National Firearms Agreement Australia 2017. Personal protection is not a genuine reason for using a firearm!!!

Click here to view the original post.
Personal protection is not a genuine reason for using a firearm. 
NATIONAL FIREARMS AGREEMENT Council of Australian Governments An agreement between n the Commonwealth of Australia and n the States and Territories, being: t The State of New South Wales t The State of Victoria t The State of Queensland t The State of Western Australia t The State of South Australia t The State of Tasmania t The Australian Capital Territory t The Northern Territory of Australia February 2017 2 of 14 NATIONAL FIREARMS AGREEMENT OPENING STATEMENT 1. The National Firearms Agreement constitutes a national approach to the regulation of firearms. The Agreement affirms that firearms possession and use is a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety, and that public safety is improved by the safe and responsible possession, carriage, use, registration, storage and transfer of firearms. 2. This Agreement sets out minimum requirements in relation to the regulation of firearms. Nothing in this Agreement prevents jurisdictions from adopting additionalincluding more restrictiveregulations. 3. Having regard to the National Firearms Trafficking Policy Agreement, first agreed in 2002, jurisdictions agree to establish or maintain substantial penalties for the illegal possession of a firearm. PROVISION TO MAINTAIN FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE NATIONAL FIREARMS AGREEMENT 4. The Council of Australian Governments and its subordinate bodies will periodically consider emerging issues relating to this Agreement, including, for example, improvements and advancements in firearm technologies. Issues for consideration will be those which will ensure that the Agreement remains true to its fundamental aspects, being: the requirement for a genuine reason for possessing or using a firearm, the appropriate categorisation of firearms, the registration of firearms, firearms licensing (including fit and proper person requirements), the requirement for a permit to acquire each firearm, the safe and secure storage of firearms, the recording of firearms sales, and suitable firearms transaction practices. RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FIREARMS 5. The Commonwealth will restrict the importation of: (a) all semi-automatic long arms and pump action shotguns, and all partsincluding magazinesfor such firearms, included in Licence Categories C and D (b) magazines with a capacity greater than thirty for long arms and magazines with a capacity greater than twenty for handguns (c) all handguns for sporting shooting purposes other than those which meet the prescribed characteristicsincluding barrel length, magazine capacity and calibrein paragraph 14(b)(i) (d) handgun parts for sport shooting purposes (for example slides, barrels, receivers and frames) which could be used to assemble a prohibited handgun or convert a permitted handgun into a prohibited handgun. NATIONAL FIREARMS AGREEMENT 3 of 14 6. Jurisdictions will ban the sale, resale, transfer, possession, manufacture and use of those semi-automatic long arms and pump action shotguns included in Licence Category C and D other than in the following exceptional circumstances: (a) military use (b) police or other government purposes (c) occupational categories of licence holders who have been licensed for a specified purpose, including i. the extermination of animals ii. film and theatrical armourers iii. firearm dealers iv. firearm manufacturers v. additional occupational needs and other limited purposes as authorised by legislation or Ministerial discretion (d) collectors (e) in the case of Category C shotguns i. members of the Australian Clay Target Association or clubs affiliated with the Australian Clay Target Association with a medical need to use a Category C shotgun due to a lack of strength or dexterity, or ii. individuals who were on 15 November 1996 registered shooters with the Australian Clay Target Association and who, at that time, possessed a semi-automatic shotgun or pump action repeating shotgun for use in clay target events. 7. Jurisdictions will restrict the importation, possession and use of handguns for sporting purposes to individuals meeting recognised sporting shooter classifications in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games and for other accredited events that meet the conditions in paragraph 14(b)(i). 8. Jurisdictions will ban competitive shooting involving those long arms which are restricted from import, except for those individuals who meet the conditions in paragraph 13(b)(iii). GENUINE REASONS AND NEED FOR ACQUIRING, POSSESSING OR USING A FIREARM 9. Individuals must demonstrate a genuine reason for acquiring, possessing or using a firearm. The genuine reasons and relevant qualifying statements are listed in paragraphs 13-23. 10. Personal protection is not a genuine reason for acquiring, possessing or using a firearm. 11. Over and above satisfaction of the “genuine reason” test, an applicant for a licence must demonstrate a genuine need for the particular type of firearm (excluding Category A firearms). 12. Only certain categories of firearms can be acquired, possessed or used under each genuine reason. Categories of firearms are listed in paragraphs 25-29. NATIONAL FIREARMS AGREEMENT 4 of 14 GENUINE REASONS 13. Sports shooters – long arms (a) Sports shooters must have a valid membership with an approved club (defined as clubs participating in shooting sports recognised in the charters of such major sporting events as the Commonwealth Games, Olympic Games or World Championships). (b) Firearms permitted for acquisition, possession or use under this genuine reason are: i. Category A ii. Category B iii. Category C shotguns, limited to 1 members of the Australian Clay Target Association or clubs affiliated with the Australian Clay Target Association with a medical need to use a Category C shotgun due to a lack of strength or dexterity, or 2 individuals who were on 15 November 1996 registered shooters with the Australian Clay Target Association and who, at that time, possessed a semi-automatic shotgun or pump action repeating shotgun for use in clay target events. 14. Sports shooters – handguns (a) Sports shooters must have a valid membership with an approved club. (b) Firearms permitted for acquisition, possession or use under this genuine reason are: i. Category H – the firearm must be designed or adapted for competition target shooting, or must have a barrel length of at least 120mm for a semi-automatic handgun or 100mm for a revolver or a single shot handgun. If the firearm is fitted with a firearm magazine or cylinder, it must have a capacity of not more than 10 rounds. The calibre of the firearm must not exceed .38” (with the exception of cases listed under paragraph 14(c)). (c) Handguns with a calibre greater than .38” but no greater than .45” are permitted only where shooters are competing in the two accredited events known as Metallic Silhouette and Single (Western) Action. 15. Recreational shooters/hunters (a) Recreational shooters/hunters must produce proof of permission from a landowner. (b) Firearms permitted for acquisition, possession or use under this genuine reason are: i. Category A ii. Category B 16. Primary producers (a) Primary producers must satisfy the licensing authority that there is a genuine need for the use of the firearm which pertains to the applicant’s occupation and which cannot be achieved by some other means. The application is to be approved by the Commissioner of the Police who may impose conditions as to the use of the firearms, including as to the geographical location of its use. NATIONAL FIREARMS AGREEMENT 5 of 14 (b) Firearms permitted for acquisition, possession or use under this genuine reason are: i. Category A ii. Category B iii. Category C – where the licensing authority is satisfied that there is a genuine need for the use of the firearm which cannot be achieved by some other means (including the use of Category A or B firearms). Primary producers are limited to one Category C shotgun and one Category C rifle iv. Category D – where the licensing authority is satisfied that there is a genuine need for the use of a Category D firearm for the purposes of controlling vertebrate pest animals in the course of primary production activities. Jurisdictions may require individuals to meet additional requirements (for example, safety training and marksmanship) to qualify for Category D acquisition, possession or use, or to establish certain facts (for example, lack of other pest control options) in order to demonstrate need. 17. Occupational requirement (other rural purposes and professional shooters for nominated purposes) (a) Persons with an occupational interest must satisfy the licensing authority that there is a genuine need for the use of the firearm which pertains to the applicant’s occupation and which cannot be achieved by some other means. The application is to be approved by the Commissioner of the Police who may impose conditions as to the use of the firearms, including as to the geographical location of its use. (b) Firearms permitted for acquisition, possession or use under this genuine reason are: i. Category A ii. Category B 18. Security employees (a) Firearms permitted for acquisition, possession or use under this genuine reason are: i. Category A ii. Category H 19. Collectors (a) Collectors will be regulated by means of a licence and permit system which tests their bona fides. (b) Firearms permitted for acquisition and possession under this genuine reason are: i. Category A – must be rendered temporarily inoperable ii. Category B – must be rendered temporarily inoperable iii. Category C – must be rendered temporarily inoperable iv. Category D – must be rendered permanently inoperable v. Category H – must be rendered temporarily inoperable (c) For the purposes of handguns, jurisdictions agree that they will accredit historical societies. Historical societies are required to notify police of a member’s expulsion as well as the reasons for expulsion. Accredited historical societies will be indemnified from civil or legal liability where they notify police in good faith of their belief that a person is unfit to hold a collector’s licence. NATIONAL FIREARMS AGREEMENT 6 of 14 20. Heirlooms (a) Jurisdictions agree that where the owner of an heirloom firearm is unable to establish a genuine reason for possession of that firearm and/or does not qualify for a collector’s licence, jurisdictions may issue the heirloom owner with a special category of licence. The requirements of that heirloom licence must be that: i. before the licence is issued, the owner provides sufficient proof of inheritance of the heirloom ii. the licence apply only to a single gun, or a matched pair or set iii. all heirloom firearms be rendered permanently inoperable iv. the licence not authorise the discharge of the heirloom firearm or firearms in any circumstance. 21. Firearm dealers (a) Jurisdictions must have regulations addressing firearm dealers. 22. Firearm manufacturers (a) Jurisdictions must have regulations addressing firearm manufacturers. 23. Film and/or theatrical armourers (a) Jurisdictions must have regulations addressing film and theatrical armourers. CATEGORIES OF FIREARMS 24. The following categories are to be used in the licensing of firearms. 25. Licence Category A (a) Air rifles (b) Rimfire rifles (excluding semi-automatic) (c) Shotguns (other than semi-automatic, pump action or lever action) (d) Rimfire rifle/shotgun combinations 26. Licence Category B (a) Muzzle-loading firearms (b) Single shot, double barrel and repeating centrefire rifles (c) Centrefire rifle/shotgun combinations (d) Lever action shotguns with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds 27. Licence Category C (a) Semi-automatic rimfire rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than 10 rounds (b) Semi-automatic and pump action shotguns with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds 28. Licence Category D (a) Semi-automatic centrefire rifles designed or adapted for military purposes or a firearm which substantially duplicates those rifles in design, function or appearance (b) Non-military style self-loading centrefire rifles NATIONAL FIREARMS AGREEMENT 7 of 14 (c) Semi-automatic, pump action and lever action shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than five rounds (d) Semi-automatic rimfire rifles with a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds 29. Licence Category H (a) All handguns, including air pistols NATIONWIDE REGISTRATION 30. Jurisdictions agree to the nationwide registration of all firearms. Jurisdictions will record sufficient information to be able to uniquely identify each firearm, including details prescribed by the national information-sharing hub. 31. Jurisdictions agree to store registrations on a system which is able to share information with the national information-sharing hub. LICENSING 32. Jurisdictions agree to maintain a uniform system of testing applicants for firearms licences. 33. In addition to the demonstration of genuine reason, a licence applicant must be required to: (a) be aged 18 or over (b) be a fit and proper person (c) be able to prove identity through a 100 point system requiring a passport or multiple types of identification (d) undertake adequate safety training (see paragraph 35). 34. A licence must: (a) bear a photograph of the licensee (b) be endorsed with the category of the firearm (c) be issued after a waiting period of not less than 28 days (d) be issued for a period of no more than five years (e) contain a reminder of safe storage responsibilities (f) be issued subject to undertakings to comply with storage requirements, to provide details of proposed storage provisions at the time of licensing, and to submit to a mutually arranged (with due recognition of privacy) inspection by licensing authorities of storage facilities. 35. Requisite training (a) Jurisdictions agree that first time licence applicants must complete an accredited course in safety training for firearms. The course must be: i. comprehensive and standardised across Australia for all licence categories ii. subject to accreditation of the course syllabus, by an appropriate authority, and a system of accredited instructors to bring prospective licensees to the required standard with a focus on firearms law, firearms safety and firearms competency NATIONAL FIREARMS AGREEMENT 8 of 14 iii. monitored as to content of courses and the skills of instructors by firearms regulatory authorities. (b) Jurisdictions agree to have a separate specialised training course for individuals employed by the security industry. 36. Sports shooters – handguns (a) Sports shooters must have a valid membership with an approved club. i. Clubs will have the power to request a police check on a person prior to accepting them as a member of a club. ii. A person applying to join a club must provide that club with two character references from people they have known for at least two years. iii. Clubs must endorse a member’s application to acquire a handgun. In endorsing the application, clubs should: 1 confirm that the licensee has adequate storage arrangements in place 2 specify for which competition shooting discipline the handgun is required. iv. To prevent ‘club shopping’, a person wishing to join a club must provide to that club details of any other shooting clubs to which they belong and details of the firearms they possess. In addition, clubs are empowered to request information from licensing authorities on a member’s or applicant’s possession of handguns and their membership of other clubs. v. Shooting clubs are required to provide licensing authorities with an audited annual report providing member details, firearms possessed, and participation rates. (b) Jurisdictions agree to a system for graduated access to handguns for legitimate sporting shooters based on training, experience and event participation. The system will be based on graduated access to handguns over a period of 12 months and will incorporate the following principles: i. a person is required to obtain a police check and submit this with their application to join a shooting club ii. during the first six months a person will not be permitted to own a handgun, must satisfactorily complete a firearm safety training course and meet minimum participation rates iii. if a club certifies that a person has satisfactorily complied with the conditions attached to the first six months’ probation, then during the second six months a person will only be permitted to own one .22” calibre rimfire pistol and one .177” air pistol, or one centrefire pistol and one .177” calibre air pistol. (c) After the initial period of 12 months, acquisition of additional handguns is subject to demonstration of genuine need, confirmation that the licensee has adequate storage arrangements in place, and specification of the competition shooting discipline for which the handgun is required. 37. Collectors (a) The licensing process must include a provision for an initial inspection of storage facilities and for subsequent mutually arranged inspections. All such inspections will be subject to the recognition of the individual’s right to privacy. The onus of defining NATIONAL FIREARMS AGREEMENT 9 of 14 ‘bona fide firearms collector’ rests with each State and Territory. However, the following principles must underpin the regulation of bona fide firearms collectors: i. the firearms which are the subject of the collection should be of or above a defined age ii. firearms in a collection which have been manufactured after 1 January 1946 must be rendered inoperable (whether or not they are otherwise only required to be rendered temporarily inoperable according to paragraph 19(b)) iii. collectors may not possess ammunition for a collection firearm iv. any attempt to restore firearms in the collection to usable condition should be regarded as a serious offence and subject to severe penalties v. all operating firearms which are owned by the collector under separate licensing arrangements should be subject to the same level of regulation as any other operating firearm vi. for the purposes of the collection of Category H firearms, genuine historical collectors must 1 be a member of a state or territory accredited historical firearm collectors society 2 have their licence application endorsed by an accredited historical firearms collectors society 3 comply with strict storage requirements 4 display a commitment as a student of arms in order to collect or retain post-1946 handguns. 38. Grounds for licence refusal or cancellation and seizure of firearms (a) Jurisdictions agree to set out in legislation the circumstances in which licence applications (including renewals) are to be refused, licences are to be cancelled, or firearms are to be seized. The following minimum standards must apply: i. general reasons – not of good character, conviction for an offence involving violence within the past five years, unsafe storage, contravention of firearms law, where it can be shown that the loss or theft of a firearm was due to negligence or fraud on the part of the licensee, no longer has a genuine reason, not in public interest due to (defined) circumstances, not notifying of change of address, or licence obtained by deception ii. specific reasons – where applicant/licence holder has been the subject of an Apprehended Violence Order, Domestic Violence Order, restraining order or conviction for assault with a weapon/aggravated assault within the past five years iii. mental or physical fitness – reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for acquiring, possessing or using a firearm. (b) In regard to 38(a)(iii), a balance is to be struck between the rights of the individual to privacy and fair treatment, and the responsibility of authoritieson behalf of the communityto prevent danger to the individual and the wider community. (c) Jurisdictions may impose appropriate penalties, in addition to licence cancellation or seizure of firearms, for failure to comply with security and storage conditions. NATIONAL FIREARMS AGREEMENT 10 of 14 (d) Jurisdictions will establish an appeal process for refusal of a licence application or cancellation of a licence. (e) Specifically in relation to the cancellation of Category H licences, jurisdictions agree: i. to introduce or maintain laws allowing the Commissioner of Police to refuse and revoke handgun licences and applications on the basis of criminal intelligence or any other relevant information with consideration to appropriate safeguards including expert advice ii. that members of approved shooting clubs be required to attend a minimum number of shooting events offered by the club, and that failure to meet the minimum participation level will make a person liable to have their licence revoked iii. that sporting shooters meet minimum participation rates annually, specifically that a sports shooter must participate in a minimum number of six club organised competitive shooting matches, and for each different type of handgun owned for different events the sporting shooter must undertake at least four club organised shoots iv. that clubs must notify licensing authorities of concerns about club members’ suitability to hold a licence, and indemnify clubs for providing such information to licensing authorities about the suitability of club members to hold a licence. In particular, jurisdictions will 1 require sporting shooting clubs to report to police their concerns that a person may pose a danger if in possession of a handgun 2 require sporting shooting clubs to notify police of a member’s expulsion and the reasons for expulsion 3 indemnify sporting shooting clubs from civil or legal liability if they notify police in good faith of matters identified in paragraphs 38(e)(iv)(1) and 38(e)(iv)(2) 4 require sporting shooting clubs to ensure that a person whose licence has been revoked or suspended does not use a handgun at the sporting club v. to support the operation of the fit and proper person test throughout the life of the licence allowing for the licensing authorities’ revocation of a person’s licence and seizure of handguns on grounds of not being a fit and proper person at any time vi. to require suspension/cancellation of licences and seizure of firearms immediately upon the issue of an Apprehended Violence Order or Domestic Violence Order to a firearm licence holder. 39. Medical authorities reporting model (a) Jurisdictions agree that reporting provisions for medical authorities be improved or maintained by indemnifying medical authorities from civil or criminal liability for reporting in good faith to police their concerns that a person may pose a danger if in possession of a firearm or applying for a firearm licence. This is providing that ‘medical authorities’ include medical practitioners, nurses, social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists and professional counsellors. NATIONAL FIREARMS AGREEMENT 11 of 14 40. Mutual recognition (a) Jurisdictions will recognise visiting licensees for the following firearms and purposes: i. Category A and B – sporting, recreational hunting and any other lawful purpose ii. Category C – sporting and any other lawful purpose iii. Category H – sporting and any other lawful purpose (b) Category D and other categories of firearms not listed in this Agreement are not subject to mutual recognition provisions. (c) Where an individual is moving permanently to a new jurisdiction, that jurisdiction will recognise: i. for a period no more than three months, a Category A or B licence issued in another jurisdiction ii. for a period no more than seven days, a Category C, D or H licence issued in another jurisdiction. PERMIT TO ACQUIRE 41. Jurisdictions agree that a separate permit is required for the acquisition of every firearm. 42. Jurisdictions agree that each applicant must establish, to the satisfaction of the licensing authority, that they have a genuine need for acquiring, possessing or using the firearm of the nominated type (excluding Category A firearms). 43. Jurisdictions agree that the issuing of a permit must be subject to a waiting period of at least 28 days to enable appropriate checks to be made on licensees in order to ascertain whether circumstances have occurred since the issuing of the original licence which would render the licensee unsuitable to possess the firearm or which would render the licensee ineligible for that type of firearm. STORAGE 44. Jurisdictions agree that firearms and ammunition must be stored in secure conditions as follows: (a) it must be a precondition to the issuing of a new firearms licence (and on each renewal of licence in respect of existing licence holders) that the licensing authority be satisfied as to the proposed storage and security arrangements (b) legislation must have the effect of making failure to store firearms in the manner required an offence as well as a matter that will lead to the cancellation of the licence and the confiscation of all firearms (c) clear and specific measures must be indicated in legislation for the storage of firearms so that those who possess firearms know their obligations. The following minimum basic standards must apply: i. Licence Category A and B – storage in a locked receptacle constructed of either hard wood or steel with a thickness to ensure it is not easily penetrable. If the weight is less than 150 kilograms, the receptacle shall be fixed to the frame of the floor or wall so as to prevent easy removal. The locks fitted to these receptacles must be of sturdy construction NATIONAL FIREARMS AGREEMENT 12 of 14 ii. Licence Category C, D and H – storage in a locked, steel safe with a thickness to ensure it is not easily penetrable, bolted to the structure of a building iii. all ammunition must be stored in locked containers separate from any firearms (d) should individuals possessing a firearm wish to store firearms through measures other than those indicated in legislation, they must have the burden of persuading the firearms regulatory authority that they can provide the level of security not less than that required by the relevant approved practices (e) in order to provide for the safekeeping of firearms when they are temporarily away from their usual place of storage, legislation must include a statement that the holder of the licence “must take reasonable care to ensure that the firearm is not lost or stolen and must take reasonable care to ensure that the firearm does not fall into the hands of an unauthorised person” (f) the firearms safety bookletwhich is to be distributed to all new licence applicants prior to attending a course of instructionmust also feature clear and precise information on the obligations of firearms storage (g) security at gun dealer premises must require the dealer meeting such additional requirements as the firearms regulatory authority deems appropriate having regard to the type of activity of the dealer (h) where approval has been given for the possession or use of a firearm for a limited purpose, such as film production, the person authorised must meet such requirements as the firearms regulatory authority deems appropriate having regard to the type of activity for which possession has been authorised. 45. Jurisdictions should consider imposing greater storage requirements where multiple firearms are kept on the same property. 46. Jurisdictions agree to periodically consider the adequacy of their educational literature on storage to ensure that it emphasises the risk of firearms theft and the legislated requirements for safe storage, and that it highlights compliance monitoring activities and the jurisdiction’s rigorous prosecution policy for non-compliance. 47. Jurisdictions must include a declaration in all licence/permit/renewal application forms which requires the applicant to state that they understand the firearm storage and security requirements as required by legislation. 48. Jurisdictions must have a strategic inspection and audit program for storage requirements. 49. Security industry storage (a) Jurisdictions agree that the following minimum storage requirements represent an appropriate standard for storage of firearms used in the security industry: i. up to five handguns 1 metal safe to be securely fastened to solid floor or wall by internal/hidden bolts and hidden within premises 2 individual disabling locks such as barrel or trigger locks to be fitted to the firearm when stored ii. six to fifteen handguns 1 safes to be a minimum weight of 150kg 2 safes to be secured to or within brick or concrete walls and floors NATIONAL FIREARMS AGREEMENT 13 of 14 3 premises to be fully intruder alarmed, monitored by a graded control room with back-to-base polling via a secure line (or, if unavailable due to remoteness, with radio or GSM backup) 4 panic switches/duress facility to be installed in the premises iii. over fifteen handguns 1 safes to be a minimum weight of 500kg, with dual key locks 2 safes to be secured to or within brick or concrete walls and floors 3 premises to be fully intruder alarmed, monitored by a graded control room with back-to-base polling via a secure line (or, if unavailable due to remoteness, with radio or GSM backup) 4 panic switches/duress facility to be installed in the premises 5 vaults, control rooms, safes, perimeter and internal premises to maintain 24-hour monitoring and recording by CCTV, which is secured and inaccessible. 50. Jurisdictions may adopt the above standards either by way of legislative requirement or by introducing the standards as guidelines which provide Police Commissioners with limited flexibility for special or unique circumstances. 51. There should be at least one annual inspection of firearms and firearms storage facilities used in the security industry. RECORDING OF SALES 52. All firearms sales are to be conducted only by or through a licenced firearms dealer. 53. Jurisdictions agree to the following principles to underpin firearms dealer recording of firearms transactions: (a) firearms dealers are obliged under penalty to ensure that purchasers are appropriately licenced for the firearm being purchased (b) firearms dealers are required to record and maintain details (type, make, calibre and serial number) of each weapon purchased or sold against the identity (name, address and licence number) of the seller or the purchaser (c) firearms dealers are required to provide records to the national register of firearms through the State or Territory licensing authority (d) police personnel investigating a crime or checking the compliance of licenced gun dealers with recording responsibilities should have the right to inspect the records of licenced gun dealers without the need to give notice to the licensee (e) jurisdictions may put in place alternate options for individuals living in remote locations where firearms dealers are not readily available (it may be possible, for instance, to authorise local police officers to certify sales/purchases in such circumstances). 54. Jurisdictions will legislate to allow the sale of ammunition only for those firearms for which the purchaser is licenced, and impose limits on the quantity of ammunition that may be purchased in a given period. 55. On the purchase of ammunition, the relevant licence must be produced. NATIONAL FIREARMS AGREEMENT 14 of 14 56. Jurisdictions should consider requiring dealers to provide their register of transactions to a relevant authority once that dealer’s licence is no longer valid. This should occur within an appropriate timeframe after the licence has become invalid. SALE AND TRANSPORT OF FIREARMS 57. Jurisdictions will introduce or maintain legislation to ensure that, within their own borders: (a) mail order arrangements (irrespective of how those orders were placed, for example via the telephone or internet) will apply strictly on a licenced firearm dealer to licenced firearm dealer basis (b) advertisement of firearms for sale i. be prohibited unless the sale is conducted by or through a licenced firearms dealer ii. list the licence number of the licensed firearms dealer and the owner selling the firearms, and include the serial number by which the firearms are registered (c) the movement of firearms covered by Licence Categories C, D and H must be in accordance with prescribed safety requirements (d) the commercial transport of ammunition with firearms is prohibited (e) packages containing firearms are able to be tracked (f) packages containing firearms must not be packaged or labelled in such a way as to expressly or otherwise indicate their contents. 58. Jurisdictions may put in place alternative options for individuals living in remote locations where firearms dealers are not readily available.

Gun control explored at Clark University program.

Click here to view the original post.

Ms. Schwoerer said firearms were around in England since the late 13th century, but didn’t play an important role in society until the early 1500s, when Henry VIII ramped up production of guns with the hopes of proving his prowess on the battlefield by making war with France. He purchased artillery from elsewhere in Europe and encouraged gunmakers to set up shop in Britain. In addition to bolstering the military, the focus on production eventually put guns in the hands of people “up and down the social scale,” she said.

Guns helped people hunt more effectively, putting more protein on the table. There was an early interest in hunting for sport and protection, but early on, increased access to game meat was a major factor, she said. In a less practical sense, the gun was a novelty and carried with it an aura of power and authority.

States agree on gun control code. AUSTRALIA.

Click here to view the original post.
States agree on gun control code

Author: ANDREW DARBY, GERARD RYLE
Date: 26/05/1995
Words: 590

   


   

Publication: The Age
Page: 3

Hobart.

The states took a tentative step towards uniform gun laws yesterday when police ministers agreed to establish a national gun-control code on shooter licensing, mail-order sale, safety training and secure storage.

The Federal Government will also further restrict the importation of ammunition and machine pistols. But those attending the Australian Police Ministers Council yesterday left unresolved a national argument on the registration of all guns.

The federal Justice Minister, Mr Kerr, described yesterday’s code decision as “a step towards uniformity”.

He said quick responses to shooting tragedies in different states in recent years had led to ad hoc, potentially conflicting standards. Now ministers had set up a mechanism to take a more considered, long-term view.

Mr Kerr said the latest statistics showed that in 1993, only about 70 of Australia’s 526 firearm deaths involved violent crime.

The planned code was welcomed by Victoria’s Police Minister, Mr McNamara, as the most significant improvement in decades, and one that would remedy Victorian concerns about the effect of more relaxed laws in other states.

“It’s the hoons and lunatics that everyone wants to see firearms removed from,” he said. “We need to look at measures where we can more closely interact with mental health authorities so that we can identify persons who should be prohibited from obtaining firearms.”

The NSW Police Minister, Mr Paul Whelan, did not attend the meeting and is awaiting a briefing. Mr Kerr was confident that NSW and the other absent states, Queensland and the Northern Territory, would agree with the proposals.

While all jurisdictions now follow the principle that firearms be securely stored, the provision was variously interpreted. A Western Australian model is being proposed in which guns must be kept in steel cabinets with separate lockable ammunition storage.

The Victorian Justice Department is to coordinate the development of the code, which will be put before the next Police Ministers’ Council meeting in Tasmania in November.

The Commonwealth’s tightening of imports will outlaw a variety of ammunition, including military ammunition greater than 12.7mm, tracer bullets, armour-piercing and flechette ammunition.

Imports of standard hollow-point and soft-nosed ammunition will still be allowed, but a prohibition on military-style weapons will be extended to pistols configured as semi-automatic machineguns.

The president of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, Mr Ted Drane, said there were up to four million licensed shooters who ought to be consulted before changes were made to gun laws.

“We will never have national gun registration because that would mean that too many people (politicians) would lose their seats if they did in places like Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania,” he said.

A spokesman said Victoria’s chief commissioner of police, Mr Neil Comrie, said he supported uniform gun laws.

THE PROPOSED GUN CONTROL CODE.

Recognition of licensing, perhaps with a categorisation system.

Control of mail order firearm sales.

Firearm safety training standards.

Pistol registration methods.

Secure storage standards.

Regulations governing types of ammunition are to be tightened.

Is the Australian Government a registered Corporation in the USA?!

Click here to view the original post.
Is the Australian Government a registered corporation? As I understand it, and I must admit that I am not in any way legally minded or very knowledgeable in regards to politics, the idea of a corporation is to make money for it’s investors. Now Australian citizens are not investors in a monetary sense IF the Australian Government is a corporation. So, we can’t earn any dividends from this corporation, but it is in the interest of the corporation NOT to spend money unless it can also make money.
Funding cuts to public services are obviously making money for someone, but certainly not us. Money spent of firearms registration comes out of our pockets, and again is not for our benefit. Money spent on gun control and gun confiscation is again payed for from our taxes, but again does not benefit us in any way or form. We work all our lives, and part of the deal was that we get a pension when we retire, but again, pensions have been cut and the retirement age extended! All this is putting money into the government coffers, but we the law abiding citizens are not receiving any benefits.
So, can anyone throw any light on this Australian government corporation thing? Is it fact or fiction? Is the Australian government a USA registered corporation?








Australian Government Takes Aim at Guns, Again, After Confiscation Scheme Fails to Disarm Criminals

Click here to view the original post.

In other words, the gun confiscation scheme Hillary Clinton praised on October 16, 2016, as “worth looking at” for gun policy in America actually created an uneven playing field where law-abiding citizens turned in their guns while criminals retained theirs.

Read more by clicking on the above link.
With the increase in violent attacks, rape and murder the Australian government still refuse to make it legal for law abiding citizens to carry anything for self defence and for the defence of family and property. The government’s aim appears to be to disarm all Australian citizens except the Police and Military, and of course criminals. We are now left in the position of being either a victim or a criminal, we have been left to decide whether we want to risk being carried by 6 or tried by 12. Which do you choose?

Did the Australian Government orchestrate the Tasmania massacre? The Port Arthur Massacre – A Mossad Operation

Click here to view the original post.
The Port Arthur Massacre
A Planned Event Designed to Disarm the Australian Public

Many of you may not be aware of the Port Arthur Massacre in Tasmania, Australia (the results of which created a sort of gun control) and many may not understand that what happened that day led to many questions being asked which remain unanswered to this day.

One could certainly draw comparisons between the Port Arthur Massacre and Sandy Hook in that the outcome could be the same if the President and the US Government have their way!!!

Below are some findings by other authors and experts, including the police themselves, which upon reading may cause you some concern.

EU : You cannot stop terrorism by restricting legal gun ownership.

Click here to view the original post.

Firearms Inspections By Police in your Home. Your Rights. Their Authority.

Click here to view the original post.

I don’t know about you, but my experience with police officers coming into my house for the purpose of inspecting my firearms & their safe keeping has been a mixed bag. First & foremost the police know very little to nothing at all about any firearms other than service issue. This can be a big problem & it has cost me money & time trying to prove the police wrong & me right!
 Secondly the police come into my house thinking that I am guilty of breaking the law until proven innocent, this is blatantly obvious from their attitude towards me. They check out my house as best they can without going through cupboards & draws just looking for anything that may be used against me. NEVER leave a police officer alone in your house, they must be under observation at all times, & I recommend that you video their visit, especially when they are checking your safe keeping & your firearms. If you do not have a video camera, use a sound recorder. You do not have to hold this device in your hands so it is visible, you can set up the video camera or the recorder in the room where your gun safe is before the police arrive. Simply turn on before admitting them into your house.

Thoughts For The Week By Ron Owen of Owen Guns Australia.

Click here to view the original post.

Thoughts For The Week.
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

Last year, I mentioned that Almanacs were traditionally obtained for a New Year and predicted future annual events, foretelling tides, by the movement of the moon and stars, they also used the stars prophesying peoples horoscopes. In centuries gone by they were written by Old Moore, or Poor Richard, Pseudonym for Benjamin Franklin and some were ascribed to Father Time himself.  I’m not that old, but I did foretell in the 1980’s the coming tyranny of obscene gun laws and won the reputation as the Doomsayer of the firearm industry, until in 1996 it unfortunately all came true. For the preceding 16 years I wrote articles in Lock, Stock and Barrel warning, alerting, organising, trying to mobilise opposition to the forays from UN Civilian Disarmament, Academics such as Prof Paul Wilson (creep)and Rebecca Peters (creep ) and the media all funded by Sorus’ foundations. So for less than a penny here is Ron Owen’s Almanac for 2017.

Economic

Well first the bad news, as the new President Trump does the correct thing for America and tear’s up the international trade agreements, the USA economy and markets will gain considerably and as he spends more on defence, again their economy will grow, so to will the US dollar but in doing so will force the Australian dollar down.  Australia needs to follow suit to boost our economy.  Our pudding headed bunch of internationalist leaders, still think that a low Australian dollar is good for our economy, and will keep importing cheap labour from abroad and buying all manufactured goods off shore, which in turn drives our dollar down further and our international debt  grows immensely, again sending our credit rating and dollar into the deep south. As we import all our shooting equipment and accessories which have to be paid in foreign exchange rates, prices will continue to increase. Only when our dopy leaders read a history book and see how our leaders of a 100 years ago such as Henry Parkes and Good Iron Mac, (William McMillen) established a workable solution to further our economy without interfering in the exchange rate will they understand.  COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT   “Exclusive power over customs, excise, and bounties. Sub Section 90. On the imposition of uniform duties of customs the power of the Parliament to impose duties of customs and of excise, and to grant bounties on the production or export of goods, shall become exclusive.”

This economic philosophy was carried through by PM Andrew Fisher (Member for Gympie) and King Of Mally MP who founded the Commonwealth Bank Act of 1912 this made the Commonwealth Bank a bank of credit issue. This was very successful as it saved the Federal government from borrowing from the international owned banks and paying all revenue off the interest bill which is the way it works today. The Commonwealth Bank was gutted by the Bruce Page government in the early 1920s and we have been fleeced by the Big banks ever since. They even own the Commonwealth Bank now. Still the Australian governments of the 1920s till the 1960s built Australia’s industry and standard of living to be one of the highest in the world by imposing tariffs on imports and paying the revenue from that to exporters. That took the foreign exchange problem out of the equation. Our exporters could afford to supply the best prices in the world, and the high tariffs protected home industry and encouraged companies such as Ford, General Motors, General Electric, Lysaght, and Kraft to locate in Australia and export to Asia from here. Until, that is regained our economy will continue to slide into a third world quarry.

Defence, Non Existent.
Most of us who are reading and thinking people, are aware that our northern neighbours are countries that need our natural resources, yet do not need our small western population. Our defence forces are weak, almost non-existent, even though our dopy politicians throw billions of our taxpayer dollars into importing high price defence equipment which is sometimes obsolete by the time we get it. Common-sense should tell us that countries that spend big on defence research and development are going to make sure that their country has the latest and greatest and overseas sales to places like Australia are to keep the productions and factories running with second rate products. If Australia experiences a problem, because we have no quantity of ships or planes our small continent would be isolated and we could not get replacements, ammunition, or spare parts to continue. At any time the tiny island of Singapore could invade us and hold us, they might be the best option as they would be less likely to eliminates us all, as some of our other Northern neighbours would surely do.

Australia sleeps again, and again it will be left up to the little guys to save us from the mistakes of our sleeping leaders.


Our Industry.
This year again, there will be an increasing amount of Australians (more and more ladies) will buy hunting rifles, shotguns and target rifle without mentioning the real reason for their new interest in the sport of shooting, survival and defending their families. They will all enjoy our shooting sports, but all will want to keep their firearms close by. This phenomena has to be encouraged, without exposing the reason as again these new shooters increase our numbers. When they appreciate the impositions we live under, this will bring even more power to our cause, not only in our voting power but in forming networks to shape the future. We will have to sustain some small losses to win a victory, but this year as international troubles increase so to will our numbers increase, we are in the third final stage of our campaign to win back our rights. In 2016 the worm turned in the world, populations have discovered that the mainstream media has been lying to them for years, internet media now has greater credibility than mainstream, internet media is quicker and has the eyes on the spot, the mainstream takes the government, or Sorus funded approach and then quickly has to correct and make excuses. This will continue as the establishment has had the media power for so long that they have not yet accepted the plain fact that its credibility is blown. We have seen its destructive effects on One Nation, on the firearm industry, on Brexit and the latest example on Trump. It’s not working and this coming year the success of the past will form the foundation of the future. Youtube, Wikki leaks, Facebook Twitter will be our victory battle ground.

Protest Against G Soros intervention in Macedonia.
The Worm Has Turned.
The whole western world is currently in peaceful revolt.  2017 will be the end of one world and the birth of another, last year was the year for the awakening of the people, this year will see the return of nation states. Since our enemies have only one advantage, mainstream media power and their shortcomings are numbered and we have only one disadvantage no mainstream media outlets and our only advantage is power in numbers, in the past this has resulted in putting the Anti Gun people in a dominating position, now we know that the battle ground has to be fought with the internet media tools, or we will always be in this inferior position of Subjugation (Slavery by another name).  We have to be involved, ‘If we do nothing, we may well lose everything.’

On the world front after President Trump tears up the Trade agreements which have betrayed the western world since they were duped into the Lima Agreement. The UN having lost Israel and hopefully soon the USA, (Please read my recent article on the United Nations http://www.foaa.com.au/general/ ) then followed by Australia and every other free thinking western nation. Even though China has claimed an area as large as the Japanese Empire’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere of 1938 we can only hope that it does not have Japans willingness to shed millions of lives to enforce it. The boundary encompasses all of the major shipping lanes in the Asia Pacific and its southern border takes in the offshore oil reserves of Brunei. If President Trump really wants to clip China’s feathers and defend the interests of the Philippines that might be why he is so obvious in holding out the olive branch to Mr Putin as even Trump would not want to go to war with both of them at once. Of course we in Australia might serve as a large US non floating aircraft carrier like in WWII, but as our reduced capacity to defend ourselves makes us in-effectual, we may end up being the meat in the sandwich. Either the Chinese, or the Americans will drive their tanks here, or make it their battleground as no country would want to have it out in their own country. If we have a problem with China, besides having no Australian factories making toilet paper, which is another reason why Bibles would sell at a premium, China makes our army uniforms and our vehicles would come to a standstill with no car parts. ADI (Australia Defence Industries, owned by ‘Thales’ a French company) annual ammunition production would be shot away on the first day.  Current US army figures assess 300,000 rounds of .223 ammunition for each enemy killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Even four government factories in the USA could not cope and the US Army had to order from IMI Israeli Military Industries. The message there is to keep a good stock of ammunition, and always have the means of reloading at hand. As one of Australia’s 2 million firearm owners you are the ‘Citizen Army’ Australia’s only deterrent and real hope.

Queensland.
On the State and National front its not as gloomy, due to 22 % of voters at last years Federal Election voting against the Major Parties, the Orange By Election when the Shooters Party took a Blue Ribbon seat off the National Party, Brexit Results, Trump Results have caused large cracks to appear in the hearts of the major parties. Nationals senators Bridget McKenzie and John Williams voted with Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm in an attempt to overturn the Turnbull government’s import ban on the Adler lever action shotgun.  Cabinet ministers Fiona Nash, Matt Canavan and Nigel Scullion abstained from the vote, along with backbencher Barry O’Sullivan.


Labour Police Minister Bill Byrne was sacked because he lost the first parliamentary vote on more restrictive changes to the Weapons Act Regulations. This was ground breaking as for twenty years Nationals and Liberals have voted with Labour to pile on further impositions on law abiding firearm owners.  With the Katter Party’s two votes, Labour lost the resolution, the first time in living memory that a Queensland government lost. At the COAG meeting the National Firearm Agreement decided to re-categorise Lever Action shotguns from Category A to Category B for five shots and to category C for seven shots.  I believe that this regulation change to the Weapons Regulations (Categories) which will come up early in 2017 will also fail. If LNP with Katter’s Party, and the One Nation member vote against it, (which Katter’s party have announced and LNP seem to agree) then Labour will lose another resolution in the house and to support the COAG and the National Firearm Agreement (which is supposed to be uniform in every state, or fails) the Labour Premier Palaszczuk will have to go to the Governor and call an election. This alone should ensure that the LNP opposes the Lever Action re categorisation, but if its does not and instead it votes with Labour on this subject, then the firearm owners, incensed by this repeated betrayal will walk away in droves from the LNP into the welcoming arms of One Nation. Shooters are fully aware that if it is allowed to stand, that without any justification the government can change the category of lever action rifles from Category A to category C then there is no bottom, no promise after struggling to get a licence, struggling to get a Permit To Acquire, having to suffer every indignant imposition and that’s not enough to be left alone, is the straw that will break the camel back.

At present Labour could not win a chook raffle, but at the coming Queensland election, One Nation or a coalition of One Nation and LNP and Katter party will govern this state. Labour will shortly make and offer to the Shooting Associations a proposal to try and get them to support the Category change on the hope that this will smooth the LNP to vote with them. The deal will be that everyone with a registered 5 shot lever action shotgun will be awarded a new licence which will include a Category ‘B’ and everyone with a 7 shot lever action will be given a licence which will include a “C” so all will be able to keep them.  Unfortunately they will be unable to sell them, or dispose of them and will not be able to pass them on to their family even when they die.  Only a dealer will be able to acquire them, but would be unable to resell them, making them worthless.  That has always been referred to as a Grandfather Act and leaves the law abiding shooter with property that he can shoot but has lost all its value. All this is an unwanted precedent which they can repeat whenever the urge suits COAG or any of its member states so it must be opposed.

So too is his Un-informed Gun Laws. Its take 20 year but I hope he still lives to see them thrown out.

My best prophecy for 2017 is that One Nation will take out that line in its current policy,  “Current gun laws are adequate and should remain unchanged.”
If it does not it will not get very far as it traditionally relies on shooters to man booths and hand out for them on election day. This will force the LNP in Queensland and the Nationals in NSW and Victoria to change its firearm policy and begin the walk back to freedom. Still a long way off, but due to our increased number of voters and internet media, the ‘Writing is truly on the Wall’ we are ‘defiantly’ in phase three.

To give an example of how to get involved please write to your local papers, letter to the editor, ask candidate either individually or separately  ‘how they will represent the law abiding firearm owners’, ask them in person or on face-book, or email or snail mail. If the 10,000 shooters who received this email all contacted one candidate and just told them that ‘without some evidence of them supporting shooters, they and their families will not vote for them’, that would be enough to change the direction of the politicians. Trouble is, just a few of us have to carry the burden and work harder for those who do nothing, but there again when we win, even though we might never murmur a word we know that the glory belongs to those who worked for it.

Please don’t take this final third stage of our prolonged war, too lightly as this part might be the hardest part, as when we get them all elected and in power, we then have to ensure that they carry out the instructions of those whom they represent and not betray us like the Liberal and National Party did in 1996. Remember Lots of Little Victories lead to Giant Victories.


——————-

There is no Spring without Winter, without Mistakes there is no Learning. There is no Life without Death, without Doubts there is no Faith. There is no Peace without War, without Fear there is no Courage. For without Mistakes, Doubts and Fears there are no pathways to Wisdom.

Illegal Use Of Firearms. Law abiding licensed gun owners NOT TO BLAME!!!

Click here to view the original post.
MACHINE guns that can fire 1000 rounds a minute with pinpoint accuracy have infiltrated Victoria with the help of the owner of US weapons company, a court has heard.
Police say at least eight Thureon AR-15 assault rifles remain in the community after others were found in the hands of dangerous criminals involved in armed robberies and drug trafficking.
A former gun trader turned black-market importer has pleaded guilty before a Melbourne Magistrate to smuggling the guns into Australia.

Paul Munro, 63, has admitted to meeting the owner of Thureon Defense, Andy Huebschmann, who helped him conceal and export the weapons from the US.
Victoria Police Detective Senior Constable Paul Jones said the machine guns first surfaced in Caroline Springs in April 2014.
Armed Crime Squad detectives seized another on Williamstown in February 2015, and a third in Rockbank in January last year.
“That firearm in its fully automatic state is capable of firing 1000 rounds per minute. It’s accurate to ranges in excess of 100 metres.
“The fact that the firearms … have ended up in the hands of criminal elements linked with organised crime is a serious concern to the community,” Sen-Const. Jones said during an August 31 bail application for Munro.
The Melbourne Magistrates Court heard Munro met Huebschmann at the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show in early 2013, later arranging to buy six assault rifles.
In 2015 Munro bought six more, giving Huebschmann a container of car parts fitted with a concealed compartment to ship the weapons from Winsconsin to California, then on to Australia.
Sen-Const. Jones said the weapons imported in 2015 were made without any branding or other markings after Munro told Thureon Victorian criminals had been arrested with the guns.
The court heard Huebschmann fingered Munro to US authorities after admitting to the illegal export of the rifles in June last year.
Munro was arrested in possession of an assault rifle in Clifton Springs in August, after negotiating to sell five assault rifles and 10 handguns for $110,000 to an undercover officer.
“The accused has imported at least 12 Thureon assault rifles and other firearms. Police have only recovered four of the weapons, leaving at least 8 outstanding in the community,” Sen-Const. Jones said.
Victoria Police have confirmed to the Herald Sun the frightening weapons are still on the loose.
The court heard Munro, of Koraleigh, near the Victorian-NSW border, had a previous licence to sell guns, which was revoked in 2012.
He has seven convictions for breaching NSW gun laws, Sen-Const. Jones said.
Munro has pleaded guilty to several counts of importing illegal firearms and will face a plea hearing in the County Court on April 7.

PLEASE sign & share this petition. Is The Australian Government Lawful?

Click here to view the original post.

Please share this post widely for all Australians.
Thank you.
Regards, Keith.


The Hunger Games. Could it happen?

Click here to view the original post.
Maintain that lifestyle, don’t rock the boat. Things are not perfect, but hey, they could be worse.


The Hunger Games. Could It Happen?!

I don’t know about the rest of the world, but in Australia right now we are seeing a lot of stuff going down that does not look good. In the cities people seem to be isolated from what is going down in the country areas; the banks taking farm land, mining companies taking farm land, now the government its self is seizing farm land because of a deal it has made with a foreign country to train its military troops. There are millions of dollars involved in this deal, but I doubt that the average Australian citizen will gain any benefit from this & over 70 farming families are about to lose their homes & livelyhood.

We have lost so much freedom & so many of our rights in the name of terrorism. The government uses the perceived threat of terrorism to pass more & more legislation that controls our lives. Rates rises on land means that some people can no longer afford to pay rates, so they are evicted & their land & house is sold. These people are now forced to live in the towns or cities & once again are now dependent on the government & the services they supply. People are being taxed for using their own water supplies & there has been talk of taxing people who live off grid & supply their own electricity!

Country people receive no backing from people living in the cities, this I realise is a broad statement, & I have no doubt that there are some city dwellers that do care, but on the whole the city is not where you will find rebels, it is a place where you will find people that do not want to rock the boat; they like conformity, they like order. They are content to bury their heads in the sand in order to maintain their present lifestyle. They are insulated from the troubles of the world & are content so long as they are making money & live a comfortable lifestyle.

Can you see where I am going here? Have you seen the Hunger Games? Think about the number of times country people have gone to the city to protest at the treatment they are receiving from the government, do you ever recall seeing city people coming out to back these protests? I don’t. Right now the Australian government is giving money to the Indonesian government; the Indonesian government are committing genocide in West Papua. Women are raped & murdered, children are murdered & of course the men are also being killed. These West Papuans were Australia’s allies in WW2, helping our diggers survive, carrying our wounded to safety. Now our government is sanctioning their genocide! Does this sound like a caring & benevolent government? They are doing this for greed, money & power. They do not care who has to suffer for them to get what they want. What makes you think that they care any more for you? My Father was a great believer in keeping your head down & looking after number one. Don’t draw attention to yourself; don’t get involved in other people’s problems. There is a great deal in favour of this attitude when it comes to survival, but what happens when you are those other people? What happens when after keeping your head down you suddenly realise that you have been manipulated. Whilst you were keeping your head down & thinking this will keep me safe, the government has usurped your freedoms & your rights as a citizen.

We in the country, & those like us in the cities, do not have the backing of the majority. We alone can’t stop this corrupt government machine from rolling right over us. Our farms are disappearing, & with them our home grown food supplies! Our countryside is being polluted by mining & big corrupt corporations are polluting our environment. Recently a Japanese fishing vessel was caught poaching in one of our reserves, will they go to prison? Unlikely, will their ship be confiscated? Unlikely. Yet our government is continuing to make more & more restrictive legislation on our freedoms & these laws if we rebel against them will make us criminals. The city people will not help us; the government are right now our biggest enemy. Whilst our politicians grow wealthy we find that we can no longer retire at age 60, we are slaves to the system & alone there is nothing we can do about it. We are expected to work in the future until we are 70, that is if we live that long. They don’t have to pay a pension to dead people. Now I hear that even our pensions are under threat, I thought that money was being extracted from our earnings all these years to pay for our pension entitlements, now I hear that the government has decided to keep some of that money for themselves!

I wish I had answers for you, but I don’t. My greatest fear is that this government & this whole corrupt system will eventually take more from us than we can bear. I guess that is exactly what has already happened with the farmers that have committed suicide. Will the police & military continue to do the government’s bidding even when they know it is wrong? Yes I think they will. That is what they are trained to do. All this has happened over time with such stealth that no one seems to have realised what was happening, & I don’t think it will stop there. I don’t like the way things are going in this country & none of it bodes well for our future. I think we will lose more of our rights, our freedom has already gone. We will be forced to pay more & earn less, our government is NOT leading, it is RULING, we have a dictator government. Gone are the referendums in the main, gone are our rights to protest. Gone are our rights to protect ourselves & our families by any means we think necessary. Gone are our rights to privacy as the police are now legally allowed to invade our homes at any time without a warrant & arrest the occupants. We are all seen as being guilty until proven innocent.

My hope is that one day the majority will wake up & sack our government & institute a new fairer government system where the people have a voice. Right now we are between a rock & a hard place, no matter who we vote for, we can’t win. Be very aware of further firearms legislation that will further control the ownership of firearms. Confiscation of all firearms from law abiding citizens will be a sign that the end is near. Already present gun control measures have made it difficult if not impossible to own certain firearms, that has made us vulnerable against criminals & government forces!

Take care everyone.

Breaking News. Firearms under threat. Australia.

Click here to view the original post.
BREAKING NEWS .
—————————
Action Required Now COAG MEETING is This  October 2016.

Don’t Let Confiscations Happen again. Act NOW.

Action Required Now COAG MEETING is This  October 2016.

On the 28th September 2016 members of Queensland Firearm associations had two meetings with the Queensland Police Minister (Bill Byrne) and an Acting Inspector from Weapons Licensing.

1. The question was raised more than once as to what recommendations would be put forward from Queensland to the October COAG meeting on the National Firearm Agreement, (they call it an agreement but we never agreed to any of it) their answer was “Just to fix up wording in the regulations to make it more workable for everyone”. Which did not explain why the Commonwealth had previously refused to divulge these recommendations to a ‘Freedom of Information’ request. See Owen Guns Bulletin Number 120. http://www.owenguns.com/owen-guns-bulletin-july-2016-edition-120/

The Commonwealth Government has refused FOI requests from Dr Samara McPhedran, (Senior Research Fellow at Griffith University’s Violence Research and Prevention Program,) who submitted a FOI in March 2016 to access the documents. The FOI request was denied by Stephen Bouwhuis, Assistant Secretary at the Attorney-General’s Department.

Mr Bouwhuis confirmed the documents existed, however refused to disclose it. He said in a letter to McPhedran, “I do not consider that it would be in the public interest to disclose this document”.

“The information contained in the document was communicated to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department by or on behalf of state or territory governments on a confidential basis, for the purposes of discussions about the proposed agreement,” he said in the letter.

So if it is just to improve the wording in the legislation why object to it being released to a formal reasonable FOI request?

2. Another question, “As we  Dealers have a duty of care not to sell products like lever action firearms if we know that the government is going to confiscate them shortly. The government also has a duty of care to fully inform the shooting public, if it is the Governments intention to change the Category of lever Actions firearms to Category “C” it is failing in its duty by not informing. Extremely worse than that, if it lets people buy them and accepts their $37. Application for a Permit To Acquire Fee, then approves the application, it is plainly defrauding the shooting public and no form of compensation would address a deception such as that.” The Minister said that, “Even though in ‘his opinion’ lever actions were far more devastating than Pump Actions and he was sure that the intention of John Howard’s gun laws was to ban them as well as pumps, the rest of the government did not agree with him, even the Premier did not agree with him and so that banning, or re categorising lever actions would not be a recommendation from Queensland to COAG.”

We are the section of the lawful community that see nothing wrong with Minister Byrne firing his .22 calibre rifle at rats in the roof cavity of his Rockhampton home. That is what RATSHOT is intended to be for. Even discharging his firearm in front of his wife would not shock us at all..

3.He was then asked, “Why then was Weapons Licencing compiling a list of all lever action owners in Queensland” his answer was, “Just to find out how many licensed shooters had them in Queensland. He said that, “The Commonwealth might proclaim an amnesty but Queensland had no dollars in their budget to support it, and no one had any money for “Buy Backs”, that was just media hype.
(All feel good stomach massage, and then!!!)

4. He said, “Even if he went to the conference and gave an ‘agreement in principle’ to the meeting that Queensland would accept legislation changes, he would still return to Queensland consult with shooting associations and get cabinets approval before confirming the agreement, and if their were any bans, that their would not be a ‘Buy Back” they would just put a ‘grandfather provision” in the act which would allow people to own them until they died”. (This is still reprehensible as it removes the value to the ownership of that property, once you cannot sell that property, it has no monetary value, if you cannot leave the property of your estate to your chosen relatives, but they must hand it over for destruction, the government has stolen it from you.)

If the Police Minister goes back on those words today, he may lose a huge amount of credibility, with the shooters of Queensland. As the Queensland Parliament, like the Commonwealth parliament is on a knife’s edge majority, which could fall with the removal of the Katter Party support without even making it to an election. If an election is called disappointed firearm owners could easily ensure that Labour was not re-elected to the government of Queensland.

Shooters would still be the biggest losers, as we can never trust the National/Liberals to honour a promise and would have to wait until one of the new minor political movements has a majority. So please contact your local members and Minister Bill Byrne before they make firm decisions on this matter. Obviously, from the above spoken words, they have been having in-depth discussions on the subject of banning lever actions by re-categorising them as Cat C. It is only that their majority is so fine and they cannot afford to lose a vote, that is protecting lever action owners and other firearm owners from confiscations. It is always the balance of numbers, the major parties will never do anything for us because, we have rights, or we are good people, they want power, and they want the people without any power. They have read Mao tse-Tung maxim, “Power comes from the barrel of a Gun” so they want all of the Guns and all of the Power.
Action Required Now COAG MEETING is This  October 2016.

We have succeeded before, lets do it again even if you have written already please do it again and invite all your friends and family to send an email, a facebook message, a phone call or a tweet. Here is a link to all State and Federal Police Minister don’t forget to flick your local member a copy as well as he should be made aware of what NOT to vote for.

Dear Sir.

I am a licenced firearm owner, to keep that licence, I have to be a model citizen. I will never give my vote for any political party that imposes restrictions on the firearm ownership by good citizens. Furthermore, I will use all the resources at my disposal to campaign and influence voters to make the same choice as myself.

Ron Owen.
24 Mc Mahon Rd
Gympie, 4570 Q

Gun Control Myths.

Click here to view the original post.
This primitive pistol can only be legally used on a pistol club range!!!

TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL

Table of Contents

MYTH 1 — Public opinion polls

MYTH 2 — The purpose of a handgun

MYTH 3 — Armed citizens don’t deter crime

MYTH 4 — Licensing and registration

MYTH 5 — Foreign gun control works

MYTH 6 — Crimes of passion and guns

MYTH 7 — Semi-autos should be banned

MYTH 8 — No `right’ to own a gun

MYTH 9 — Concealed carry laws are dangerous

MYTH 10 — Gun control reduces crime


Ten Myths About Gun Control

“We will never fully solve our nation’s horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons.” –USA Today, December 29, 1993

“Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership?. .. (W)ho can still argue compellingly that Americans can be trusted to handle guns safely? We think the time has come for Americans to tell the truth about guns. They are not for us, we cannot handle them.” –Los Angeles Times, December 28, 1993

These editorial opinions expressed by two of the nations most widely read newspapers represent the absolute extreme in the firearms controversy: that no citizen can be trusted to own a firearm. It is the product of a series of myths which–through incessant repetition–have been mistaken for truth. These myths are being exploited to generate fear and mistrust of the 60-65 million decent and responsible Americans who own firearms. Yet, as this document proves, none of these myths will stand up under the cold light of fact.

MYTH 1:”The majority of Americans favor strict new additional federal gun controls.”

Polls can be slanted by carefully worded questions to achieve any desired outcome. It is a fact that most people do not know what laws currently exist; thus, it is meaningless to assert that people favor “stricter” laws when they do not know how “strict” the laws are in the first place. Asking about a waiting period for a police background check presumes, incorrectly, that police can and will actually conduct a check during the wait. Similarly, it is meaningless to infer anything from support of a 7- or 5-day waiting period when respondents live in a state with a 15-day wait or a 1-6 month permit scheme in place. Asked whether they favor making any particular law “stricter,” however, most people do not. Unbiased, scientific polls have consistently shown that most people:

Oppose costly registration of firearms.

Oppose giving police power to decide who should own guns.

Do not believe that stricter gun laws would prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns.

In 1993, Luntz Weber Research and Strategic Services found that only 9% of the American people believe “gun control” to be the most important thing that could be done to reduce crime. By a margin of almost 3-1, respondents said mandatory prison would reduce crime more than “gun control.” This poll, unlike many others, allowed respondents to answer more honestly by using open ended questions without leading introductions. The result was an honest appraisal of the attitude of the American people: “gun control” is not crime control.

One clear example of a poll done which used biased questions and flawed procedures was conducted by Louis Harris Research Inc. (LHRI) in the summer of 1993. The poll reported unprecedented levels of gun abuse by high school students. However, after examining the poll, Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University, the nation’s leading scholar on crime and firearms, called the findings “…implausible, being inconsistent with more sophisticated prior research.” Prof. Kleck found the Harris findings of students who had been shot at or who had actually shot at someone to be insupportable by crime and victimization statistics as reported by the Department of Justice: “Even if the percent of handgun crime victimization had doubled from the average for the 1979-1987 period, the LHRI results would still be overstated by a factor of 100.” In the end, he labeled the LHRI poll “advocacy polling.”1

A more direct measure of the public’s attitude on “gun control” comes when the electorate has a chance to speak on the issue. Public opinion polls do not form public policy, but individual actions by hundreds of thousands of citizens do. For example, in 1993, the voters of Madison, Wisconsin, were presented with a referendum calling for a ban on handgun ownership in that city. Pollsters predicted an overwhelming win for the gun banners. When Second Amendment rights activists rallied opposition and educated the electorate on the facts about gun ownership, the referendum was defeated. In the 1993 gubernatorial elections, the incumbent governor in New Jersey and the front-runner in Virginia made “gun control” a central theme of their campaigns. Both candidates lost to opponents who stressed real criminal justice reforms, not “gun control.” In November 1982, Californians rejected, by a 63-37% margin, a statewide handgun initiative that called for the registration of all handguns and a “freeze” on the number of handguns allowed in the state. Again, pre-elect ion pollsters reported support for the measure. That initiative was also opposed by the majority of California’s law enforcement community. Fifty-one of the state’s 58 working sheriffs opposed Proposition 15, as did 101 chiefs of police. Nine law enforcement organizations, speaking for rank-and-file police, went on record against the initiative.

Increasingly, the American people are voicing support for reform of the criminal justice system. The NRA also actively supports initiatives calling for mandatory jail time for violent criminals. In 1982, the residents of Washington, D.C., enacted an NRA-endorsed mandatory penalty bill, actively opposed by the anti-gun D.C. City Council, that severely punishes those who use firearms to commit a violent crime . In 1988, the residents of Oregon approved, by a 78-22% margin, an NRA-supported initiative mandating prison sentences for repeat offenders after the state legislature and governor failed to act on the issue. In 1993, the residents of Washington state overwhelmingly approved the “three strikes you’re out” initiative calling for life sentences without parole for anyone convicted of a third serious crime. NRA’s Crime Strike program was instrumental in collecting the needed signatures to put that question on the ballot.

In 1993, the Southern States Police Benevolent Association conducted a scientific poll of its members. Sixty-five percent of the respondents identified “gun control” as the least effective method of combating violent crime. Only 1% identified guns as a cause of violent crime, while 48% selected drug abuse, and 21% said the failure of the criminal justice system was the most pressing cause. The officers also revealed that 97% support the right of the people to own firearms, and 90% said they believed the Constitution guarantees that right.

The SSPBA findings affirmed a series of polls conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police of every chief and sheriff in the country, representing over 15,000 departments. In 1991 the poll discovered for the third year in a row that law enforcement officers overwhelmingly agree that “gun control” measures have no effect on crime. A clear majority of 93% of the respondents said that banning firearms would not reduce a criminal’s ability to get firearms, while 89% said that the banning of semi-automatic firearms would not reduce criminal access to such firearms. Ninety-two percent felt that criminals obtain their firearms from illegal sources; 90% agreed that the banning of private ownership of firearms would not result in fewer crimes. Seventy-three percent felt that a national waiting period would have no effect on criminals getting firearms. An overwhelming 90% felt that such a scheme would instead make agencies less effective against crime by reducing their manpower and only serve to open them up to liability lawsuits.

These are the only national polls of law enforcement officers in the country, with the leadership of most other major groups adamantly refusing to poll their membership on firearms issues.

1 Kleck, “Reasons for Skepticism on the Results from a New Poll on: The Incidence of Gun Violence Among Young People,” The Public Perspective, Sept./Oct. 1993.

MYTH 2: “The only purpose of a handgun is to kill people.”

This often repeated statement is patently untrue, but to those Americans whose only knowledge of firearms comes from the nightly violence on television, it might seem believable. When anti-gun researcher James Wright, then of the University of Massachusetts, studied all the available literature on firearms, he concluded: “Even the most casual and passing familiarity with this literature is therefore sufficient to believe the contention that handguns have `no legitimate sport or recreational use.’ “

There are an estimated 65-70 million privately owned handguns in the United States that are used for hunting, target shooting, protection of families and businesses, and other legitimate and lawful purposes. By comparison, handguns were used in an estimated 13,200 homicides in 1992 –less than 0.02% (two hundredths of 1%) of the handguns in America. Many of these reported homicides (1,500-2,800) were self-defense or justifiable and, therefore, not criminal. That fact alone renders the myth about the “only purpose” of handguns absurd, for more than 99% of all handguns are used for no criminal purpose.

By far the most commonly cited reason for owning a handgun is protection against criminals. At least one-half of handgun owners in America own handguns for protection and security. A handgun’s function is one of insurance as well as defense. A handgun in the home is a contingency, based on the knowledge that if there ever comes a time when it is needed, no substitute will do. Certainly no violent intent is implied, any more than a purchaser of life insurance intends to die soon.

MYTH 3:”Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime.”

This myth, stemming from a superficial “study” of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2

Gross errors in this and similar “studies”–with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good–include: the assumption that a gun hasn’t been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the “family” or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland’s experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3

The “guns in the home” myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place–ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done–and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: “It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide.” Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, “Indeed the point is stronger than that: ‘reverse causation’ may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann’s data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion.”5

Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

81% agreed the “smart criminal” will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.

74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.

80% of “handgun predators” had encountered armed citizens.

40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.

34% of “handgun predators” were scared off or shot at by armed victims.

57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.

Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in “excusable self-defense” or “justifiable” shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.

Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.

2 Rushforth, et al., “Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, ” 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).

3 Rushforth, et al., “Violent Death in a Metropolitan County,” 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).

4 Kellermann, et al., “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home,” New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).

5 Polsby, “The False Promise of Gun Control,” The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.

6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).

7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993.

MYTH 4:”Honest citizens have nothing to fear from gun registration and licensing which will curb crime by disarming criminals.”

“Gun control” proponents tout automobile registration and licensing as model schemes for firearm ownership. Yet driving an automobile on city or state roads is a privilege and, as s uch, can be regulated, while the individual right to possess firearms is constitutionally protected from infringement. Registration and licensing do not prevent criminal misuse nor accidental fatalities involving motor vehicles in America, where more than 40,000 people die on the nation’s highways each year. By contrast, about 1,400 persons are involved in fatal firearm accidents each year.

Registration and licensing have no effect on crime, as criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Indeed, a national survey of prisoners conducted by Wright and Rossi for the Department of Justice found that 82% agreed that “gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens; criminals will always be able to get guns.”

Further, felons are constitutionally exempt from a gun registration requirement. According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Haynes v. U.S., since felons are prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, compelling them to register firearms would violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. 8 Only law-abiding citizens would be required to comply with registration–citizens who have neither committed crime nor have any intention of doing so.

Registration and licensing of America’s 60-65 million gun owners and their 200 million firearms would require the creation of a huge bureaucracy at tremendous cost to the taxpayer, with absolutely no tangible anti-crime return. Indeed, New Zealand authorities repealed registration in the 1980s after police acknowledged its worthlessness, and a similar recommendation was made by Australian law enforcement. Law enforcement would be diverted from its primary responsibility, apprehending and arresting criminals, to investigating and processing paperwork on law-abiding citizens.

In the U.S., after President Clinton, Attorney General Reno, and others announced support for registration and licensing, police response was immediate and non-supportive. Dewey Stokes, President of the Fraternal Order of Police said … I don’t want to get into a situation where we have gun registration.” Other law enforcement officers responded even more strongly. Charles Canterbury, President of the South Carolina FOP said, “On behalf of the South Carolina law enforcement, I can say we are adamantly opposed to registration of guns.” Dennis Martin, President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police reported, “I have had a lot of calls from police chiefs and sheriffs who are worried about this. They are afraid that we’re going to create a lot of criminals out of law-abiding people who don’t want to get a license for their gun.

Finally, a national registration/licensing scheme would violate an individual’s right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment and establish a basis upon which gun confiscation could be implemented. More than 60,000 rifles and shotguns were confiscated in April, 1989 from honest citizens who had dutifully registered their guns with the authorities in Soviet Georgia (Chicago Sun-Times, April 12, 1989, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, May 21, 1989). Could that happen in America? Gun prohibitionists in Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington, D.C., have already proposed using registration lists for such purposes. And, since 1991, New York City authorities have used registration lists to enforce a ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Avowed handgun prohibitionist Charles Morgan, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office, in a 1975 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Crime stated: “I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that kind of a record-keeping procedure is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another.”

Reasonable fears of such confis cation lead otherwise law-abiding citizens to ignore such laws, creating a disrespect for law and a lessened support for government. In states and cities which recently required registration of semi-automatic firearms, estimates of compliance range from 5 to 10%.

8 Haynes v. U.S., 309 U.S. 85 (1968).

“Stiff `gun control’ laws work as shown by the low crime rates in England and Japan, while U. S crime rates continue to soar.”

All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries. It is impossible to draw valid conclusions without taking into account differences in each nation’s collection of crime data, and their political, cultural, racial, religious, and economic disparities. Such factors are not only hard to compare, they are rarely, if ever, taken into account by “gun control” proponents.9

Only one scholar, attorney David Kopel, has attempted to evaluate the impact of “gun control” on crime in several foreign countries. In his book The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?, named a 1992 Book of the Year by the American Society of Criminology, Kopel examined numerous nations with varying gun laws, and concluded: “Contrary to the claims of the American gun control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations.” He noted that Israel and Switzerland, with more widespread rates of gunownership, have crime rates comparable to or lower than the usual foreign examples. And he stated: “Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America. Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America. Foreign gun control…postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos.”10

America’s high crime rates can be attributed to re volving-door justice. In a typical year in the U.S., there are 8.1 million serious crimes like homicide, assault, and burglary. Only 724,000 adults are arrested and fewer still (193,000) are convicted. Less than 150,000 are sentenced to prison, with 36,00 0 serving less than a year (U.S. News and World Report, July 31, 1989). A 1987 National Institute of Justice study found that the average felon released due to prison overcrowding commits upwards of 187 crimes per year, costing society approximately $430, 000.

Foreign countries are two to six times more effective in solving crimes and punishing criminals than the U.S. In London, about 20% of reported robberies end in conviction; in New York City, less than 5% result in conviction, and in those cases imprisonment is frequently not imposed. Nonetheless, England annually has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before adopting its tough laws. Despite tight licensing procedures, the handgun-related robbery rate in Britain rose about 200% duri ng the past dozen years, five times as fast as in the U.S.

Part of Japan’s low crime rate is explained by the efficiency of its criminal justice system, fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects than exist in the United States. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay “home visits” to citizens’ residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is over 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Association has said that the Japanese police routinely “…engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions.” Neither the powers and secrecy of the police nor the docility of defense counsel would be acceptable to most Americans. In addition, the Japanese police understate the amount of crime, particularly covering up the problem of organized crime, in order to appear more efficient an d worthy of the respect the citizens have for the police.

Widespread respect for law and order is deeply ingrained in the Japanese citizenry. This cultural trait has been passed along to their descendants in the United States where the murder ratef or Japanese-Americans (who have access to firearms) is similar to that in Japan itself. If gun availability were a factor in crime rates, one would expect European crime rates to be related to firearms availability in those countries, but crime rat es are similar in European countries with high or relatively high gun ownership, such as Switzerland, Israel, and Norway, and in low availability countries like England and Germany. Furthermore, one would expect American violent crime rates to be more sim ilar to European rates in crime where guns are rarely used, such as rape, than in crimes where guns are often used, such as homicide. But the reverse is true: American non-gun violent crime rates exceed those of European countries.

9 Wright, et al ., Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America (N.Y.: Aldine, 1983).

10 Kopel, “The Samurai, The Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?’ (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992), 431-32.

MYTH 6: “Most murders are argument-related `crimes of passion’ against a relative, neighbor, friend or acquaintance. “

The vast majority of murders are committed by persons with long established patterns of violent criminal behavior. Acc ording to analyses by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, the FBI, and the Chicago, New York City, and other police departments, about 70% of suspected murderers have criminal careers of long standing–as do nearly half their victims. FBI data show that roughly 47% of murderers are known to their victims.

The waiting period, or “cooling-off” period, as some in the “gun control” community call it, is the most often cited solution to “crimes of passion.” However, state crime records show that in 1992, states with waiting periods and other laws delaying or denying gun purchases had an overall violent crime rate more than 47% higher and a homicide rate 19% higher than other states. In the five states that have some jurisdictions with waiting periods (Georgia, Kansas, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia), the non-waiting period portions of all five states have far lower violent crime and homicide rates.

Recent studies by the Justice Department suggest that persons who live violent lives e xhibit those violent tendencies “both within their home and among their family and friends and outside their home among strangers in society.” A National Institute of Justice study reveals that the victims of family violence often suffer repeated problems from the same person for months or even years, and if not successfully resolved, such incidents can eventually result in serious injury or death. A study conducted by the Police Foundation showed that 90% of all homicides, by whatever means committed, in volving family members, had been preceded by some other violent incident serious enough that the police were summoned, with five or more such calls in half the cases.

Circumstances which might suggest “crimes of passion” or “spontaneous” arguments, such as a lover’s triangle, arguments over money or property, and alcohol-related brawls, comprise 29% of criminal homicides, according to FBI data.

Professor James Wright of the University of Massachusetts describes the typical incident of family violence as “that mythical crime of passion” and rejects the notion that it is an isolated incident by otherwise normally placid and loving individuals. His research shows that it is in fact “the culminating event in a long history of interpersonal viole nce between the parties.”

Wright also speaks to the protective use of handguns. “Firearms equalize the means of physical terror between men and women. In denying the wife of an abusive man the right to have a firearm, we may only be guaranteeing he r husband the right to beat her at his pleasure,” says Wright. 11

11 Wright, “Second Thoughts About Gun Control,” 91 [The] Public Interest, 23 (Spring 1988).

MYTH 7:”Semi-automatic firearms have no legitimate sporting purpose, are the preferred weapon of choice of criminals, and should be banned.”

Use of this myth by gun prohibitionists is predicated purely on pragmatism: whichever “buzzword” can produce the most anti-gun emotionalism–“Saturday Night Special,” “assault weapons,” and “plastic guns”–will be utilized in efforts to generate support for a ban on entire classes of firearms.

Examples of this anti-gun legislative history abound. A Saturday Night Special” ban bill enacted in Maryland establishes a politically appointed “Handgun Roster Board” with complete authority to decide which handguns will be permitted in the so-called “Free State”– any handgun could therefore be banned. Federal legislation aimed at the nonexistent “plastic gun” would have banned mil lions of metal handguns suitable for personal protection. In the 1994 crime bill, Congress did ban semi-automatic “assault weapons,” based on their cosmetic appearance. After passage, however, not even the virulently anti-gun Washington Post pretended the ban would have a crime fighting effect, labeling it “mainly symbolic.”

Criminals and law-abiding citizens both follow the lead of police and military in choosing a gun. Criminals generally pick as handguns .38 Spl. and .357 Mag. revolvers, with ba rrels about 4″ long and retailing (an unimportant matter for criminals) at over $200. Only about one-sixth fit the classic description of the so-called “Saturday Night Special”–small caliber, short barrel and inexpensive. While criminals are unconcerned with the cost of a firearm, the law-abiding certainly are. A ban on inexpensive handguns will have a disproportionate impact on low income Americans, effectively disarming them. This is particularly unfair, since it is the poor who more often must live an d work in high crime areas.

As more and more police departments, following the lead of the military, switch from revolvers to 9 mm semi-auto pistols, criminals and honest citizens will both follow suit. Indeed, semi-auto pistols have risen from one -fourth of American handgun manufacturing in the 1970s to three-fourths today. Criminals rarely use long guns and, when they do, are more apt to use a sawed-off shot- gun than a semi-automatic rifle, whether military style or not. In America’s larg est and most crime ravaged cities, only about 1/2-3% of “crime guns” are military-style semi-autos. As military establishments adopted medium-velocity rifles with straight-stock configuration, target shooters, hunters, and collectors have acquired the sem i-automatic models of these firearms.

While not all guns incorrectly attacked as “preferred by criminals” are popular for hunting, many are, but hunting is not the only valid purpose for owning a firearm. Small handguns, which may be ill-suited for hunting or long-range target shooting, are useful for personal protection, where the accuracy range rarely needs to exceed ten feet. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are suitable for hunting a variety of game. Semi-automatic, military and military-sty le rifles, including the M1 Garand, Springfield M1A, and the Colt Sporter, are used in thousands of sanctioned Highpower Tournaments each year and the National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio. Hundreds of thousands of individuals use these rifles for recreati onal target shooting and plinking.

The Second Amendment clearly protects ownership of firearms which are useful “for the security of a free state” and semi-automatic versions of military arms are clearly appropriate for that purpose. It was the cle ar intention of the Framers of our Constitution that the citizenry possess arms equal or superior to those held by the government. That was viewed as the best deterrent to tyranny, and it has worked for over 200 years. It was also the intention of the Fou nding Fathers that citizens be able to protect themselves from criminals, and that doesn’t necessarily require a gun suitable for hunting, target shooting, or plinking. All modern firearms may be used for such protective purposes.

MYTH 8: “The righ t guaranteed under the Second Amendment is limited specifically to the arming of a `well-regulated Militia’ that can be compared today to the National Guard.”

The Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the se curity of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In contrast to other portions of the Constitution, this Amendment contains no qualifiers, no “buts” or “excepts.” It is a straightforward statement affirming t he people’s right to possess firearms.

The perception that the Second Amendment guarantees a “collective right” or a “right of states to form militias” rather than an individual right is a wholly inaccurate 20th-century invention. Historically, the term “militia” refers to the people at large, armed and ready to defend their homeland and their freedom with arms supplied by themselves (U.S. v. Miller, 1939). Federal law (Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code) states:

“The militia of the Unit ed States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age….” Moreover, historical records, including Constitutional Convention debates and the Federalist Papers, clearly indicate that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to guard against t he tyranny that the Framers of the Constitution feared could be perpetrated by any professional armed body of government. The arms, records and ultimate control of the National Guard today lie with the Federal Government, so that it clearly is not the “mi litia” protected from the federal government.

The Supreme Court recently affirmed this virtually unlimited control of the Guard by the federal government in the case of Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990). The Court held that the power of Congr ess over the National Guard is plenary (entire, absolute, unlimited) and such power is not restricted by the Constitution’s Militia Clause. The Second Amendment was not even mentioned by the Court, undoubtedly because it does not serve as a source of powe r for a state to have a National Guard.

In The Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton argued that the army would always be a “select corps of moderate size” and that the “people at large (were) properly armed” to serve as a fundamental check against the standing army, the most dreaded of institutions. James Madison, in The Federalist No. 46, noted that unlike the governments of Europe which were “afraid to trust the people with arms,” the American people would continue under the new Constitution to possess “the advantage of being armed,” and thereby would continually be able to form the militia when needed as a “barrier against the enterprises of despotic ambition.”

A 1990 Supreme Court decision regarding searches and seizures confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, held by “the people”–a term of art employed in the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments referring to all “persons who are part of a national community” (U.S. v. Verdu go-Urquidez, 1990).

The case of U.S. v. Miller (1939) is frequently, though erroneously, cited as the definitive ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is a “collective” right, protecting the right of states to keep a militia rather than the i ndividual right to possess arms. But that was not the issue in Miller, and no such ruling was made; the word “collective” is not used any place in the court’s decision.

While such a decision was sought by the Justice Department, the Court decided o nly that the National Firearms Act of 1934 was constitutional in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The case hinged on the narrow question of whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use, and its ownership by individuals thus protected b y the Second Amendment.

The Court ruled that: “In the absence of (the presentation of) any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relati onship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice–common knowledge, that need not be proven i n court–that this weapon is any part of the military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

Because no evidence or argument was presented except by the federal government, the Court was not made aware that some 30,000 short-barreled shotguns were used as “trench guns” during World War I.

The Supreme Court has ruled on only three other cases relating to the Second Amendment–all during the last half of the nineteenth century. In each of these cases, the Court held that the Second Amendment only restricted actions of the federal government, not of private individuals (U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876) or state governments (Presser v. Illinois, 1886, and Miller v. Texas, 1894). The Court also held, in Presser, that the Firs t Amendment guarantee of freedom of assembly did not apply to the states; and in Miller v. Texas, it held that the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure did not apply to the states, since the Court believed that all the amendm ents comprising the Bill of Rights were limitations solely on the powers of Congress, not upon the powers of the states.

It was not until two generations later that the Court began to rule, through the Fourteenth Amendment, that the First, Fourth, and other provisions of the Bill of Rights limited both Congress and state legislatures. No similar decision concerning the Second Amendment has ever been made in spite of contemporary scholarship proving that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was t o apply all of the rights in the Bill of Rights to the states.12 That research proves that the Fourteenth Amendment was made a part of the Constitution to prevent states from depriving the newly freed slaves of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights , including what the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision referred to as one of the rights of citizens, the right “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

The only significance of the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a challenge to the hand- gun ban imposed by Morton Grove, Illinois, is that the Court will still not rush to apply the Second Amendment to the states. The refusal to hear the case has no legal significance and, indeed, it would have been very unusual for the Court to make a decision involving the U.S. Constitution when the Illinois courts had not yet decided if Morton Grove’s ban conflicted with the state’s constitution.

12 Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1984).

MYTH 9: “A person in a public place with a gun is looking for trouble.”

Gun prohibitionists use this myth to oppose legislative proposals to allow law-abiding citizens to obtain permits to carry concealed firear ms. In spite of this opposition, numerous states have adopted favorable concealed carry laws over the past few years. In each case, anti-gun activists and politicians predicted that allowing law-abiding people to carry firearms would result in more deaths and injuries as people would resort to gunfire to settle minor disputes. Shoot-outs over fender-benders and Wild-West lawlessness were predicted in an effort to stir up public fear of reasonable laws.

This tactic–seeking to frighten people into s upporting desired positions–is employed more and more frequently by gun prohibitionists. Prof. Gary Kleck explains the reasoning thus: “Battered by a decade of research contradicting the central factual premises underlying gun control, advocates have apparently decided to fight more exclusively on an emotional battlefield, where one terrorizes one’s targets into submission rather than honestly persuading them with credible evidence.”13

When the concealed carry laws were passed and put into pract ice, the result was completely different from the hysterical claims of the gun prohibitionists. In Florida, since the concealed carry law was changed in 1987, the homicide rate has dropped 21%, while the national rate has risen 12%. Across the nation, states with favorable concealed carry laws have a 33% lower homicide rate overall and 37% lower robbery rate than states that allow little or no concealed carry.

Gun prohibitionists have also acted to penalize and discourage gun ownership by imposing mandatory prison terms on persons carrying or possessing firearms without a license or permit, a license or permit they have also made impossible or very difficult to obtain. Massachusetts’ Bartley-Fox Law and New York’s Koch-Carey Law are premier exampl es of this “gun control” strategy. Such legislation is detrimental only to peaceful citizens, not to criminals.

By the terms of such a mandatory or increased sentence proposal, the unlicensed carrying of a firearm–no matter how innocent the circum stances–is penalized by a six-to-twelve month jail sentence. It is imposed on otherwise law-abiding citizens although in many areas it is virtually impossible for persons to obtain a carry permit. It is easy to see circumstances in which an otherwise law -abiding person would run afoul of this law: fear of crime, arbitrary denial of authorization, red-tape delay in obtaining official permission to carry a firearm, or misunderstanding of the numerous and vague laws governing the transportation of firearms.

The potential for unknowingly or unwittingly committing a technical violation of a licensing law is enormous. Myriad legal definitions of “carrying” vary from state to state and city to city, including most transportation of firearms–accessible o r not, loaded or not, in a trunk or case. And out-of-state travelers are exceedingly vulnerable because of these various definitions.

One need only examine the first persons arrested under the Massachusetts and New York City “mandatory penalty” law s for proof that such laws are misdirected: an elderly woman passing out religious pamphlets in a dangerous section of Boston and an Ohio truck driver coming to the aid of a woman apparently being kidnapped in New York City.

In New York City–prior to the enactment of the Koch-Carey mandatory sentence for possession law–the bureaucratic logjam in the licensing division, combined with a soaring crime rate, forced law-abiding citizens to obtain guns illegally for self-protection. In effect, citizens admitted that they would rather risk a mandatory penalty for illegally owning a firearm than risk their lives and property at the hands of New York’s violent, uncontrolled criminals. Honest citizens feared the streets more than the courtrooms.

By contrast, the city’s criminal element faces no similar threat of punishment. A report carried in the March 1, 1984, issue of the New York Times says it all: “Conviction on felony charges is rare. Because of plea-bargaining, the vast majority of those arrested on felony charges are tried on lesser, misdemeanor charges.” In one year, according to the Times, there were 106,171 felony arrests in New York City, but only 25,987 cases received felony indictments and only 20,641 resulted in convictions, with impr isonment a rarity. This condition persists, the New York Times reported again on June 23, 1991: in 1990 felony indictments were resolved by plea bargains in over 83% of cases. Only 5.7% of cases ended with a trial verdict, with only 3.8% ending in convict ion. Not surprisingly, with just 3% of the nation’s population, in 1992 New York City accounted for 12% of the nation’s homicides.

In championing New York’s tough Koch-Carey Law, then Mayor Ed Koch said contemptuously of gun owners, “Nice guys who own guns aren’t nice guys.” No such rancor was expressed about the city’s revolving-door criminal justice system where the chances of hardened criminals being arrested on felony charges are one in one hundred. Later, the Police Foundation study of New Yor k’s Koch- Carey Law found that it failed to reduce the number of guns on the street and did not reduce gun use in rape, robbery or assault.

Such legislation invites police to routinely stop and frisk people randomly on the street on suspicion of fi rearms possession. In fact, the Police Foundation has called for the random use of metal detectors on the streets to apprehend people carrying firearms without authorization. In disregarding the constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures, police would be empowered under the Police Foundation’s blueprint for disarmament to “systematically stop a certain percentage of people on the streets… in business neighborhoods and run the detectors by them, just as yo u do at the airport. If the detectors produce some noise then that might establish probable cause for a search.”

While admitting that such “police state” tactics would require “methods… that liberals instinctively dislike,” government researchers James Q. Wilson and Mark H. Moore called for more aggressive police patrolling in public places, saying: “To inhibit the carrying of handguns, the police should become more aggressive in stopping suspicious people and, where they have reasonable grounds for their suspicions, frisking (i.e. patting down) those stopped to obtain guns. Hand-held magnetometers, of the sort used by airport security guards, might make the street frisks easier and less obtrusive. All this can be done without changing the law.” (The Washington Post, April 1, 1981) Note, they said “people,” not criminals.

13 Kleck, “Reasons for Skepticism on the Results from a New Poll on: The Incidence of Gun Violence Among Young People,” The Public Perspective, Sept./Oct. 1993.

MYTH 10: “Gun control reduces crime.”

This is perhaps, the greatest myth that is perpetrated today by national gun ban groups. No empirical study of the effectiveness of gun laws has shown any positive effect on crime. To the dismay of the prohibitionists, such studies have shown a negative effect. That is, in areas having greatest restrictions on private firearms ownership, crime rates are typically higher, because criminals are aware that their intended victims are less likely to have the me ans with which to defend themselves.

If gun laws worked, the proponents of such laws would gleefully cite examples of reduced crime. Instead, they uniformly blame the absence of tougher or wider spread measures for the failures of the laws they 
advocated. Or they cite denials of applications for permission to buy a firearm as evidence the law is doing something beyond preventing honest citizens from being able legally to acquire firearms. They cite Washington, D.C., as a jurisdiction where gun laws are “working.” Yet crime in Washington has risen dramatically since 1976, the year before its handgun ban took effect. Washington, D.C., now has outrageously higher crime rates than any of the states (D.C. 1992 violent crime rate: 2832.8 per 100,000 resi dents; U.S. rate: 757.5), with a homicide rate 8 times the national rate (1992 rate 75.4 per 100,000 for D.C., 9.3 nationally.) No wonder former D.C. Police Chief Maurice Turner said, “What has the gun control law done to keep criminals from gettin g guns? Absolutely nothing… [City residents] ought to have the opportunity to have a handgun.”

Criminals in Washington have no trouble getting either prohibited drugs or prohibited handguns, resulting in a skyrocketing of the city’s murder rate. D.C.’s 1991 homicide rate of 80.6 per 100,000 population was the highest ever recorded by an American big city, and marked a 200% rise in homicide since banning handguns, while the nation’s homicide rate rose just 11%. Since 1991, the homicide rate has remained near 75 per 100,000, while the national rate hovers around 9-10.

Clearly, criminals do not bother with the niceties of obeying laws–for a criminal is, by definition, someone who disobeys laws. Those who enforce the law agree.

In addition, restrictive gun laws create a “Catch-22” for victims of violent crime. Under court decisions, the police have no legal obligation to protect any particular individual. This concept has been tested numerous times including cases as recent as 1993. In each case the courts have ruled that the police are responsible for protecting society as a whole, not any individual. This means that under restrictive gun laws, people may be unable to protect themselves or their family from violent criminals.

T he evidence that restrictive gun laws create scofflaws is evident to anyone willing to look. In New York City, there are only about 70,000 legally-owned handguns, yet survey research suggests that there are at least 750,000 handguns in the city, mostly in the hands of otherwise law-abiding citizens. In Chicago, a recent mandatory registration law has resulted in compliance by only a fraction of those who had previously registered their guns. The rate of compliance with the registration requirement of Cali fornia’s and New Jersey’s semi- automatic bans have been very low. The same massive noncompliance–not by criminals, whom no one expects will comply, but by people fearful of repression–is evident wherever stringent gun laws are enacted.

FACTS WE CAN ALL LIVE WITH

Laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. After adopting a mandatory penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime in 1975, Virginia’s murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 1 1% in 15 years. South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990 with a similar law. Other impressive declines were recorded in other states using mandatory penalties, such as Florida (homicide rate down 33% in 17 years), Delaware ( homicide rate down 33% in 19 years), Montana (down 42% 1976-1992) and New Hampshire (homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992).

The solution to violent crime lies in the promise, not the mere threat, of swift, certain punishment.

Our challenge: To reform and strengthen our federal and state criminal justice systems. We must bring about a sharp reversal in the trend toward undue leniency and “revolving door justice.” We must insist upon speedier trials and upon punishments which are commensurate with crimes. Rehabilitation should be tempered with a realization that not all can be rehabilitated, and that prisons cost society less than the crime of active predatory criminals. NRA is meeting that challenge with its CrimeStrike division, establish ed to advance real solutions to the crime problem while protecting the rights of all honest citizens. Working in states across the nation, Crime Strike has worked for passage of “truth in sentencing laws” which require that criminals actually serve at leas t 85% of time sentenced, “Victim’s Bill of Rights” constitutional amendments, and “Three Strikes You’re Out” laws. The job ahead will not be an easy one . The longer “gun control” advocates distract the nation from this task by embracing that single siren song, the longer it will take and the more difficult our job will be. Beginning is the hardest step, and the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action has taken it.

Join the NRA. Support ILA. Work with us. We need your help.


FINAL WORDS FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS ON THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people…. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them…. ” –George Mason

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ” –Thomas Jefferson

“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion . . . in private self-defense. ” –John Adams

“The Constitution s hall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. ” –Samuel Adams

” . . arms discourage and keep invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. … Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived of the use of them. ” –Thomas Paine

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…[where] the government s are afraid to trust the people with arms.” –James Madison

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms…To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike…how to use them.” –Richard Henry Lee

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” –Amendment II, Constitution of the United States


Copyright October 1994, NRA Institute for Legislative Action. This is the electronic version of the “10 Myths of Gun Control” brochure distributed by NRA. To obtain paper copies of this brochure, please call NRA Grassroots at 800/392-8683.

A GUN used in a 2002 murder was found in the hands of criminals 10 years after it was seized by police and supposedly destroyed

Click here to view the original post.
More Police Corruption, & the government blames law abiding Australian gun owners!!!

Owen Guns Newsletter. Australia.

Click here to view the original post.
Has Minister of Police Rene Hidding, been misinformed, is he a power mad anti gunner, or does he have the intellect of an amoeba ?

Thoughts For The Week.
Action Needed.
The old ‘news’, but it was good news, was that 25% of the 15 million voters at the Federal election did not vote for the major Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dummer parties and instead voted for Independents and small (more independent) parties. Two million licensed shooters 14% of the voting population helped to make that difference.

The new ‘news’, which is bad news is that we now face the greatest threat to our shooting, collecting, hunting, competition, sport and way of life since John Howard used a media knee jerk reaction to impose his un-informed Gun laws.

Thank goodness, the good old news has placed our oligarchy (lib lab and Green) in its weakest position in forty years, for the first time we have a say. They are weak and we are strong.

The latest news this week was,
“The ban on lever-action shotguns with a magazine capacity greater than five rounds was due to expire on August 7, but Justice Minister Michael Keenan said on Friday it would be extended until a review of the National Firearms Agreement is completed and the agreed outcomes put in place. The review of the agreement is due to be considered by commonwealth, state and territory ministers later this year.” AAP.

The worst News.
A Freedom Of Information request was denied by Stephen Bouwhuis, Assistant Secretary at the Attorney-General’s Department from Dr Samara McPhedran, (Senior Research Fellow at Griffith University’s Violence Research and Prevention Program,) who submitted a FOI in March 2016 to access the documents mentioned in a News.com.au article that the government has been circulating since November 2015.
Mr Bouwhuis confirmed the document existed, however refused to disclose it. He said in a letter to McPhedran,

“I do not consider that it would be in the public interest to disclose this document”.
“The information contained in the document was communicated to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department by or on behalf of state or territory governments on a confidential basis, for the purposes of discussions about the proposed agreement,”

The Dangerous Document.
Well it seem the cat is out of the bag and the dangerous document is from the Tasmanian Police Minister, who is either a genuine certifiable nit wit, or a cold calculating power hungry potentate. The Tasmanian Minister of Police Rene Hidding, MP said,.

This is WHY flintlock pistols need to be controlled.

Click here to view the original post.

This is why flintlock pistols need to be controlled, to stop criminals & people like Man Monis from purchasing illegal pump action shotguns & cutting them down like this:

Makes sense doesn’t it???!!!

Australian Gun Owners Fail To Support Each Other!!!

Click here to view the original post.



Well I guess all you gun owners better go out & purchase a bow, because if we can not be bothered to support each other in fighting gun control then we ARE GOING TO LOSE OUR GUNS!
I posted this petition about a month or so ago, & last time I looked, all I had was 262 signatures!!! 262; how many gun owners are there in Australia?
I advertised this petition on gun forums on Facebook, & on popular media outlets on the net, & 262 signatures is all I got. If this is any indication of how much we care about keeping our guns, then we are already lost. Oh but I forgot, SHE’LL BE RIGHT MATE!
https://www.change.org/p/members-of-the-legislative-assembly-of-new-south-wales-fair-and-sensible-firearms-legislation-for-muzzle-loader-users?recruiter=29128190&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

He Believes In Conspiracies, So Police Confiscated All Of His Guns

Click here to view the original post.
He Believes In Conspiracies, So Police Confiscated All Of His Guns

Image source: Tumblr

 

Ralph Gilbertsen has no criminal record and he owns a state gun permit, yet police came to his home without a warrant and confiscated his three pistols.

Officers apparently took Gilbertsen’s weapons because he believes in UFOs, Bigfoot and conspiracy theories.

“I’m confident our officers seized the weapons with the best intention,” Lieutenant Mike Flaherty of the Richfield, Minnesota, police told The Minneapolis Star Tribune. “It was a mental health issue, and I think the cops responded appropriately. The process is being followed. If the court rules that we have to return his weapons, then we will return them.”

Police took Gilbertsen’s three handguns at the request of the Hennepin Community Outreach for Psychiatric Emergencies (COPE). The managers of Gilbertsen’s apartment building called COPE after he sent them a letter saying CIA agents were watching him.

Learn New Fool-Proof Ways To Hide Your Guns?

Significantly, no psychologist or medical professional examined Gilbertsen prior to the weapons being taken last year. Gilbertsen, 74, has been forced to retain an attorney and go to court to get his own guns back. His plight was detailed in a Star Tribune feature story this month. Police took a .40-caliber pistol, a Smith & Wesson .357 magnum and an RG .22 revolver. Gilbertsen’s psychiatrist wrote a letter saying the man poses no threat.

Gilbertsen calls himself a patriot and Christian who has handled guns his entire life, the Star Tribune reported.

“He’s what some people would say is a conspiracy theorist,” Paul Baertschi, Gilbertsen’s attorney, told the newspaper. “But really, the police acted unilaterally in deciding that a person who has these beliefs can’t be trusted with a gun. And so they just took them, without a warrant.”

Flaherty defended the police department’s actions.

He Believes In Conspiracies, So Police Confiscated All Of His Guns

Image source: Smith and Wesson .357

“The street cops nowadays have to be a psychologist,” Flaherty said. “People don’t wear nameplates saying ‘paranoid schizophrenic.’ So the police have to go in there and make judgment calls.”

Gilbertsen said he deserves his guns back.

“A lot of people believe these things, but they don’t want to talk about it,” Gilbertsen said. “I could see people being skeptical if I was saying something really outlandish, like space aliens with big heads were visiting me every night. But nobody can believe the CIA is squeaky clean.”

Vicious New Hand-Held Self-Defense Tool Turns Lethal In Seconds!

Gilbertsen “is an able-bodied senior citizen who lacks the physical strength to defend himself from an attack and has the constitutional right under the Second Amendment to have a weapon for personal protection,” Baertschi wrote in a court document. “The police have no right to confiscate his weapons based on the speculative worries of anyone.”

Gun Confiscation on the Rise

The use of suspicion of mental illness as a pretext for gun confiscation is on the rise. A typical example is a new California law that allows judges to order confiscation of weapons without giving gun owners a chance to appeal, as Off The Grid News previously reported.

“With as little as a misunderstood Facebook post, your gun rights could be STRIPPED AWAY and your LIFE TURNED UPSIDE DOWN,” a petition on the website of the Firearms Policy Coalition, a gun rights group, states.

“In other words, a judge could issue the order without ever hearing from the person in question, if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is a threat based on accounts from the family and police,” a Firearms Policy Coalition press release states.

Do you believe this man deserves his guns back? Share your thoughts in the section below:

Pump Shotguns Have One BIG Advantage Over Other Shotguns. Read More Here.

Never take for granted the freedoms we enjoy today!

Click here to view the original post.


Rather a strange title for us in Australia, as we have already lost so many of our freedoms. Let’s make sure we do not lose any more human rights! 

Never take for granted the freedoms we enjoy today! https://ww…
Posted by Gabby Franco on Wednesday, 2 March 2016

PETITION: The right to carry firearms should be in place in open society. Australia.

Click here to view the original post.

Thoughts For The Week By Ron Owen Of Owen Guns Australia.

Click here to view the original post.
Thoughts For The Week.
Ammunition To Send To Those Annoying Illogical Anti’s.
This is very well put, it expresses perfectly what I have wanted to write for more than 30 years. Please pass it about. It was originally written by Marko Kloos in March 23, 2007and published on the Munchkin Wrangler website. In 2009, it was published and wrongly ascribed to a Maj. L. Caudill (ret) who may not even exist.

The Gun is Civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via negotiation, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, a paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a car load of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society.

Don’t Get Distracted From The Real Problems By BULLSHIT !!!

Click here to view the original post.

THIS WHAT PROPAGANDA MEDIA SOUND LIKE WHEN THEY TRYING TO DISTRACT YOU FROM REAL NEWS

Posted by Yacub Majeed on Thursday, 14 August 2014

Something To Think About. What If By Ron Owen Of Owen Guns Australia.

Click here to view the original post.
Do we work for Parliament, or does Parliament work for us?
Who is the slave and who is the Master?
Questions to Provoke Thought and Action.
Personal liberty is the birthright of all persons and our Constitutional documents recognize that liberty is personal and cannot be sacrificed by a majority vote of representatives, but only by individual consent? What would change if powers  given in our Constitutional documents no longer limited parliament but were actually used as a justification to extend parliamentary authority over every realm of human life? What if our Monarchs, first Minister in Australia, Prime Minister Turnbull made himself a Monarch? What if the Prime Minster assumed that everything he did was legal just because he has the numbers in the House of Parliament? What if he could interrupt your regularly scheduled radio and TV programming for a special message from him? What if he could declare war on his own? What if he could read your emails and your texts without a search warrant? What if the violation of the right to privacy is a gateway to all other government violations of personal liberty? What if the High Courts, Justices no longer looked to the Constitutional documents to determine the authority of a law, but rather simply to what other Justice’s who preceded them thought about it? What if the rights and principles guaranteed in the Constitutional documents were so ignored that our grandparents would think they were living in the old Soviet Union? What if the States were mere provinces of a totally nationalized and fully centralized government. What if the Constitution was amended stealthfully; not by Constitutional amendments dully ratified by the people in a referenda but by the constant and persistent expansion of the Government’s role in our lives? What if our parliaments decided that its own powers were above the Constitution? What if the Constitutional document were no longer the Supreme Law of the Land? What if you believed that our Constitutional documents represented the moral principles of our forefathers who valued our rights and freedoms at a higher in price than the parliament powers to interfere with them? What if those who wrote the Constitution believed that personal liberty is the default position and parliament power the exception? What if the Constitution means that our rights should be maximum and governments control minimum? What if the greatest right protected by the Constitution is the right to be left alone, the right to be oneself, the right to answer only to one’s own free will? What if our parliament is essentially the contradiction of that liberty?

What if you needed a license from the government to speak, to assemble or to protest against the government? What if the government didn’t like what you planned to say and so it didn’t give you the license? What if the right of law abiding firearm owners to defend their families and homes, their property only applied to government employees! What if parliament considered the police an adequate dispenser of justice and removed your recourse to a Trial by Jury and the Rule of Law? What if the Police looked and acted like troops and you couldn’t distinguish the military from the police?

PETITION. Stop the hate towards a minority group.

Click here to view the original post.