Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- David Dunstan, an Australian farmer who defended his family from an armed intruder, may have finally gotten his three guns back. His story illustrates much that is wrong with Australia’s extreme gun laws.
No one disputes the events that brought David Dunstan and his family to the attention of the authorities.
David Dunstan lives on a rural property near Bungowannah, New South Wales. It is about 10 miles outside the Australian town of Albury. At 3 a.m. on the 14th of September, 2017 he answered the door and found himself confronting a teen armed with a knife and a large club. He slammed the door shut, and called for his wife to get the key to the gun cupboard. He retrieved an unloaded .22 rifle and used it to convince the thug that he should get in a car and drive to the police station. The offender is in jail without bail. He is suspected of invading another house just before he threatened the Dunstans. From weeklytimesnow.com.au:
A farmer who armed himself with an unloaded gun to protect his family from a knife-wielding thug says he fears the justice system is “stacked against” victims. Father-of-three David Dunstan, 52, was left reeling after police turned up at his property near the NSW-Victorian border to investigate the home invasion — and confiscated the farmer’s legal firearms while they were there, the Herald Sun reports. It came after the cattle and crop farmer confronted a teen armed with a knife and a block of wood who knocked on his back door about 3am last Thursday. “He had a seven foot log of red gum in his hand a knife concealed in the other,” Mr Dunstan said.
The police had no problem with David taking charge of the teen home invader and delivering him into police custody. They had plenty of problems with him having a .22 rifle with him when he did it.
Police seized his three guns for contravention of the firearms act. From bordermail.com.au:
Police seized his guns, which he uses for pest control at his property, later that day.
“I just don’t know what I should have done, what would have been the right way to do it,” Mr Dunstan said.
“My gun licence is for vermin control.
“I suppose, technically, trying to protect yourself is not classed as that.
“I’ve always done the right thing, but I feel like I’ve done the wrong thing.”
Under New South Wales law, and Australian law generally, firearms may *only* be used for the purpose the license to use them for is issued under. If the license is not issued for self-defense, they may not be used for self-defense. The 1996 firearms agreement between Australia states specifically forbids issuing a firearms license for self-defense. If license holders use their license for self defense, they can lose their license to own a firearm forever. They can be jailed for up to five years.
The police impounded David’s three firearms on September 14th. On October 3rd, they put restrictions on David’s wife, Andrea, who also had a firearms license. She was not allowed to have any firearms while living with David. David had never been convicted of any crime.
On October 4th, David was told he was cleared of any charges. That did not mean he would get his firearms back, or that he would retain his firearms license, or that his wife would be able to have firearms if she continued to live with him.
Firearms owners in Australia were outraged. They sent contributions to David’s defense. They wrote letters to the editor. They contacted their representatives.
On 16 October 2017, the special conditions were lifted from Andrea Dunstan’s firearms license.
On 25 October 2017, David was told that he was now able to collect his firearms and license from the police.
On Wednesday, October 25, his efforts paid off. David received a letter from NSW Police, informing him that he could collect his firearms and licence. The letter stated, “It is important that you understand that the legislation prohibits you from possessing or using firearms for the purpose of personal protection”.
Over $20,000 dollars were donated to aid in David Dunstan’s legal battle. Any money left over will be used to prevent future incidents of a similar nature.
On 22 November 2017, the Deputy Premier and Minister for NSW wrote to the Legislative Assembly Committee on Law and Safety to request an inquiry into the Firearms Act of 2016 in terms of defense during a home invasion. By itself, such a letter does little; but it can be the start of reforming the law.
As reported in sportingshooter.com, Australians are hoping to add a commonsense reform to the firearms law, to prevent the sort of abuse that occurred with the Dunstans. As of 13 February 2018, from sportingshooter.com:
This means that if you obtain a firearm for primary production, then that’s all you can use it for.
Use it for something else – whether it is target shooting, hunting or protecting your family home – and you risk imprisonment for up to 5 years.
While this saga was unfolding, we helped the Dunstans write to Mr Barilaro suggesting simple amendments to the Act which would have helped avoid a repetition. We suggested the NSW Government consider adding the simple clause of ‘without reasonable excuse’ to s7A so that it forces the police – and judiciary – to consider the circumstances in which the firearm was used, rather than ignore them.
If these words, which are used in other legislation, had been in place last September, then David’s guns would never have been taken away.
Australian firearms law is some of the most extreme and restrictive firearms law in Western civilization. Perhaps the most extreme part is outlawing of the use of firearms for self-defense. Even in England and Wales, or in Canada, while licenses are not granted for self-defense, self-defense with a firearm is not prohibited.
©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
Ahhh Aussies, where sheep are men and men are sheep….
I think the author of this article would disagree with you on that one champ. He’s been here. And don’t worry ,, when push come to shove here we don’t call our lawyer first ,, we deal with it.
Then we call our lawyer while we’re locked up.
In Australia, a baseball by the front door can have you charged with intent to cause harm. Even sales of pepper spray have been banned here in Tasmania. So not even non lethal methods are permitted for self defence. Meanwhile our Police walk around with stab proof vests, a Glock 17a with a full mag, spare mag (34 rounds) and can carry an additional mag if they want, capsicum spray. Yes they confront angry, drugged up, out of control individuals. So do Ambulance staff, firemen and other emergency staff, however if you assault a police officer, you face a mandatory… Read more »
As I understand it, If the homeowner also used a knife or any other weapon to defend himself and his wife, he could have been charged with a crime as well.
He should’ve told the teen to hold the thought and drive him to the governors house and dropped him off at their front door!
Ah yes… an American with misinformation about a country where one is 25 times less likely to be murdered by a gun. In Australia, by and large, it is within legal bounds to defend yourself in any way possible so long as it’s deemed necessary by the judge & jury. You cannot get a gun permit for the sole purpose of self-defence against other humans but if it’s such a case that you felt your life endangered and required that you utilised your firearms for defence, that is up to the jury and if it’s reasonable you have nothing to… Read more »