An extract from 1688 Bill of Rights guaranteeing the right to carry arms
Recital that the late King James II. had abdicated the Government, and that the Throne was vacant, and that the Prince of Orange had written Letters to the Lords and Commons for the choosing Representatives in Parliament:
And whereas the said late King James the Second haveing Abdicated the Government and the Throne being thereby Vacant His [X2Hignesse] the Prince of Orange (whome it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious Instrument of Delivering this Kingdome from Popery and Arbitrary Power) did (by the Advice of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and diverse principall Persons of the Commons) cause Letters to be written to the Lords Spirituall and Temporall being Protestants and other Letters to the severall Countyes Cityes Universities Burroughs and Cinque Ports for the Choosing of such Persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parlyament to meete and sitt at Westminster upon the two and twentyeth day of January in this Yeare one thousand six hundred eighty and eight in order to such an Establishment as that their Religion Lawes and Liberties might not againe be in danger of being Subverted, Upon which Letters Elections haveing beene accordingly made.
The Subject’s Rights.
And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties, Declare
That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.
Late dispensing Power.
That the pretended Power of Dispensing with Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.
Ecclesiastical Courts illegal.
That the Commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes and all other Commissions and Courts of like nature are Illegall and Pernicious.
That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner then the same is or shall be granted is Illegall.
Right to petition.
That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall.
That the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law.
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
Freedom of Election.
That Election of Members of Parlyament ought to be free.
Freedom of Speech.
That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.
That excessive Baile ought not to be required nor excessive Fines imposed nor cruell and unusuall Punishments inflicted.
That Jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned . . . F1
Grants of Forfeitures.
That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void.
And that for Redresse of all Grievances and for the amending strengthening and preserveing of the Lawes Parlyaments ought to be held frequently.
The said Rights claimed. Tender of the Crown. Regal Power exercised. Limitation of the Crown.
And they doe Claime Demand and Insist upon all and singular the Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People in any of the said Premisses ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter into Consequence or Example. To which Demand of their Rights they are particularly encouraged by the Declaration of this Highnesse the Prince of Orange as being the onely meanes for obtaining a full Redresse and Remedy therein. Haveing therefore an intire Confidence
That his said Highnesse the Prince of Orange will perfect the Deliverance soe farr advanced by him and will still preserve them from the Violation of their Rights which they have here asserted and from all other Attempts upon their Religion Rights and Liberties. The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons assembled at Westminster doe Resolve That William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange be and be declared King and Queene of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging to hold the Crowne and Royall Dignity of the said Kingdomes and Dominions to them the said Prince and Princesse dureing their Lives and the Life of the Survivour of them And that the sole and full Exercise of the Regall Power be onely in and executed by the said Prince of Orange in the Names of the said Prince and Princesse dureing their joynt Lives And after their Deceases the said Crowne and Royall Dignitie of the said Kingdoms and Dominions to be to the Heires of the Body of the said Princesse And for default of such Issue to the Princesse Anne of Denmarke and the Heires of her Body And for default of such Issue to the Heires of the Body of the said Prince of Orange. And the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe pray the said Prince and (X3) Princesse to accept the same accordingly.
New Oaths of Allegiance, &c.
And that the Oathes hereafter mentioned be taken by all Persons of whome the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy might be required by Law instead of them And that the said Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy be abrogated.
I A B doe sincerely promise and sweare That I will be faithfull and beare true Allegiance to their Majestyes King William and Queene Mary Soe helpe me God.
Politicians and parliaments over many years have claimed this doctrine of inalienable rights is just a statute which has been repealed by them and no longer has any effect. More learned scholars than us say crap.
Posted on February 11, 2023, in General, gun control, Gun Control Australia, guns, Rebecca Peters, Shooters Union, SSAA and tagged Bill of Rights 1688. Bookmark the permalink. 45 Comments.
Hi good morning,
This court transcript speaks to some of this issues discussed in this thread:
“His Honour considered that most people would be surprised to be told that it was unlawful to carry anything for the purpose of using it for self-defence, and remarked that there was an argument that it was appropriate to permit law-abiding citizens to carry at least some items for that purpose.”
Thank you for the information; Unfortunately i won’t be attending anytime soon; Too far my friend
Thanks for replying.
I have seen reference to it being discussed in legal journals and what not. But I have not yet found a reference in an Australian court in which the bill has been accepted as conferring a right to arms.
I would be happy to be corrected but I haven’t been able to find anything
How can the bill be bought to bear in Australia’s courts?
The Billof rights has been enshrined in English and carried forth into Astralian law. Much of early Australian legislation refers to it.
Have a look. Editor
Dear wontbdenied | March 3, 2023 at 9:36 am,
Yes we meet every Lord’s Day (first day of the week) for worship at 10.00 am, at Nanango CWA Hall.
On 3 March 2023 at 1028 you cited in your post:
“Me thinks you best keep you head buried deep within the confines of Blacks Law as that is where conundrums and Doublespeak allow the LEGAL to baffle and confuse”
On 3 March 2023 at 0945 you cited in your post:
“I rufte your challenge outright and rather Challenge you to inform us, one and all, why we must obey Admiralty Rules when we are on Land? Further, why must we bow to any rules imposed that are outside the Rule Of Law?”
I responded to your posts citing blacks law and admiralty rules
Please accept my apologies regarding your references to jesuits. I acknowledge my error and note those references were made by another member of the public contributing to this discussion.
“References to blacks law, admiralty law, jesuits and the like in this discussion belong to you”
Wrong….and wrong again;
You are the one seeking LEGAL precedents and any LEGAL remedy;
“We agree we have an inherent right to self-defence”
No, do not put words in my mouth; I have never mentioned any such nonsense as “inherent right”
For you to suggest that The Constitution Of The Commonwealth of Australia (1900UK) and any other documents indissolubly connected to that are of no consequence in this Country, tells i all i need to know about you;
We agree we have an inherent right to self-defence
We agree we have an inherent right to use arms to effectuate that self-defence and such actions must be reasonable, proportional and justified
The documents you rely on the confer those rights have no bearing in this Country. If they do show please show me your references
Relying on historic documents that cannot be bought to bear any tangible way in this land appears doomed to fail
Claiming any rights being borne on documents that have no lawful consequence in this land appears to be wishful thinking and nothing more
References to blacks law, admiralty law, jesuits and the like in this discussion belong to you
Now you are arguing with your self as in opinion you agree yet you still oppose any documents that allude to the very statements you make in agreeance;
Me thinks you best keep you head buried deep within the confines of Blacks Law as that is where conundrums and Doublespeak allow the LEGAL to baffle and confuse
That there is a statue to a document in parliament grounds holds no consequence under natural law, Commonwealth or State law, or even at the local government level. Those other examples you put forward similarly hold no basis in reality in as far as applying them to effectuate your positions.
Please do not be upset. I am merely participating in a public discussion and responding to information that you put forward for that discussion.
Again, if you feel members of parliament of public servants conspired to upsurp the Commonwealth of Australia take action. You have a duty to uphold the law. If you can show laws have been broken then take action.
It may be our duty to protect the law. Otherwise why would we expect the law to protect us?
You speak of the natural (inherent) right to self-defence. This right is self evident, it is not conferred by documents, statutes or laws. We agree
However, the inherent right to self-defence is recognised and protected by Commonwealth, State and Territory law throughout Australia.
Look to your State or Territory law. You will likely find reference to it being lawful to use any force you perceive to be reasonable in the circumstances to effectuate your defence. Or something along those lines …
Should you use arms to effectuate your self-defence and your actions are lawful and proportional in the circumstances and deemed justified by the Courts what’s the worry?
There is a monument to Magna Carta on Parliament Grounds for starters;
There is also a monument to King George V;
There is also the Victorian Crown embedded into Parliament House;
The Victorian Crown is founded in Faith that is Protestant;
Protestant testament is KJV Bible founded;
Any document that is connected to the Crown of Victoria is inherited by default within The Constitution Of The Commonwealth Of Australia that was enacted by her Majesty, Queen Victoria with the Grace of God; Like it or not, we are Federated under the Victorian Crown;
You keep on wanting LEGAL precedent…legal, legal , legal;
Get it through your ears and into any neurons you may have, LEGAL is NOT Lawful;
We are NOT a LEGAL Federation Of The Commonwealth; That would be fiction;
We ARE a Lawful nation Federated as such via her Majesty the Queen Victoria with the Grace of God;
Do you have enough info to give to your masters yet?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you are correct with your reasoning you may be able to return the rule of law you seek to this land
Would that not be worth your efforts?
Thank you for your reply.
The bible, Magna Carta and bill of rights are documents. Documents record words that communicate information to the reader.
I acknowledge these document’s significance and historic foundations in our law. But as I understand it these documents hold very limited consequence and effect in the Courts.
Irrespective of their historic and cultural significance these documents do not confer right upon anyone unless those document can be relied upon to effectuate those rights.
Otherwise how can such rights be anything other than wishful thinking?
Your “Challenge” is not accepted;
I am not in the business of telling my left hand what my right hand is doing;
You can continue on with your LEGALESE, LEGISLATION and any other Unlawful jargon all you like but i will not fall prey;
I rufte your challenge outright and rather Challenge you to inform us, one and all, why we must obey Admiralty Rules when we are on Land? Further, why must we bow to any rules imposed that are outside the Rule Of Law?
I have no LEGAL opinion; That is not the Realm that i play in
You have much to teach;
Do you still hold Church?
Thank You; That is all i have to say
As i stated, Inalienable Rights and Common Law have been hidden behind (colour of law) Legislation, Acts, Regulations etc. instilled as Law unto an unsuspecting People of Australia via an Unlawful Parliament pretending to be The Commonwealth Of Australia;
A Right to defend oneself from harm is an inalienable right; It is not stipulated how or what one can use to defend them self with, therefore it could be (successfully) argued, in my view, that there is right to bear arms; An omission does not confer that there is no Right, rather it confers there is no omission;
Yes, limits are needed without doubt; We can’t, as a society, for example, have every man and his mate running around with IED’s; Having in place a mechanism to identify any Private Arms is also a necessary instrument in the case of any untoward violence being committed;
I don’t think anybody within the struggle to regain a de jure Parliament of The Commonwealth Of Australia is pushing for a lawless society; Rather, we want a return to Rule of Law and oppose “laws” that are naught but an instrument to collect revenue
Thank you for your honest acknowledgement of the meaning of the word “may.”
Regarding the relevance of the English Bill of Rights to Australia, I will not dabble in ‘law’, as I am not a lawyer, nor would I ever want to be, (and why would modern unconstitutional ‘laws’, framed not by God-fearing men but atheists and Communists, have any bearing on such an ancient document?), I am a preacher, and my first priority is to give due reverence to the Word of God (in English, the Authorised King James Bible), and to teach it faithfully, according to its meaning, not any man’s opinion or my own – hence, I approach all things spiritually (according to eternal Truth) and morally, but again, the matter you raise is simpler than the Jesuitical legal profession makes it: For the same reason the English Bill of Rights belongs to Australian citizens, so does the Magna Carta, and even the Ten Commandments, which Alfred the Great wrote into English Law over 1,000 years ago.
Even the King James Bible, as well as all the other historic and important documents, is enshrined in our Constitution, by virtue of our connection to the U.K., by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Check out the Coronation Oath). This is just basic fact. Or why is it that the “Crown of the United Kingdom ….”, also enshrined in our Constitution, is still obviously visible to all, even to its enemies, because they work day and night to bring it down?
The right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights is not worded with “conditions”, as you claim, it is a plain statement, and if it was conditional it would be meaningless – I give more credit to our spiritual and honourable forefathers, who built the foundation we stand on, than to think they were like today’s rabble with their legal gobbledegook, but that they spoke plain truth. The ancient documents were not framed for the benefit of treacherous ‘lawyers’ to get filthy rich from arguing about it. Such men would have had nothing to do with the likes of legal professionals today, they would have seen through their fraud and lies.
The Bible is the foundation – statute law is not. But for all who reject the Bible as the foundation, they are lost souls, and lost in ‘legal’ confusion, and cannot possibly understand plain truth – Bible or otherwise. Why? Read Romans 1, and see that God curses those who reject Him and gives them over to a “reprobate mind.”
Our founding fathers knew this, and therefore laid the foundation in the fear of God – the fact that the Bible is required for oaths is proof of this.
God be merciful to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You put your words forward in a public discussion so they are your points in that discussion
I merely responded to a public discussion where a person put forward the 1688 bill of rights and then stated that document guarantee a right to arms
I respectfully challenged the position put forward and substantiated my reasons for that challenge
The reference to the word MAY is totally applicable to the public discussion. Words have meaning. Words have specific meaning and effects in the law. WIth that said, I think you are right and I am wrong in the interpretation of the word MAY in that sentence. On reflection, I think you are right.
But that sentence still does not confer a right to arms in Australia. If it does, provide me with any law, case law, or legal opinion that can be brought to bear in any Court in Australia
The sentence you rely on with which to confer the right to arms explicitly prescribes it being subject to conditions and law. What am I twisting with respect to this?
If a ‘right to arms’ is contingent on being subject to compliance with conditions and law how can that then be a right?
You say you “refute” two of my “positions”.
Firstly, it is not my “position” that you are anything – so, unless you claim to be a “Jesuit”, or, “Anti-British, Anti-Australian, Anti-Christian, Marxist, Roman Catholic-inspired republican”, to which my comments were directed, then it is clear my comments did not address you personally, and your claim that I said, “I (you) twist the Bills words” and “I (you) deny we even have a Bill of Rights’, is false, so please don’t try to put words in my mouth – my comment was of a general nature, referring to the present generation, as the plain words of them make quite clear, a generation that is Jesuit-trained, which is clear from the fact that the standard professional mindset today has discarded the “Golden Rule” and “Love thy neighbour,” to follow the Jesuits’ “The end justifies the means” – this is just plainly obvious in politics, law and business today, which everybody knows. Hence, your ‘refutation’ of the two fictitious points you mentioned are apparently meaningless.
But there was a third one in my opening paragraph: “deny what the Bill of Rights says”. Apparently, you don’t refute that.
Regarding your manipulation of the word “may” in the relevant part of the Bill of Rights, I am well aware of what the word “may” really means, not the wranglings of misguided ‘legal minds’ which can, and do, make a word mean anything at all that suits their purpose (For reference, look up the dictionary meaning of Jesuitical), and “may” or “may not” are favourites among them, when they want to speak words that have no meaning at all (in other words, avoid the issue), but according to the English dictionary (Collins: “expressing possibility, permission, uncertainty, hope.”) Hence the word can have different connotations – but we are talking about the word in its context, which excludes the two possibilities you mentioned: In the case of the Bill of Rights statement quoted, “may” clearly means that Protestants are ALLOWED to bear arms etc. If, as you suggest, the alternative meaning would be “SHALL” or “MUST”, the sense of the Bill would be destroyed – i.e., to say “Protestants MUST or SHALL bear arms,” would mean they have no choice NOT to do so, which is not the purpose addressed in the Bill.
I fear that you have come under the serpentine influence of Jesuit re-education, so I hope my comments might serve to liberate you, as Jesus said, “The truth shall make you free.”
Sincerely in Christ’s service
Commonwealth law and State and Territory law prescribe provisions for General Fraud, Fraud, Conspiracy and a range of other related charges.
Every single Commonwealth and State public servant has duties and codes of conduct that they must hold too. Ministers must act within their code of conduct.
If you suspect a minister of public servant has acted unlawfully and are correct in your suspicion. Then in addition to the laws they may have broken they will no longer be compliant with their code of conduct. This can bring forward further charges.
If you suspect government at one time conspired to de-fraud the Commonwealth of Australia then there are criminal charges you can bring to bear. Statutory office holders in government are easy to identify and it will be easy to identify the exact public servant who did what.
If there is substance to your legal opinion I hereby challenge you publicly to draft a criminal complaint against any Commonwealth law and post it here for public review.
If there is a single custom, law, precedent or Court opinion that you feel substantiates your positions in law in this country then please provide it.
This link will take you to an extensive and searchable legal database
I respectfully refute your positions.
1. That I twist the Bills words, and
2. I deny we even have a Bill of Rights.
With regards to point 1. The section of the Bill under discussion prescribes that:
“That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.
Review the Commonwealth and your State’s legislative interpretations Act. You will find what the word ‘MAY’ means in law. May means a discretionary decision occurs. If the words ‘MUST’ or ‘SHALL’ were used your position would be stronger. In any case, the word ‘MAY’ demonstrates clearly this section does not confer any right to bear arms.
WIth regards to point 2. Please provide me with Commonwealth and/or State law in Australia that prescribes/codifies any link to Magna Carta, Bill of Rights of any of those other references you provided.
I am not trying to provoke an argument but no one here has provided any substantive Australian law, case law precedent or Court opinion with which to bring any of these legal theories to bear in reality.
From what I can gather, there is absolutely nothing available to legally substantiate this legal opion being discussed here.
In sum, provide me with a Commonwealth and/or State law that codifies/prescribes or otherwise provide a tangible reference point that substantiates your points.
Good morning and thank you for replying.
Wontbedenied please provide me with the law and/or Australia Court ruling and/or opinion to substantiate your statement:
“Magna Carta 1215, Bill Of Rights 1688 and The Constitution of The Commonwealth Of Australia (1900uk) and The Act, Chapter 12 (1901) are indissolubly linked”
Otherwise, please let me know if this above is just your opinion?
Thanks for your time
It is a continual ploy of the Anti-British, Anti-Australian, Anti-Christian, Marxist, Roman Catholic-inspired republican movement to either deny what the Bill of Rights says, or twist its words out of context, but even more commonly, to deny we even have a Bill of Rights.
This is the modus operandi of the whole ‘legal profession’ and politics today, (as it has been of the Jesuits since their beginning – “the end justifies the means”), as everybody knows, and it’s why we can’t get justice any more, as a general rule. What they say isn’t what they mean, and what they mean isn’t what they say – hence, their oaths are not worth a cracker. They are profession perjurers, and the best liar wins the case, or makes new ‘laws’.
The point about the ‘right to bear arms’ is, that Protestants were denied that right at the time, even though it was allowed by law, which is why William III came to the aid of Protestants, and further strengthened liberties and ensured that a Roman Catholic could never again take the throne, because the Roman Catholic monarchs had always been the main source of the oppression of the people and denying their God-given liberties. It’s all there in the historical context, which anybody can read, if only they will (Nor do you have to be a rocket scientist to understand what the Bill says – It says, “AND as allowed by law”, NOT “and IF allowed by law” – It was already allowed by law, otherwise, the obvious implication is that the Roman Catholics who had arms, did so against the law, but interestingly, nobody makes that ridiculous claim, they just rely on our negligence or stupidity to accept their lies).
Apart from this plain reading of the Bill of Rights and its obvious historical context being the reason for its existence, there is the fact that, the Bill of Rights, since 1689, like our Commonwealth Constitution, CANNOT be overridden by contrary laws since that time – the Bill of Rights still stands.
Flouting the Bill of Rights and the Commonwealth Constitution is a national sport today, both for lawmakers (parliaments) and law-enforcers (courts and police), which is why everybody is so uncomfortable, but few care enough, or are honest enough to deal with the real reasons for it.
Trevor W Sullivan,
Nanango Christian Faith Centre Inc.
Our Inalienable Rights have been cloaked behind Colour Of Law since 1954 when we (Australians, one and all) were forced (deceived) to stand under a Foreign Crown and a Foreign Corporate Flag…..Admiralty Law (rules), not Common Law;
Common Law Trumps Admiralty Law on Land;
Get off of the CITIZEN-SHIP and come back to land, as is your Born Right
Nothing to do with a PM, or any other parliamentarian;
Magna Carta 1215, Bill Of Rights 1688 and The Constitution of The Commonwealth Of Australia (1900uk) and The Act, Chapter 12 (1901) are indissolubly linked;
If you or any other think that Our Rights To Defend come from any man, then you are lost in the LEGAL realm of Fiction
Hi, thanks for replying.
I respectfully refute your contention.
The Commonwealth PM has no bearing on State and Territory law with regards to conferring a civil right to bear arms. The Commonwealth holds authority over military and naval defence.
Please inform me of the Commonwealth law predating Howard that prescribed any conditions relating to an individuals right to bear arms.
The “conditions as allowed by Law” were in place until Howard, The CEO of the Usurped Commonwealth Of Australia reneged on that Right; Howard had absolutely No Lawful Authority and as such any “law” he or his “ministers” created have no basis in Law at all;
Nice try but I’m afraid there are no biscuits for you
The 1688 Bill guarantees no right to carry arms.
The alleged ‘right’ is prescribed to be subordinate to ‘conditions and as allowed by law’.
The 1688 Bill appears to make it a ‘privilege’ to carry arms and that privilege is granted by the respective government.
If something that is granted by government is subject to conditions and permissions how can that be taken as a right in law?
Stop being a “subject” to the marxist regime……
Be an ANZAC and KNOW where your line of Authority lies;
we see these comments all the time – we agree with all your points – but the fact is we are all subject to this oppressive Marxist type regime; all political parties embrace it; importantly a majority of the population agree with it.
What we want to know is how do you propose to bring it back? and;
How do you propose to keep it once you bring it back?
Do you think we should continue with a democracy?
Can a change be forced by extreme economic means?
When the Voice becomes reality that will be the start of Dictatorship; What is the plan then?
The phrase “if you can keep it” comes to mind and “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants…” Nothing like this has happened thus for in this country and if we do we will be branded terrorists.
So whereto for here?
Check out Dr Betsy Ead on the Billion Covd Deaths and Katherine Watt’s US Journalist
Sent from Outlook for Androidhttps://aka.ms/AAb9ysg ________________________________
Dr., DNA doesn’t lie but plastic surgeons these days do fantastic jobs to make “neanderthals” look like normal human beings – until they are reminded again when giving birth to a pretty “neanderthal” child.
I sorta interpret that as confirming the right of Protestants to kill Catholics, which is not at all similar to the right of citizens to bear arms to defend themselves against threat of force. It is, in fact, the exact opposite, a tangible declaration of civil war.
And a useful comparison between the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon DNA, and it’s age old war in Europe.
Yes indeed, those ancient folk of the lands of the Southern Caucasus. Where even to this day, preserve the highest predominance of the Neanderthal DNA.
Gog and Magog are the names of the Nephillim giants which once ruled the lands of the Southern Caucasus – the land of Magog. They were the tribal gods of the Ashkhenazim and their empire of Great Tartaria ruled by their Khaganate and its synagogues which stretched from the Black Sea to Mongolia. Constantinople, for example, paid into the Babyloian sexigesimal system of their Khaganate after the Christian East of Nova Roma fell to their Islamic hordes.
Gog and Magog are today the ‘patrons’ of the square mile of The City in London.
The Ashkhenazim who acknowledge them are the people who genocided the Russians – the ethnic European Rus who defeated them about the time that St Edward the Confessor, King of England laid the foundation of Westminster Abbey.
Vetitgo Politix – The Genocide of Russia’s Old Believers.
The bill of rights 1688 has NEVER disappeared and it NEVER can;
Read the word indissoluble in The Constitution Of The Commonwealth Of Australia;
Any Law that has no Basis in Law, is not a Law;
QUEEN OF AUSTRALIA; Unlawful Fictional Corporate Foreign entity; Any Act, Legislation, “Law”, Statute or any other dribble enacted under this entity is NON-SENSE and not worth the paper it is written on; A fictional entity can not proclaim anything; TREACHERY
AUSTRALIA ACT 1986; Done without referendum; Unlawful and acted Under a Foreign Crown with an oath sworn to a Fictional Corporate entity QUEEN OF AUSTRALIA; Never proclaimed; Unlawful; TREASON
LikeLiked by 1 person
Our Westminster Foundation here in Australia should take this Bill of Rights as part of our Westminster Heritage. And we need to understand it historically.
In the original foundation laid in the 10th century by St Edward the Confessor, King of England and continued in Magna Carta and Declaration of Arbroath, there was no ‘supremacy’ . And The Crown designated the monarchy of the original foundation. Oaths and Acts of supremacy came later and there were centuries of civil wars over it.
By the time of the English Civil War, the Parliamentarians and the Scottish Convention of Estates (Under the Union of the Two Crowns) had fought the monarchy for the ‘supremacy’ and they had it. The Parliamentarians wore the ‘chains of office’ and bear it upon the Seal of the UK to this day. So when this Bill of Rights 1688 was issued, it was issued from the supremacy by right of conquest in the English Civil War 1642.
And 1688 is the date when the 50+ years of the War of the Succession began. Australia began as a penal colony of un-surrendered populations that had been transferred out of that war.
The Parliamentarians held the supremacy until the Monarchy split from The Crown, for the Crown was secretly ceded to the Owners of the consols [All estates of three nations in allodial title] of the Bank of England, chartered 1694. The Crown is the Corporation of the City of London. The British Empire built by this financial engine was a vector only, the vector of Empire of the City and the Great Revolution of the Owners which they inaugurated in France 1789. And these events which concerns us closely to this day: nationally, geo-politically and spiritually.
Gog and Magog Ezekiel 38 39 in London [The City and The Crown of the UK]
Whilst I do support this Bill of Rights it is long gone, unfortunately. This Right has been taken from us by stealth; the Crown that gave this Bill validity went when the Royal Styles and Title Act was amended and the Queen of Australia was imposed. It completely disappeared when the Australia Act 1986 came into being.
Australia is no longer a Constitutional Monarchy it is a Socialist Republic practicing Parliamentary Supremacy; there is no common law just tyranny. We are getting close to total anarchy and the Voice is the next step in that direction. We are just starting to enter the final phase of lawlessness that pervades crumbling civilizations; Townsville, Cairns, Alice Springs; machetes, knives, stolen vehicles, stolen vehicles ramming houses and shops, defecating in laundry marts and shops.
If anyone attempts to defend themselves against this rabble that claim they own the country, because they were here first, the defenders will be jailed or worse.
God help us!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trevor, most “people” are all too consumed with bread and circuses;
Most see the VAT-I-CAN (Roman Catholic) as some type of Holy Grail when in reality it is the mechanism that captured the sovereignty of most Nations;
Thank you for publishing this!
The Jesuits hate it and continually push the propaganda line that Australia doesn’t have a Bill of Rights.
Every Australian needs to be aware of this – it is part of our national foundation – and also the fact that our own Constitution is based on a Protestant British Crown (not a foreign Roman Catholic one).
Pingback: An extract from 1688 Bill of Rights guaranteeing the right to carry arms – debtstop