death on it – he killed her with the AVO. Probably not the result she was looking for.

Trackbacks

  1. […] were pleased that Terry Shulze let us re-publish his “Gun Runner” article of 1999 – (not the least bit out-of-date!). We divided it into a three part […]

  2. […] The reasoning behind this plan (I think) was that the population would then accept the Commonwealth Government’s implementation of the United Nations wish to disarm this part of the World’s public. (See Terry Shulze’s 3-part article here.) […]

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: