To answer your original question, in part, it's first necessary to say that different courts will reach different conclusions on basically the same evidence. In my opinion, it's because courts, liberal or conservative, generally tend toward a decision that fits what they want to happen, so they bend their "reasoning" to fit the result, rather than using their reasoning to reach a result. Basically, they start with the result and backwards engineer their way to the facts.
So you'll see something like the 9th Circuit reaching a decision in a gun case and basing its rationale on a "collective rights" reading of the 2A, and the 5th Circuit reaching a decision in a gun case and basing its rationale on an "individual rights" reading of the 2A.
Which means if you come over here, you need to do some research, because there can be significant differences between individual states. For me, a good starting point is the Brady Campaign's grading of states. Any state with a grade of F, D, or C merits consideration; any state with a grade of A or B if out of consideration.
Anyway, good luck. It's a shame you're thinking of leaving Australia. I spent a few days in Sydney once and loved it. But that was about 15 years ago.
So you'll see something like the 9th Circuit reaching a decision in a gun case and basing its rationale on a "collective rights" reading of the 2A, and the 5th Circuit reaching a decision in a gun case and basing its rationale on an "individual rights" reading of the 2A.
Which means if you come over here, you need to do some research, because there can be significant differences between individual states. For me, a good starting point is the Brady Campaign's grading of states. Any state with a grade of F, D, or C merits consideration; any state with a grade of A or B if out of consideration.
Anyway, good luck. It's a shame you're thinking of leaving Australia. I spent a few days in Sydney once and loved it. But that was about 15 years ago.