Just because a law may be passed in conformance with the written constitution of the commonwealth does not mean it is constitutional. I ask you to decline to recognise as valid, laws that conflict with long standing fundamentals of constitutional and fundamental rights contained in Magna Carta. I believe that precedents opposed to Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights can be covered by the term stare decisis - a doctrine giving to precedent the authority of established law. It does not command that we err again when we have occasion to pass upon a different statute. Courts are not bound as a matter of law by the doctrine of precedent.
Some decisions are to be regarded as persuasive rather than strictly binding.
Such a distinction would allow a more restrictive scope of interpretation of those precedents and laws. In such an important issue as trial by jury it is not unlikely that they got it wrong. I ask you to consider the validity of the Weapons Act and whether it was enacted properly and with due process.