Knives now being banned in Oz

D

Dennis Olson

New member
Just a short time ago what separated slaves from freemen was the legal right to protect your life and the life of your loved ones. Slaves have no rights. They can be killed without asking. They cannot defend themselves, their women or children, or men.

Why would a modern Western government be so obsessed with completely disarming their civilian population (this ban also includes sling shots for Heaven's sake!)

Because they know something is coming. Something so horrible that massive civil rebellion is assured.

Contemplate the following article. In Politics, nothing happens without a reason.

New Laws On Weapons Hold Harsh Penalties

As of Thursday the 31st of November, 2000, the advancement of weapons restriction in Australia has increased. The weapons ban currently in force in Australia includes all fully and semi automatic firearms, pump action rifles, all hand held firearms, including bb guns and replicas. However, the South Australian Government has now added to the Federal Governments ban on weapons. The new weapons ban law now includes knives, swords, knuckle busters, hand held crossbows, martial arts weapons and more. Exceptions however do exist for ceremonial use or training inside a club. The penalty for being in possesion of these weapons is a $10,000 fine or 2 years imprisonment or both. This is a frightening prospect when considering the right to defend oneself against an intruder or defending ones family against unconstitutional government. The intruduction of these new laws in South Australia cause more concern when compared with the new Federal laws introduced in September 2000.

The New Federal laws allow the intervention of Federal Troops to quell civil disturbances. The Govenor General can order Federal troops in to quell a civil disturbance (ie. protests like that which have happened in Seattle at the WTO Forum) even if the use of troops is not requested by an individual state government. The frightening thing here is the scenario that if troops are called in and the state does not want them it could result in a standoff between federal troops and state police. This exact scenario was the concern of the Australian Federal Police Association spokesman, who openly oppossed the new law.

On their individual merit such laws might not seem much to be concerned about - but when you look at the larger picture and these new laws that disarm their citizenry it is a very frightening and compeling picture.

Australia and New Zealend, in the past, have been the testing grounds for NWO policy - so if it is happening here it will come to a country near you soon. With these new laws being brought in in Australia soon its citizens will only be left to defend themselves against totalitarians with nothing but pitch forks. Huh - that is if they are not illegal by then too.

(no link yet. Hope to have it soon.)
 
Bloody hell...Slingshots???

Do they define 'knives' or just leave it open? What's next on the ban list? Nail files?

What do our Down Under members have to say about this?

LawDog
 
I'm a Kiwi not an Ozzie

But, Oz gun control laws are now spreading to everything even remotely "martial", even body armour [as Israeli Olympic security found out] is banned.

IMO the Oz gun ban was such a complete and expensive failure the politicians and bureaucrats now have to keep pushing this failed policy. Hoping that the next catergory of "weapons" that they ban, will cause a major drop in crime levels. Otherwise there whole, "get rid of the evil guns and crime will disappear" spastic weenie mentality will be shown up for the dismal failure that it is.

Just watch, bolt action hunting rifles will be next.

A primary problem in both Oz and NZ is that there is no independent constitutional authority to oversee the law making body [parliment], just the remmants of our past colonial masters i.e. the Queens unelected rep, the Governor General:(.

Viv La Revolution, only a matter of time before we become a down under Pacfic Republic. :D
 
Pretty soon they'll outlaw rocks. And won't it be fun to watch them try to round up all the rocks in Oz?

Huh, on second thought... they'd probably use convicts to do it, the ones convicted of weapons offenses.

pax

The usual road to slavery is that first they take away your guns, then they take away your property, then last of all they tell you to shut up and say you are enjoying it. -- James A. Donald
 
Until I see a link to the news source, I think I'll reserve judgement on this...As of Thursday the 31st of November, 2000,....

Either a major typo or....
 
I think someone typed this in by hand (because they don't know how to cut/paste). Expect typos. And I asked them for the link, but haven't been back to see if it was posted.
 
Not sure if it works this way in former Crown colonies, too...

...but, IMHO, the Achilles' heel of the British parliamentary system is the "Winner-take-all" setup that it's devolved into. The last barrier (and a flimsy one it was) for one-party strangleholds in the UK fell with the end of hereditary membership in the House of Lords. Now, granted, hereditary political office seems ridiculously quaint here on the threshold of the third millenium anno domini, but bear with me for a second, here.

In the UK, the party holding the majority of seats in the House of Commons gets to select the PM; most assuredly they will do it from among the ideologically faithful. With the monarch having been reduced to a tourist attraction; the world's most well-to-do welfare recipient, if you will, and a toothless judiciary with no powers of review, the only curb on the party which controls both the lower house of Parliament and the Prime Minister's office has long been the House of Lords. Despite being equipped only with a mild and easily-overridden temporary veto power, they could counterbalance the occasional overreaching of the House of Commons by using their temporary veto loudly enough. Since they were beholden to none and members for life, they weren't afraid to do it, either. Now, however, that's changed; new Lords will take their places every year as age thins their ranks. How does one get made a Lord? Well, the standard method is to be nominated by (you guessed it) the Prime Minister and then rubber-stamped by the Monarch. So we now have a system in which the (to translate this into Americanese) majority party in the House of Representatives gets to pick the President, who in turn, gets to nominate whomever he pleases (Sir Elton John, anyone?) as Senators-for-Life. I don't know about you, but that very concept gives me the creeps... The possibilities for rampant misuse by an activist-minded party from either wing of the political spectrum stagger the imagination. Can you see a pre-'94 Congress affirming Clinton as Prez, who then goes on to elevate to Senators-for-life Hillary, Rosie, Lani Guinier, Nathan Lane, Jesse Jackson, etc.? Eek... :eek: :barf:
 
I recall seeing this info on an Australian State Police site...got a link from somewhere on my pages...doesn't anyone know where? Too late at night to bother look...
 
Guess that means NO more steak for the sheep out there, kinda hard to eat without a knife!

If it does ban "Knives" then everyone that eats can be locked up, nice huh?
 
Sticks and stones would be more or less as effective as the banned items. I presume they will ban sticks and stones next? Or, that being impractical, perhaps they will ban hands. That would do the trick!
 
Nearly nissed this one.

The problem is that Australian States legislate separately; hence, the legislation is not necessarily identical across the country. Additionally, not all States, post their legislation on the Net.

Here are a couple of representative articles:

From South Australia:

New blitz on lethal weapons
by Peter Michael
22 Oct 00
South Australians will be forced to surrender a broad range of lethal weapons, or face hefty fines or jail, under a tough new crackdown on street violence.
Weapons to be outlawed will include combat knives, knuckledusters, pistol crossbows, ninja claws and tear gas.

A brief amnesty will be granted to owners of prohibited weapons under the Statewide handback, due to be officially announced next month.

According to highly-sensitive details leaked to the Sunday Mail, the new laws are expected to be effective from the end of the year.

Premier John Olsen, in Hong Kong, yesterday refused to elaborate on the radical laws.

But he confirmed the State Government had been working with key stakeholders to toughen up legislation dealing with prohibited weapons.

He said the new laws would send a strong message that carrying offensive weapons was "absolutely unacceptable".

"There is a real and genuine concern about the carrying of weapons by both the police and our community," he said.

"There is no excuse why people should be carrying these types of lethal weapons in public. These new laws will give certainty to our police officers that the possession of these weapons without legitimate reason is against the law."

An intensive public education campaign will begin in November, outlining the details of the moratorium and the new laws.

Police will also undergo special training to help cope with their implementation. It is understood owners will have to surrender all weapons on the prohibited list or face maximum fines of $10,000 or two years' jail.

The Government is shortly due to finalise the details of the moratorium, including the start date, the length, and how the amnesty will work. However, it is understood police stations will be the focal point for the handback.

For the first time in South Australia, the new laws will create a category of prohibited weapons to clearly outlaw weapons designed to kill or injure.

Only limited exemptions will be offered and are likely to include police, collectors and museum operators.

There will be three categories of weapons laws.

The new category of prohibited weapons will include an outright ban on the manufacture, dealing and possession of any prohibited weapons unless exempt.

The other new category includes dangerous articles such as bayonet, blowguns and capsicum spray, with a ban on selling, buying or possession without lawful excuse.

The existing category is the offensive weapons law, where it is illegal to carry swords, knives or clubs in a threatening way.
Click to expand...

www.sundaymail.com.au/common/story_page/0,4511,1334632%5E2746,00.html

And selected sections from Victoria (only available as a .pdf online):

The Control of Weapons (Amendment) Act 2000 gives effect to the Government's legislative election commitments on weapons. Amongst other things, the Act will rename "Prescribed Weapons" as "Prohibited Weapons", and rename "Regulated Weapons" as "Controlled Weapons". The Act divides non-firearm
weapons into three basic categories:

* Prohibited weapons - these are weapons which are considered totally inappropriate for general possession or use because of their exclusively offensive nature (eg. flick knives, daggers, knuckle-dusters and blow guns).
The import, manufacture, sale, possession, carriage and use of prescribed weapons is prohibited by the Act. Persons can only have access to such weapons if a person has been specifically exempted for particular purposes and under special conditions by the Governor in Council in the case of classes of persons, or, the Chief Commissioner of Police in the case of individuals.

* Controlled weapons - these are weapons that can be used for legitimate purposes but which need to be regulated because of the danger they pose if misused (eg. spear guns, some martial arts equipment, knives). Any person may possess, carry and use controlled weapons, provided they have a "lawful excuse". "Lawful excuse" includes legitimate recreational, sporting,
collection or employment activities, but does not include self-defence.

* Dangerous articles - These are any other articles which are adapted or carried for use as a weapon (eg. baseball bats). Like regulated weapons, any person can possess, carry and use dangerous articles, provided they have a "lawful excuse".

Although not a weapon per se, body armour is also regulated by the Act. The Act defines prohibited weapons and controlled weapons as those weapons
prescribed to be prohibited and controlled weapons respectively by the Regulations. Body armour is, in part, also defined through Regulations made under the Act. It is one of the main functions of the proposed Regulations to proscribe those weapons to provide for greater safety and security for all Victorians.

3.1.7 Make Certain Articles Designed to be Worn on the Hands and Cause Injury Prohibited Weapons
The proposed Regulations will make the following categories of articles designed to be worn on the hands and used as a weapon prohibited weapons:

* Knuckle-duster;
* Weighted glove; and
* Studded glove.

Each of these weapons is created for a purely offensive purpose. To fall within the definition of these articles in the proposed Regulations, these weapons must be designed to inflict more damage than would the hand or fist if not wearing the weapon. The principal characteristic of each of these weapons is that they are designed to increase the force or injury from a blow or strike. The Australasian Police Ministers' Council has identified these weapons as weapons that should be prohibited throughout Australia and has agreed to prohibit them, subject to public consultation.

3.1.8 Make Certain Hand-Held Striking Devices Prohibited Weapons
The proposed Regulations will make the following categories of hand-held striking devices prohibited weapons:
* Mace;
* Flail;
* Whips with metal lashes; and
* Cat o'nine tails with knotted lashes.

These weapons are designed for offensive purposes. The definition of mace does not include a mace that is designed for a ceremonial purpose.

3.2.1 Make crossbows Controlled Weapons
Crossbows have a number of established legitimate uses, such as target-shooting, animal-tagging and hunting. Whilst a crossbow with a pistol grip that is capable of being discharged with one hand is generally
concealable, a full sized crossbow is not generally concealable and as such does not pose the same risks as its smaller counterpart. However, a crossbow
is capable of doing a great deal of damage if it is misused. The proposed Regulations will make crossbows, other than those discussed at 3.1.3,
controlled weapons. This means that persons will still be allowed to possess crossbows, provided their possession is consistent with a lawful excuse,
such as target-shooting or animal-tagging. Controlling crossbows will reduce risks to public safety by ensuring that these weapons are only used for
purposes consistent with a 'lawful excuse', and will reduce the risks of both crime and injury as a result of the controlled availability of such weapons.

3.2.3 Making Batons or Cudgels Controlled Weapons

Whilst batons and cudgels have established legitimate uses, such as their inclusion in a legitimate collection, they are capable of inflicting harm. Their danger, in the sense of surprise attacks, is increased by the fact
that they are generally capable of being concealed on a person. The proposed Regulations will make batons or cudgels controlled weapons. This means that persons will still be allowed to possess batons or cudgels, provided their possession is consistent with a lawful excuse, such as as a part of a legitimate collection.

3.2.5 Make Swords and Bayonets Controlled Weapons
The proposed Regulations draw a distinction between daggers, swords and bayonets. Swords and bayonets are not considered prohibited weapons, as daggers are, because they are commonly held within the community for a range of legitimate occupational, collection and ceremonial purposes, and because
they are not as readily concealable as daggers. The proposed Regulations will make swords and bayonets controlled weapons. This means that persons
will still be allowed to possess swords and bayonets, provided their possession is consistent with a lawful excuse, such as for occupational or ceremonial purposes.

3.3 Further Define Body Armour
In the past there has been some confusion as to exactly which items are captured by the prohibition against body armour. Arguably, the definition
that appeared in the Act could be interpreted broadly to include things such as protective clothing designed to protect the rider of a motorcycle. The Control of Weapons (Amendment) Act 2000 amends this definition to include only those items specifically prescribed by the proposed regulations. The
definition provided by the proposed regulations narrowly construes what is captured by the prohibition against body armour to prescribe only anti-ballistic body armour. Prescribing these garments reflects the
situation that has developed over time whereby a general exemption from the Governor in Council has narrowed the formerly broad and potentially
ambiguous statutory definition of body armour so that only anti-ballistic body armour is included in the prohibition.

The proposed Regulations will improve the efficiency of the Act by bringing the definition of body armour within the regulations, rather than leaving it to a general exemption from a much broader definition.
Click to expand...

http://www.justice.vic.gov.au (Use site search for "prohibited weapons" -- .pdf only)

If I find anything else (a bit more succinct!!) I'll post it.

B
 
Here's Western Australia in a nutshell. IMHO, what is as important as the legislation is the moralising, sanctimonious, know-it-all tone of the writing:

Western Australia is leading Australia in the introduction of tough new laws to control the possession and use of a variety of potentially deadly weapons.

The Weapons Act 1999 was proclaimed as a new State law after passing through both houses of State Parliament in September, 1999.

The new law, which will replace Section 65 (4A) of the Police Act 1892 on 1 March, 2000, deals with the carriage and possession of non-firearm weapons in the community. It divides these into three distinct categories - prohibited weapons, controlled weapons and other articles that are intended to be used as weapons.

Prohibited weapons will include butterfly knives, catapults, electric shock or electromagnetic weapons, blow pipes, flick knives, knuckle dusters, pistol crossbows and spray weapons (other than capsicum or pepper sprays) capable of causing injury.

Under the new laws, it will be illegal to bring or send into Western Australia, or to possess, purchase, sell, supply or manufacture prohibited weapons.

Flagging the changes at a media conference in September 1999, Police Minister Kevin Prince said, "Most of these weapons have been prohibited imports into Australia for many years."

"It will also be illegal to carry or possess without a lawful excuse a controlled weapon, which includes a baton flail (nunchaku), crossbow, spear gun or sword. A lawful excuse does not include self-defence.

"Controlled weapons are mainly those which are articles designed as weapons but used in lawful sports and activities such as martial arts.

"Also included are some weapons that are prohibited in most of Australia but which the Government believes are appropriate for possession in certain circumstances in WA.

"While pepper spray is included as a controlled weapon, the legislation provides that this may be carried or possessed where a person has reasonable grounds to believe that it will be required for self-defence."

In addition to the provisions relating to prohibited and controlled weapons, under these new laws it will be illegal to carry any implement which is intended to be used as a weapon against another person.

"This includes items such as cricket bats, golf clubs, knives and hardware tools," Mr Prince said.

"Any person apprehended carrying a controlled weapon or any other article which police suspect is intended to be used as a weapon must provide a lawful excuse or reasonable grounds for that possession."

Mr Prince said the Act provided for the possession of items, not including prohibited or controlled weapons, such as cricket bats, torches and other household articles for defensive purposes in a person's dwelling or business premises.

 "The Act also provides increased police powers to search persons suspected of committing an offence or carrying a weapon relating to an offence and seize weapons without a warrant," he said.

"The Weapons Act is a vital cog in the State Government's crackdown on crime under the SaferWA program."

The maximum penalty under the new Act for bringing or sending a prohibited weapon into WA, carrying or possessing a prohibited weapon, purchasing, selling, supplying or manufacturing a prohibited weapon is an $8,000 fine or two years' imprisonment.

A person convicted of carrying or possessing a controlled weapon without a lawful excuse faces a $4,000 fine or 12 months' imprisonment, as does a person convicted of carrying any other weapon with the intention of using it to injure or disable or cause fear.

Further information on the Weapons Act is available by contacting Constable Vicki WRAY-WATTS at the Police Firerarms Branch on 9223 7024.
Click to expand...

http://www.wapol.gov.au/newsflash/law.html

B
 
Ye Gods. They'll be banning martial artists next.

Got a black belt in Tae Kwon Do? That'll be five years in prison. Taijitsu? 10 years. :rolleyes:

LawDog
 
by the way, what is our current status here in the US regarding body armor? I live in Iowa and I have a class IV vest, as far as I know it's not illegal.. especially considering I go shooting with cops all the time and talk to them about it on occasion..

That's one thing we should NEVER let them take from us. We've compromised enough stuff, we can't compromise that too..

So what are the current laws regarding it?
 
LawDog

For what it's worth, being trained in the martial arts WILL be held against you in court if you are involved in a confrontation.

Even if you are not charged, your qualifications may (and probably will) be raised as mitigation. A recent court case where a "martial arts exponent" was brain-damaged as a result of being hit across the head with a star picket (ummm ... don't know what you call them -- they're "three-cornered" steel fenceposts, used for stringing wire fences) resulted in the accused having their prison sentences reduced because the defendant was (a) "big and scary" and (b) trained in the martial arts.

He didn't get a chance to even use his training -- he was wearing just a bath towel, having come straight out of the shower after his wife saw three youths jumping up and down on the roof and bonnet (hood) of their car.

You go figure.

Note too in the above posts the exclusions of owning anything for "self-defence". Pretty sad state of affairs. But these amendments go through parliament without anyone knowing in advance. By the time we do hear, it's all over.

B
 
Bruce, that is truly awful.

It's making me want to cancel my tickets to visit in a couple of months.

I'm not kidding.


Battler.
 
The moral of the story here is our/their illustrious leaders are such pansies and are so terrified their precious buttocks could be harmed that anything at all in the hands of their victims/subjects must be removed so they can rob, steal and molest in safety.
 
This discussion reminded me of a "Li'l Abner" comic strip of many years ago. I don't recall the story, but one line for some reason stuck in my memory, uttered by a police officer to another character: "Bare hand on forbidden weapon list. Please put in pocket."

Hmmm...if "body armor" is now forbidden, how long before locks on your doors are regulated? Maybe a strong door will be considered an "illegal fortification" and you'll be awakened to the sound of jackboots . . .
 
Bruce,

People in Australia don't have any knowledge of the bills being considered by the Parliament? Just shut up, sit there and take it...we know what's best for you. If so, y'all better get your guns back or buy some from somewhere.
You're going to need them. If that is the true situation then the time for armed revolution is way past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top