Australian Gun Laws

Hey Wildboarz, do you remember when he addressed a group of shooters, brave Johnny wore a flak jacket under his suit? I always thought, what a gutless little bastard he was but later on I thought. "That was a stroke of genius! If he made it look like he needed to wear a bullet proof vest to talk in front of a shooters group, most of the public would assume that shooters were a bunch of murderous psychopaths who couldn't be trusted"

Isn't it incredible how since the laws were enacted, the ordinary shooter has been steadily demonized until we're considered to be the problem, not the criminals with unlicensed firearms? Amazing what can be achieved with propaganda.

I'm interested to hear from WA that the laws appear to have been interpreted and enforced differently. Weren't they supposed to be "uniform"?

By the way. The laws as enacted, without debate, were already drafted and ready to go. The incident at Port Arthur was a convenient vehicle for the Howard Government indeed.
 
Benonymous,

Re: "brave Johnny wore a flak jacket under his suit"

This behavior is called "bigotry" and, if used to infer that shooters are dangerous, supporting and spreading bigotry.

The attitude about shooters rather than criminals being the problem is common to our anti-gunners. They just don't get it that, unlike a footy game, basketball game and such, the shooting venues don't require armed police to check the crowd (though I was told that the Aussie police do stand guard at shooting events) and there is no drunken violence or riot. Bigotry is the rule of the day both here and in Oz.
 
The situation in Australia is darn complex really. I think we have governments which are starting to realise the value of recreational shooters as one of the tools to fight the feral problem, with a game council started up in New South Wales to oversee management of deer populations and work a trial scheme to allow hunting ferals in some reserves.

Here in West Oz, the Dept. of Environment and Conservation has occasionally used rec shooters to assist in culls. The move to legitimise rec shooters as a conservation tool has been slow but is grinding on quietly, all the time pushing the proverbial uphill against both animal rights activists and plain ignorant city folks who would suffer culture shock if they were to spend more than a few days on a farm or in the red dirt country.

Wildboarz is right. Picture a landmass that's somewhere around the size of the U.S. The state of Western Australia occupies somewhere around a third of that landmass. Yep, much, much bigger than Texas. The majority of it is semi-arid-to-desert country. How do we make it pay its way? It's super-rich in minerals.

In Westoz, the so-called wheatbelt extends in a foot-shape in the western corner of the state from a few hundred miles north of the capital, Perth out two-fifty or so miles east, then about four hundred miles south along the state's south coast. It's a small bit of a humungous area. A lot of the rest is given over to sheep and cattle raising but it's mostly semi-arid country, pretty marginal.

But it's ALL feral heaven, including the cropping country! Trouble is, the only dangerous species in all that lot are hogs and maybe if you get close enough, wild dogs. Buffs are dangerous but there aren't many of them in Westoz. Everything else that is actually dangerous is fully protected indigenous wildlife like snakes and crocs.

So there's never been a huge perceived need in city-Joe's mind of the need for widespread ownership of firearms in Australia. And so..the feral problem.
 
Hey USASA, don't give up on it. It's not all bad. We badly need good folks to settle over here. And the fishing in the tropics is world class. At least come for an extended visit.
Once you've GOT your firearms, not a lot of hassles from the Man as long as you don't do anything stoopid.
And it looks like you guys might get at least some of the stuff we put up with in the future anyway. That latest mass shooting won't help.
 
For all the bad laws down here in Aus relating to guns, theres something wonderful to make up for it. Not trying to brag about Aus or anything but if you drive around it you see some really beautiful things and some of the experience are incredible, so you should still think about retireing down here :D
 
Although I wouldn't emigrate to the U.S. I'd just love to spend a lot of time travelling that great country. Not so much the cities, but the stunning countryside and all that goes with it. The Rockies, whew! Montana and the trout fishing. The hunting. All that amazing Civil War history. The Rail Museum in Sacramento. Orgasmic!
All that mindblowing history. America was founded on blood, sweat and tears. So was Oz, but we just don't have quite that vigorous dramatic past. We just didn't see any real war at home until 1942.
You gotta hand it to the Yanks.
 
Australia has always seemed a bit like California to me. One of the most beautiful, stunning places only to be screwed up by the people who live there. This coming from a native Californian. :o
 
Well Stiofan, I guess Oz is like most other places. The average Joe/Jane is a good person just trying to get on with their life. Some are misguided, some wise, some nasty, some just too lazy to see beyond their front gate or beercans, and many who's hearts are basically in the right place.
Interestingly I've got an Aussie mate living and working in Houston with his family. The differences in our cultures that he tells me about are pretty amazing.
For every good thing there is about the States there are some things in the U.S. - well, the southern - way that we Aussies would find a bit alien or oppressive.
Same the world over ay? Good and bad everywhere. But in the civic trauma stakes, Oz fares way better than most places. But like every other western country, it's slowly deteriorating.
 
For every good thing there is about the States there are some things in the U.S. - well, the southern - way that we Aussies would find a bit alien or oppressive.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiousity, what things are you speaking of? I live in the South and I always like to hear different perspectives.
 
Okay, then how does one go about being able to own and compete with handguns in Oz? :confused:

Is it true that the police, as I've heard, monitor competition matches?

We visited to consider emigration in 1987, but I perceive that the society has a sort of boss mentality that would affect simple individual freedoms like gun ownership so that thought has been put on hold. At the time my wife wanted a few thousand miles between her and her family as well, but that has changed. :rolleyes:

It was encouraging to meet the Aussie revolver competitors at the International Revolver Championship in Moro Bay, California, but I am curious as to what they need to go through to be able to compete.

My wife is from the Malabar area, her cousin has a sheep station in the Snowy highlands and the photo on my desk was taken on one of the best days of my life--striding across the paddocks in heavy jacket with my Aussie in-laws and the stock dogs moving the sheep just outside the photo.
 
Handgun competition in Oz...

G'Day Guy,

Okay, then how does one go about being able to own and compete with handguns in Oz?
Click to expand...

A new applicant must submit to a complete police background check.
Having passed that, one must be accepted at a 'recognised' pistol club.
Except for police, military, large property owners, security guards and a few "dangerous business" (like crocodile keepers, for example) exemptions, no other reason to own & shoot a functioning handgun is acceptable. If one
collects handguns, one must apply to the police for a permit to shoot them, usually on a specified date at a specified range location. After a six month 'probation period' with your club, you are permitted to own a handgun. It must be kept in an approved safe and transported only to and from the range, in your home state or with permission and a letter of invitation, to a match in another state. No other transportation is permitted on a target shooting permit. See the various police firearms registry websites here:

http://www.ssaa.org.au/newssaa/securitylegislation/lawindex.htm

Is it true that the police, as I've heard, monitor competition matches?
Click to expand...

Yes, in a roundabout way. In the Northern Territory for example, twelve organised match shoots per year are required to retain an "H" licence and justify one handgun, 14 for two, etc.. Other states require less shoots than the N.T. and also apply a sliding scale to the number of shoots required to justify more than one type of handgun. The club secretary/shoot captain must record the matches, dates and shooter's name and licence number for each shooter and make this list available to police upon demand. In the N.T. a card is also issued by the police which must be produced each year to renew the "H" licence. In the ACT, where I am now, the licence is for five years and no shoot card is separately maintained - the secretary/shoot captain counts the shoots and issues a certificate of completion to renew club membership annually.

We visited to consider emigration in 1987, but I perceive that the society has a sort of boss mentality that would affect simple individual freedoms like gun ownership so that thought has been put on hold. At the time my wife wanted a few thousand miles between her and her family as well, but that has changed.
Click to expand...

Yep on the "boss mentality". And not just with guns. There is an urban elite that is politically omnipotent. The recent bushfires in Victoria provide an example. The Green lobby effectively stopped all clearing of 'native' bush in Victoria. Australian native bush burns like gasoline - rural communities need to have firebreaks and clearance strategies in place. Whole small towns are incinerated during a hot dry spell, the urban elite says: "Why do people insist on living where there is a fire risk.":eek:

There is a very different perception of individual freedom here as compared to the U.S.. I won't credit the conventional wisdom: "Australia began as a convict settlement and never quite got away from the attitude", but certainly the average Aussie accepts/expects more government intervention in his/her life than at least rural/small town Yanks. Perhaps the fact that around 85% of Australians live in or within 100km of a major city has something to do with it.

My wife is from the Malabar area, her cousin has a sheep station in the Snowy highlands and the photo on my desk was taken on one of the best days of my life--striding across the paddocks in heavy jacket with my Aussie in-laws and the stock dogs moving the sheep just outside the photo.
Click to expand...

My wife and I spend as much of every summer as we can up in the Snowies.
Got friends at Jindabyne we stay with. That part of Australia is very much unique - alpine habitat comprises only some 1% of the continent. Australia is an awe-inspiring, diverse, beautiful, amazing place, extremely poorly served by its politicians and political parties. Where isn't?:rolleyes:

As for camel shooting: If you're gonna sell 'em get with it. They're breeding up so fast in the central N.T. and Western Australia that habitat is being severely degraded. Camels will eat whatever is left after cattle and sheep have quit!

A .45/70 with 300 grain JHP at 2,000 fps will drop a camel nicely. As the poster alluded, you gotta catch 'em first.:D
 
I am in Canberra, (A.C.T)

Yup, the gun laws stink here too. It all came about in 1996, when some military guy went to Port Arthur in Tasmania, and shot and killed 33 (mostly Asian) tourists, wearing a blonde wig to resemble a bloke they decided to frame, called Martin Bryant. The wig was found floating off the jetty at Port Arthur, but was unfortunately LOST :barf: The whole thing stinks of conspiricy, if you do a google on "Martin Bryant" or "Port Arthur Massacre" you can read all about it. He (Martin Bryant) was actually on closed circuit tv at a gas station 65 Km away from Port Arthur when the shootings occured, (but that got lost too) and the person that did the shooting did all head and neck shots (Kill shots) there were 3 people injured. Martin Bryant had only ever owned a .175 slug (BB) air rifle. He did not have the skill to shoot anyone let alone 33 head and neck shots in a row. Whoever did it was a professional. Bryant proved that when he returned to the property near Port Arthur after being lured there by the police, and funnily enough, there was an AK47 and 250 rounds of ammo in the homestead. He was surrounded by Police and he fired 250 rounds at the police and their vehicles and didnt hit anything..... nothing. So, how could he have shot 33 dead, and only injure 3? Most civillian massacres would be 33 injured, 3 dead.... not the other way round. The purpose of the setup was to initiate the gun buy back in Australia, which has cost the country Millions of dollars, and has had no impact on gun crime (in fact gun crime had quadrupled).... you see, only law abiding citizens handed in their guns, the criminals must have forgotten to.
In England, they also set up a massacre (Dun Blayne) to get their buyback, it cost the poms 80 million POUNDS, and their handgun crime has increased 5 fold and is still increasing. Their criminals must have forgotten to hand theirs in too?
Guns in responsible hands are perfectly safe, guns in criminal hands will always be totally unsafe. A shame the sheeple cant distinguish between safe sporting shooters and criminals?! :barf::eek::D

I posted a thread the other day outlining our gun laws in canberra, you might like to read this too. It is in the general handgun forum, I called it "Handguns Down Under, an insight" from about 2 days ago

Muzza :D
 
Last edited:
G'day, please keep this thread on topic. That is what the Australian gun laws are, and how it is affecting us now. Not who may or may not by responsible for the Port Arthur shootings.
Thank you.
 
Sorry Skull

I just thought, as someone asked about why our laws are as tuff as they are, that some background on how the Aus Govt, organised the PAM to get their useless gun buyback, so the sheeple would accept the fruitless disarming of the responsible citizens, at majour cost to the seeple themselves, and not loose any votes in the process. My apologies, matey, I thought it was relevent and on topic. :confused:

cheers, Muzza
 
Guy B

No, the police dont monitor competition matches as such. They ask clubs for attendance sheets to make sure shooters are attending their range and shooting their 6 comps for the year (Primary club) and 4 shoots per year (each other club) The SSAA (governing body) here in Canberra wont hand in the iformation (so I have been told) as they believe it is a privacy issue. Sometimes when putting in for a permit to aquire, the registrar will demand a letter from your clubs stating you are conforming to the legislation, If you cant give them the letters of proof, you loose your guns.

The police arent standing behind you, ready to arrest you if you flinch (fortunately) :D
Actually, they have no right to be on or at the range unless called by someone, as the range belongs to the SSAA and is therefore private property.

Muzza
 
Better check that one again, Muzza....

The police arent standing behind you, ready to arrest you if you flinch (fortunately) Actually, they have no right to be on or at the range unless called by someone, as the range belongs to the SSAA and is therefore private property.
Click to expand...

The Australian Federal Police have the right to enter any firing range at any time to ensure compliance. They also have the right to enter any licencee's home if a breach of the weapons laws is suspected.
The term,"private property" has little meaning in the ACT, especially as pertains to firearms licences.
 
Self Defense

Gents,

Since one cannot own a firearm for self defense in Australia I'm interested in opinions on the following:

If your house was being burgled and/or you perceived the intruder to be a threat to your life or the life of your family members what would happen if you shot/killed the intruder?

Has there been a case like this in Australia?

Does the "no firearm for self defense" apply to other weapons such as knives/bows?

I'm originally from South Africa (where violent crime is an epidemic) and my mind boggles at the "logic" that prevents a citizen from arming themselves for self defense.

Cheers
Rath
 
What?? Harm a violent criminal? How uncivilized. What's it getting to in the Colonies?

Seems like we've had threads indicating that hindering criminals is not acceptable with the exception of fisticuffs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top