Bill for an Act, "Self Defense Legitimate" eg stalker/rapist/pepper-spray/Jane Q Public

0 have signed. Let’s get to 1,500!

After face checking the case of the farmer that was disarmed by police when a knifeman was at large in the district the draft letter to the Senate of the upper house of the bicameral Parliament of Australia was prepared.  Draft 2 is given below and forms the basis of the petition.  

If anyone wishes to comment on the letter or provide an opinion please do not hesitate to visit the research group website: or visit www.cpb.LIFE for further information.  


Dear Senators,

We the undersigned understand that a group of like-minded citizens can draft a Bill and respectfully submit it to elected representatives of Parliament in the hope it receives their favourable consideration.

However, according to Andrew Jackson, a former retired public servant, in 99% of cases, the MP will file the Draft and ignore it.

We also understand that one of the biggest advantages of a Westminster System of government is that a draft Bill can go to the parliamentary drafts-persons so that the document may be reviewed with regard to existing legislation and the document accordingly adjusted for final presentation to elected representatives.

Perhaps you will allow us to access that resource so the document is consistent with existing legislation?

Our proposed Bill is called the “Preservation of Life – Community Protection Bill 2022”.The Bill is so dated 2022 for three reasons.

Firstly, we believe that 2 to 3 years of research involving public feedback will be required;

Secondly, our research group commenced on the 1st of January 2020 and concurrent to our activities is a petition that now has over 1,400 signatures and support continues to grow daily; and

Thirdly, we expect the number of supporters for the Bill will increase significantly by the time we are ready to submit the document and that perhaps our submission will be within the 1% that isn’t filed and ignored.

What is our Bill about?

On the 10th of December 1948, 48 countries including Australia came together at the United Nations in Paris to sign the Universal Declaration of Human RightsArticle 3: Right to life of that agreement states:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

We feel that the “security of person” may only be achieved in some instances through “self-preservation” as the police can not be everywhere to protect everyone.

In support of this opinion is the English proverb, “The first law of nature is self-preservation”.We believe that everyone is a part of nature, therefore we seek legislation to be pasted that recognises Article 3.

Our Bill seeks the creation of a Commonwealth statutory authority called “Preservation fo Life – Community Protection Australia” to administrate an Act that permits citizens of good character to be in possession of a regulated weapon for the genuine reason of having a capacity of self-defense in specific circumstances.

We realise the phrase “regulated weapon” may be taken to mean “firearm”.However, whilst firearms are a consideration much of the proposed legislation is in relation to other regulated weapons that represent a capacity for self-defense.

For example, as research hash-tags: stalker/rapist/pepper-spray/Jane Q Public.

Because current State-based weapons legislation specifically states, words to the effect, “A capacity for self-defense is not a genuine reason” we submit at this early time the following case as proof that self-defense in specific circumstances is a genuine reason.

(1) At 3am in September 2017, a man armed with a knife tried to break in through the front door of an Australian farmer’s home before trying the back one.

Alarmed, the farmer went to the back door and saw the offender holding a 7-foot piece of wood. The man tucked one of his knives up behind his arm to hide it from the farmer’s sight, but it didn’t work.

(2) The farmer saw the knife and got his gun while his wife called the police. The farmer said that when he returned to the back door, the offender saw the gun and immediately changed his demeanour, saying ‘he didn’t want any trouble’.

(3) The farmer stated later he was positive that producing the gun changed the outcome of what happened that morning.

(4) The police arrived and took not only the firearm the farmer used to deter the knifeman but all firearms in the house because the farmer only has a permit of possession for pest control.

(5) The knifeman that ran away concealed himself in bushes away from the house and observed the police disarm the farmer.

(6) After the police have left the knifeman returns and murders the farmer and proceeds to rape and murder his wife.

(7) The two children escape through a window and the consideration of “damages” based on the inappropriate actions of the police is being considered by the family solicitor.

(8) In disarming the farmer the Police Officers also remove the observable deterrent that kept the knifeman from entering the house in the first instance.

Please perform the thought experiment of pretending you are a Minister of Police,

“Are you of the opinion that the farmer had a genuine reason for using a firearm to deter a knifeman attempting to enter the family’s home?”


We respectfully submit to the Australian Senate that in signing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights there exists a need for a Commonwealth Act that takes into account the “security of person” provisions of Article 3.

Notwithstanding weapons legislation for pest control and sport which are matters for the State to administrate the proposed Act should be administrated by a Commonwealth statutory authority called:

“Preservation of Life – Community Protection Australia”.

Under section 109 of the Constitution of Australia, the following declaration is consistent with the belief that Human Rights are Universal across Australia:

When a weapon’s law of the State is inconsistent with Article 3 laws of the Commonwealth the latter shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

The proposed Article 3 Laws in the draft form include the following:

(1) Security of person may only be achieved in some instances through self-preservation as the police can not be everywhere to protect everyone;

(2) There exist, persons of good character, that in specific circumstances should be permitted to possess a regulated weapon under secure and responsible management;

(3) A permit-issue should be considered on the balance of probability that a life or lives will be preserved in the event of a grievous attack upon the innocent; and

(4) The function of “Preservation of Life – Community Protection Australia” is to create codes of practice and develop administrative policies and procedures.

As mentioned above, the administration of regulated weapons for pest control and sport remains unchanged and continues to be the responsibility of the States. Thank you for reading our letter and we hope our final submission in 2 to 3 years will meet or exceed your expectations.

Preservation of Life Research Group

We the undersigned.