The rule of thumb is that a K9 unit coming to sniff around have their dogs muzzled while the owner’s dogs can freely eat their food. Thus this places a controled jurisdiction of the police and the owner has his rights and properties respected.
Sadly nowadays they have the guns and we have to make precautions or have no gun when they come knocking. Under the Queen’s colony the enlisted like life given her protecting the business is understandable. Such quartering would be acceptable. However if independent or settling independently, new jurisdictions should be respected. This was not applied in places like Rhodesia and the rule on the British was delegated to alienating powers that turned it into Zimbabwe. The guard was changed.
Places like Australia need not go from one master under the Queen to another under the guise of strange legislations denying the right of self settlement or divorce from said links and services to said powers. When England surrendered Honk Kong to mainland China, a sort of domino precedent effect was established. How can there be free trade without recognition of sovereignty? The isolationists are those importing isolationists, not those protecting themselves from outfits like Islam or the communists who refuse to reciprocate the right and recognition to unique sovereignty.
You are correct - our personal property rights have definatley been impinged upon under this law. The every man’s castle concept (i.e. the right to defend oneself and property) which has seemed to make a comeback here over the last decade or so has not been taken into account under this law. It needs to be challenged but doing so through the High Court is a long and expensive exercise. While the gun lobby sought to have all of the legislation thrown out they should have concentrated on the parts that were unconstitutional.