Australia: More guns going bye bye

S

shooterdownunder

New member
Well apparently banning semi auto and pump shotguns wasn't enough. The federal government is now going to ban the importation of lever action shotguns despite them being allowed by the laws of every state.

Lever actions have been allowed ever since the port arthur incident and there has been no issues in the 19 years since then so I wonder what has suddenly made them so much more dangerous.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ster-tony-abbott/story-fni0cx12-1227456789127
 
Lever-action firearms have been around since 1860. Yet Justice Minister Keenan states,

We know gun technology has updated and we’re doing the work to ensure our laws aren’t outdated.
Click to expand...

Huh. If they move them to Category C, we're going to see a lot of cancelled preorders. Unless I'm mistaken, they can do that without consulting the legislature.

American gun owners could take heed of this the next time a politician tells us they're not "coming for your hunting rifles."
 
A cabal of unelected bureaucrats conspired with anti-gun special interests to determine that 'high-capacity' magazines was the intent of the original law and these would fall under that new definition of intent.

Welcome to gun control. They want them all.
 
Tom Servo said:
American gun owners could take heed of this the next time a politician tells us they're not "coming for your hunting rifles."
Click to expand...

wasnt the lever action originally a military rifle? I thought it was used extensively by the US Calvary after the civil war?
 
Taken to its logical conclusion, muzzle loaders and even longbows are also military weapons. Heck, the Chinese even created repeating box fed crossbows that could fire multiple bolts rapidly, and that was centuries ago.

It sucks to hear about our shooting friends in Australia. It seems like gun rights are the whipping boy used by politicians to satisfy the need to look like they're doing something, and the law abiding people only suffer for it. Far more of these ridiculous laws are put into place than are removed.
 
eck, the Chinese even created repeating box fed crossbows that could fire multiple bolts rapidly, and that was centuries ago
Click to expand...

Well for the most part even single shot crossbows are illegal

Huh. If they move them to Category C, we're going to see a lot of cancelled preorders. Unless I'm mistaken, they can do that without consulting the legislature.
Click to expand...

Under the constitution, property can be seized as long as it's compensated for.

A cabal of unelected bureaucrats
Click to expand...
That's my pet peeve about our political system. We don't vote for the leaders. We vote for a party and they decide who will lead them and thus the country. And once a party is in power, they can switch their leader.
 
Well, we've been hearing the argument that our gun laws should be like those in Australia. In fact, the President himself mentioned it the day after the Charleston shooting. This is relevant to American politics.

The 1996 buyback cost around $300 million USD. The highest estimate I've seen places the number of guns turned in at 640,000. This is actually a very small percentage, and more than half of the guns turned in were rimfire rifles.

The cost of such a thing here? Well, we have ~300 million guns. Let's imagine 10% being bought back. At a rate of $500 (which is the average of the Australian program), you're looking at $15 billion, minimum.

Did it work? It depends on who you ask and how the data is collated. A study I've seen frequently cited [pdf] says no. Others have found slight decreases in the suicide rate with firearms.

"But they haven't had a mass shooting since Port Arthur!" comes the inevitable retort. There was one at Monash University in 2002. Gun-control advocates say it wasn't a mass shooting because only two people were killed, but when they claim we've had 204 mass shootings in this country this year, they sure do count ones in which only two people were killed. Fair is fair.

There was another shooting in South Australia in 2011 that killed two.

That's a small number, right? In 2000, Robert Long set a fire in a hiker's hostel that killed 15 people. In 2009, Brendan Sokaluk set a fire in Churchill that killed 9 people. In 2011, Roger Dean set a fire at a nursing home, killing 11.

Those numbers are still pretty low in comparison to us, right? Sure, but so is their population. At ~23 million, Australia has fewer residents than Texas. It's natural for numbers to be lower.
 
Why should the government do a "buyback"? Just order the guns turned in, and use the armed forces to kill anyone who fails to comply. Simple.

Jim
 
Allowing anti-gun groups to define terms, such as "mass shooting" is a big mistake. "Mass shooting", as defined, is not what the public thinks of when they hear the term. Defning and using a term like "active shooter" in a way that accurately corresponds to public concerns is necessary to win this argument. The hundreds of mass shooting figure points this out clearly.
 
Just order the guns turned in, and use the armed forces to kill anyone who fails to comply. Simple.
Click to expand...
The idea of a buyback is a masterstroke in public relations. Confiscation, not so much.

In the former case, the impression is that nobody is harmed or deprived of anything because they're being paid for the guns. In an atmosphere of grief and outrage, it's an easy concept to sell.

Of course, it really didn't work. Only a fraction of the guns they sought to eliminate were actually turned in. What's more (and we've seen this at local buybacks here), most of the guns actually turned in were cheaper than the value given, and they weren't guns likely to be used in crimes.

The intent is a ban in all but name. The result is a terribly expensive boondoggle that doesn't fix any problems.
 
Kilimanjaro said:
Welcome to gun control. They want them all.
Click to expand...

When I first read that I thought it was funny and then realized how depressing and true it really is... I'm not sure about Australia but I think the worse damage to gun rights or the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. is going to be from the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court can simply make a ruling on a gun related case which imposes some level of gun control nationwide.
 
I don't think it likely that the supreme Court creates nationwide gun control. The worst they can do (and it's still bad) is to uphold a clearly unconstitutional piece of law created by another branch of government
 
dakota.potts said:
I don't think it likely that the supreme Court creates nationwide gun control. The worst they can do (and it's still bad) is to uphold a clearly unconstitutional piece of law created by another branch of government
Click to expand...

What if you have a situation like state "A" sues state "B" for its "lax" gun control laws? The Supreme Court could, among other things, set minimum gun control standards. I really don't know how likely this is but the U.S. Supreme Court barely (5-4) affirmed the individual 2nd Amendment Right in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, so I don't think it is a fantastic stretch of the imagination.
 
What if you have a situation like state "A" sues state "B" for its "lax" gun control laws?
Click to expand...

Isn't this similar to what Nebraska and Kansas are trying to do about Colorado's Marijuana laws?
And Bloomberg tried something similar with his "straw purchase sting" didn't he?
Bloomberg ain't in jail and I haven't heard anything on the other cases in a while.
 
The Court has rendered two decisions recently on gun control, Heller and MacDonald. The language in the decisions leaves the door open for state and local gun bans, registration, all kinds of stuff.

We already have that sweeping gun rights decision from the Court. It says we have the 2nd Amendment, but it can be regulated by law at any level, federal, state, or local, as long as it doesn't unreasonably infringe or deny the right to keep and bear.

So gun and ammo taxes, bans by type, storage requirements, etc., etc., are perfectly OK as long as they fit the SCOTUS requirements. Whatever they are is going to be worked out in the courts for decades, or until another liberal justice is appointed, whichever comes first. Wonder how long that might take?
 
There is a day coming when no one can own guns. During our lifetime? Who knows, I doubt it. They love showing that other country's have effective gun bans in place.

What will happen in our lifetime will probably be California like gun laws.

I see magazine restrictions on the horizon, new awb, registrations and universal background checks. More people being labeled mentally unfit.

The laws will tighten up in Washington state and Oregon first, the rest will go slowly.

Eventually new federal laws will be enacted. This will be done in small increments, and we will comply.
I think someday the 2nd A will go away.
 
Importation has been banned, but their sale is still permitted by each State.

Looking for the silver lining, I'd say it seems like a golden opportunity to set up an arms manufacturer of quality lever action long-guns.
 
"There is a day coming when no one can own guns"

I'm afraid this is the case, only with the addendum "legally." A new shotgun was imported such that it would specifically comport with the existing stringent gun control regs, and when the authorities could not muster a legitimate means to deny its sale, the Prime Minister simply decreed the guns not importable on his own. I am certain that a local company seeking to manufacture the Adler under license would meet some similar arbitrary dictate, one way or the other. There simply is no longer enough representation of gun owners in Australia to defend their rights.

A wise Aussie would be investing heavily in machine tools and knowledge at this time, as I'm afraid ya'll are nearing the event horizon...

TCB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top