Setting the record straight Australian Gun Laws

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nevada did have a many feral donkeys left from miners of over 100 years ago. We were never allowed to hunt the cute and cuddly donkeys as they destroyed the environment. They were rounded up checked up fed penned then " adopted for a pittance by the populace as a substantial cost to the tax payer, into the millions I suspect.

Don't get me started on the feral horses and donkeys. They should either ALL be rounded up and adopted or turned into glue, or there should be a hunting season implemented for them. The "Wild" Horse and Burro act is probably one of the most idiotic, misguided pieces of legislation that isn't related to gun control.
 
Eliphalet

It depends to some extent where you are.

There's rabbits, hares, cats, foxes, wild dogs, pigs and goats, which are pretty widespread. There's six species of deer available in different locations (though the range of some has spread considerably over recent years) as well as ducks and gamebirds (though the ducks and gamebirds are it must be admitted, subject to some restrictions depending on where you are) as well as other pests such as crows, galahs and a few others. Wild horses are a problem in some areas too.

In the outback there's also camels and donkeys in large numbers, and there's buffalo and banteng in the Northern Territory (though the latter aren't in big numbers). In some states you can also add certain species of wallaby and/or kangaroo. There's also certain places where you can hunt pheasants and peacock, and a mate of mine has a regular gig wingshooting fruit bats on an orchard.

Last week I was on a piece of public land within a couple of hours of the city in which I live, where I've got fallow deer, goats, the odd pig, as well as foxes and rabbits, and no tags or limits on numbers or any of that. I might go again in a fortnight, as there's still a little bit of room in the chest freezer:)
 
How tough is a category A license. I was thinking that a .22 mag levergun might be the way to get into shooting in Australia.
 
Basicly you have to make shooting a major hobby to get into firearms there. One must be willing to spend a lot of money outside of the pruchase of the arm, and self defense with an arm is against the law. One must legaly store the ammunition and firearm seperately and locked up. So if you are able to use it for self defense then you were illegaly storing it.

It is not something the average person can purchase "just in case" like in America, just like one would purchases a fire extinguisher.
Even the lowly pump action shotgun with a 6-8 capacity which is pretty standard for home defence in much of America is a nearly impossible to obtain class D license. A pump with less than a 5 round capacity is still a class C and very difficult to obtain. That is funny because in America that is often viewed as one of the least sinister of firearms. Even the fud types would be surprised.

Semi auto is too evil, pump shotguns are too evil, and even an airgun (pistol) is classified the same as a handgun!

This is partialy the result (in addition to knee jerk reactions over things like Port Arthur) of people who argue the right to sporting uses of arms and avoid the less politicly correct argument of shooting criminals intent on harm. Well it appears you have retained your "sporting use" of some arms in Australia, and that is about it.

We are lucky in America that the Second Amendment itself was created to protect arms for the purpose of using them against people (agents of the government) as discussed by the founding fathers when the Bill of Rights was created. They were not adding it to give people that right, but restricting the government from infringing upon it.
So it is pretty hard to twist that around into a right to "sporting" uses.
So our right already exists for a pretty radical purpose that makes uses like self defense seem pretty tame in comparison. Of course it is so radical that I don't think most people even realize it unless they actualy read the discussions of the founding fathers. I certainly would not have imagined a government would add a clause protecting weapons to be used against itself, and they don't teach that in grade school.


For a while I sat here and wondered what sort of awesome firearm a powerhead might be (and thus, why I should go get one). Just as I start to post I realize it's that nail driving thingy we buy at the hardware store in the time it takes to wait in line at the cashier. Ouch.
Actualy a powerhead is an underwater device which fires a cartridge to hunt and to kill things like sharks. However it does not work through the use of a bullet (although normal ammunition is often used so there is one fired) but rather the expanding gases propeling a jet of water rapidly enough to slice right through tissue in its path. Basicly muzzle blast + water. The powerhead is fired into the animal on contact either from a shaft a diver holds or sometimes attached to a spear propeled by a spear gun (which have very short range underwater.) The wound track created is almost entirely based on the pressure and the actual bullet is incidental. A blank cartridge tends to have about the same result.
Obviously these are designed stronger than a firearm barrel as they work on contact and with added water pressure. So they have to be designed to fire with a barrel obstruction as the norm. Thier design is very simple and many divers simply make thier own. It is basicly a thick pipe with a crude firing mechanism that fires when it is shoved into something and a mechanical safety that usualy has a pin that can be inserted and removed to ready the loaded weapon. The safety design is very important as the spare powerhead tips themselves are often kept on a diver banging around as they swim through the ocean.
So picture a single shot underwater firearm that is fired by jabbing it into something. Not a nailgun. Attached to a shaft people also refer to them as a "bangstick" sometimes. The powerhead is the actual mechanical portion of such a device.
 
Last edited:
Basicly you have to make shooting a major hobby to get into firearms there.

While I am not defending the laws foisted upon us that is not entirely accurate. There are a number of mechanisms for owning a firearm other than as a hobby, such as for use in hunting or control of pests for example, or for occupational use such as on a farm. You can also get a licence as a collector, among other things.

Participation requirements only generally apply to target shooting, and you just have to do 4 range attendances per annum (a couple more if you have more than one category of handgun). While this is admittedly a degree of regulation we'd prefer not to have it has had the unintended benefit of strengthening the clubs and getting people to practice occasionally.

One must be willing to spend a lot of money outside of the pruchase of the arm
On what? You just need something to store them in, and the licence fees. Club membership and range fees too I suppose, if target shooting is your thing.

..and self defense with an arm is against the law
That is nonsense. The common law approach applies: if someone comes at you with deadly force you are allowed to use deadly force to stop them. That includes the use of arms.

One must legaly store the ammunition and firearm seperately and locked up. So if you are able to use it for self defense then you were illegaly storing it.
The one doesn't necessarily follow the other. By the same logic if you were able to use it at the range or out hunting you must have been storing it illegally. Our system isn't quite that silly :rolleyes:

It is not something the average person can purchase "just in case" like in America, just like one would purchases a fire extinguisher.
Even the lowly pump action shotgun with a 6-8 capacity which is pretty standard for home defence in much of America is a nearly impossible to obtain class D license. A pump with less than a 5 round capacity is still a class C and very difficult to obtain. That is funny because in America that is often viewed as one of the least sinister of firearms. Even the fud types would be surprised.

Semi auto is too evil, pump shotguns are too evil, and even an airgun (pistol) is classified the same as a handgun!

Yes, you're right there: all of this come in one fell swoop, as the result of moral panic fanned by the media and our Prim Minister. Prior to Port Arthur we could have any of these without much if any restriction.

This is partialy the result (in addition to knee jerk reactions over things like Port Arthur) of people who argue the right to sporting uses of arms and avoid the less politicly correct argument of shooting criminals intent on harm. Well it appears you have retained your "sporting use" of some arms in Australia, and that is about it.

The sporting use argument didn't come from our side. Instead it was the invention of the anti-gun folks - something I see they also do in your country. Prior to 1996 it was generally accepted that people could and did have firearms for defence of lives and property. In a quite canny move this reason was excluded by the agreement forced on the States - without consultation with firearms owners - by the Prime Minister in 1996. It was a major plank in fact of the agreement.

Now one might have firearms for self defence, but you can't say so when you apply for a licence;)

We are lucky in America that the Second Amendment itself was created to protect arms for purpose of using them against people as discussed by the founding fathers when the Bill of Rights was created. They envisioned it serving to remind people they had an inalienable right to arms for use against tyranny if necessary, and were not adding it to give people that right, but restricting the government from infringing upon it. So it is pretty hard to twist that around into a right to "sporting" uses.

Indeed you are. This will make it just that little bit harder for you to be caught out by the radical changes forced on us by the confluence of people and events in 1996. You don't need to lecture us on it, but you might learn from it.
 
Basicly you have to make shooting a major hobby to get into firearms there.

While I am not defending the laws foisted upon us that is not entirely accurate. There are a number of mechanisms for owning a firearm other than as a hobby, such as for use in hunting or control of pests for example, or for occupational use such as on a farm. You can also get a licence as a collector, among other things.

Participation requirements only generally apply to target shooting, and you just have to do 4 range attendances per annum (a couple more if you have more than one category of handgun). While this is admittedly a degree of regulation we'd prefer not to have it has had the unintended benefit of strengthening the clubs and getting people to practice occasionally.


Quote:
One must be willing to spend a lot of money outside of the pruchase of the arm

On what? You just need something to store them in, and the licence fees. Club membership and range fees too I suppose, if target shooting is your thing.


Quote:
..and self defense with an arm is against the law

That is nonsense. The common law approach applies: if someone comes at you with deadly force you are allowed to use deadly force to stop them. That includes the use of arms.


Quote:
One must legaly store the ammunition and firearm seperately and locked up. So if you are able to use it for self defense then you were illegaly storing it.

The one doesn't necessarily follow the other. By the same logic if you were able to use it at the range or out hunting you must have been storing it illegally. Our system isn't quite that silly

I stand by these things. I consider having to purchase range gun memberships, and similar extra charges to even be allowed to purchase necessary extra charges that show the intent is as a hobby. Hunting I would also consider a hobby. Pest control or occupational use of course would be an additional reason.

The reason I say firearm self defense is against the law is that following the letter of the law one should not be able to at a moments notice grab a loaded firearm under your laws. It is of course possible you could get away with it in justifiable self defense, but if one is following the law they will not have that option. You may choose not to follow the law and nobody would know any different, but keeping a loaded arm would still be a violation of your storage laws.
So I repeat that self defense with an arm is technicaly against the law, not because of the act itself, but because the ability to perform the act requires prior illegal acts. I Imagine a prosecutor or civil case could use this to thier advantage. That is unless you just happened to have it loaded and ready for some on scene legal purpose when an attack happened that warranted self defense. :rolleyes: If you are in a rural location where you can hunt right outside or on a farm that requires pest control it could be believeable, otherwise it would be pretty clear you illegaly store them if they are used in self defense.

What is the penalty for illegaly storing firearms and ammunition? Is it significant or a slap on the wrist?
 
The reason I say firearm self defense is against the law is that following the letter of the law one should not be able to at a moments notice grab a loaded firearm under your laws. It is of course possible you could get away with it in justifiable self defense, but if one is following the law they will not have that option. You may choose not to follow the law and nobody would know any different, but keeping a loaded arm would still be a violation of your storage laws.
So I repeat that self defense with an arm is technicaly against the law, not because of the act itself, but because the ability to perform the act requires prior illegal acts. I Imagine a prosecutor or civil case could use this to thier advantage. That is unless you just happened to have it loaded and ready for some on scene legal purpose when an attack happened that warranted self defense. If you are in a rural location where you can hunt right outside or on a farm that requires pest control it could be believeable, otherwise it would be pretty clear you illegaly store them if they are used in self defense.

Again, self-defence with a firearm is not of itself against the law per se. Perhaps if your conduct was unduly "cute" there might be cause for a prosecutor to dream of doing you for unsafe storage but that would be by no means a walk-up start as you suppose, and will depend on which jurisdiction you are in. For example, in Queensland the law is that the firearm must be stored securely when not in the physical possession of the licence holder (see s. 60 (1) Weapons Act1990 (Qld)). Victoria has a similar set of provisions, in that teh requirement to lock the firearm away applies "when the firearm is not being carried or
used" (see s. 121 Firearms Act 1996 (Vic.)

In NSW the provision is framed more broadly, that

(1) A person who possesses a firearm must take all reasonable precautions to ensure:

(a) its safe keeping, and

(b) that it is not stolen or lost, and

(c) that it does not come into the possession of a person who is not authorised to possess the firearm.

s. 39 Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Physical possession of the loaded gun in the course of ending an attack on me or mine by a thug would, at least arguably, not be inconsistent with this requirement, don't you think?

I won't go through all the States, but I will say this, that there have been a few cases of the lawful use of firearms for self defence since 1996. I am not aware of any where the alternative charge of "fail to keep secure" has been raised (there was one case recently in NZ where that type of argument was given a run, but it was unsuccessful).
 
I bet it doesn't take a criminal anywhere near 8 months to get a Glock.
No,but it's an anti-psychopath deterrant,because in the UK, we did have up to an 8 to 12 month waiting period,for handguns,before mid-'96.Funnily though,not every county made a shooter wait for so long and in my county it only took just under 2 months or even less time,to acquire either a variation for another handgun or a Section 1 Firearms License.

In Australia, handgun ownership seems to be on it's last legs and another incident,like the one that happend in 2002,will end handgun ownership,over there and sink it to the bottom.Alot of people from the UK say that; "in Australia,they have a 'gun culture' and we don't":well I know that the reasons for ownership,are identical,in both countries and the fact is that licensing proceedures are similar too,with the exception of pump and semi-auto shotguns,being on the regular tickets and that handgun ownership is legal and the population is higher-there is no difference.

My country had an legal gun-culture once and the antis,just like to trash it ,by claiming that it never existed,at all.
 
A quote from St. George Tucker, 1752 - 1828, a Revolutionary War vetern and a Prof at William and Mary University, says it best for me....

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

Maintaining the ability to mount an adequate defense of myself and my family, is a fundamental and basic human right. A right that has existed for thousands and thousands of years.

It should never be pre-empted by government power and decree.
 
There is a very simple reason why most all of what once was the British Empire has laws that continure mirror the home country and those of the United States do not... America took it's freedom from the Queen at the point of a gun....almost everyone elses "freedom" was "granted", and as such are still considered "subjects" not citizens.

Self-defense is not a right granted by the Queen because such a right would also mean that it would be the right of the "subject" to defend himself against the Crown... In our Constitution and Bill of Rights Americans were given this as a basic human right...because we are citizens...not subjects.

Bob Makowski
 
Sounds to me like you guys down under have some really great hunting opportunities, I would enjoy that plenty. About all we can hunt here year round without tags are animals such as are deemed undesirable IE coyotes, ground squirrels, jack rabbets and the like, although I am not up on feral hog hunting in other states.

I do think your loss of firearms is being used and pointed out to the general public some but probably not as much as it should be in defense of gun ownership. It is interesting to read the statics's of Australia and Canada and others concerning crime etc with the laws as you now have to contend with.
Good luck in restoring some of what has been lost. Is that a possibility perhaps?
 
I was Just wondering with regard to the Port Arthur massacre, when the new firearms laws were created, did the owners of what are now class C & D firearms get issued C & D licenses? Were they grandfathered in anyway? Also do licenses need to be renewed on any regular basis?
 
I was Just wondering with regard to the Port Arthur massacre, when the new firearms laws were created, did the owners of what are now class C & D firearms get issued C & D licenses? Were they grandfathered in anyway? Also do licenses need to be renewed on any regular basis?
This and or did most of the folks just keep their guns and mouths shut like what has happened in California and their so called "assault gun " ban? I have read that about 90% of the guns that had been sold there before the laws were changed that was supposed to be registered have not been. I guess that markes several hundred thousand or maybe a few million guys "outlaws' and or owners of illegal weapons. Sad state of affairs.
 
I was Just wondering with regard to the Port Arthur massacre, when the new firearms laws were created, did the owners of what are now class C & D firearms get issued C & D licenses? Were they grandfathered in anyway? Also do licenses need to be renewed on any regular basis?

I seem to recall a "gun buy back", although unlike anything we would recognize as a gun buy back. Involuntary buy back. Basicly thugs take them and compensate you what the government felt it was worth. They confiscated registered semi auto rifles and semi and pump shotguns. The legaly registered owners that had properly gone through the legal steps to obtain these weapons were all on a big list.


Wikipedia for example says this (yes we all know to double check anything on wiki, but this seems to correlate very well with other articles that are less direct):

The Federal Government introduced a 1% levy on income tax for a period of one year to finance the billion dollar "buy back" purchase and destruction of all previously legally-held semi-automatic rifles including .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Although only one state published statistics, it appears that 5% of the destroyed guns were of the military style, the remainder being sporting and farmers' working firearms.[citation needed] The high cost ($A500 million) of this exercise again raised opposition from shooter groups, for example, the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, who argued that the "buy back" had failed to improve public safety.[5]
 
I was Just wondering with regard to the Port Arthur massacre, when the new firearms laws were created, did the owners of what are now class C & D firearms get issued C & D licenses? Were they grandfathered in anyway? Also do licenses need to be renewed on any regular basis?

Yes this did happen in some cases I know a few guys who legally own C/D weapons i.e. FNFAL/ pump shotguns etc. But in most cases I think they simply handed in their worst guns (a lot of guys got paid exorbitant prices for rusty old sks and such,) and buried thier good ones.
Local legend has it that full auto was pretty common pre 1997.

Don't you guys remember the AWB? For a long while we could legally purchase S/A's with as many "Evil features" as we could afford. In fact I remember many aussie gun shop ad's featuring gear th.at was "Banned in the USA" at the time.

I'll be suprised if we don't see firearm restrictions more heavily imposed in both our countries if the Left wing extremists get into power, in up coming elections.

Take care
Josh
 
Not necessarily

I have to wonder. Is America utterly alone on gun rights and self-defense? Is there no other country where the right to kill your attacker and to arm yourself properly is acknowledged?

I have a friend from Gambia who regals me with stories on how there are NO gun laws in Gamia. He says if I ever make it down to his place we can touch off his RPG at an old car of something. But I am not sure if he is blowing smoke or not.
 
The good thing is, membership of the SSAA (Australia's largest shooting association) have risen constantly (currently it stands around 100,000 in total). But still not enough numbers to utterly destroy anti-gun politicians' careers. In 10-20 years or so maybe we will have the numbers to become a substantial force. Little by little, we will overturn the 1996 Firearms Agreement.
 
Good onya' Australian Shooter!

In 10-20 years or so maybe we will have the numbers to become a substantial force. Little by little, we will overturn the 1996 Firearms Agreement.

We need that optimism in the Australian Shooting scene.

At least there are some decent facilities for shooting around Australia.

Majura Range - here in Canberra -
would satisfy most Americans as a place to shoot.

And it appears that little Johnny Howard is finally going down this election!:D
 
There is a very simple reason why most all of what once was the British Empire has laws that continure mirror the home country and those of the United States do not... America took it's freedom from the Queen at the point of a gun....almost everyone elses "freedom" was "granted", and as such are still considered "subjects" not citizens.

No. The reason is simply that in the UK, Canada and Australia gun ownership withered away. For example, in the early 1970s the British Government suggested a radical overhaul of its (then) semi-decent laws to become something like what they are today. There was a minor outcry from members of the public and Members of Parliament and the proposals were shelved.

But over time the kinds of restrictions that did come in (age limits, extra paperwork, ultra-vires safe storage policies) steadily reduced the number of shooters to below that critical point where resistance made a difference.

And then, when the opportunity presented itself, the hammer fell.

And that is why the single most important issue for gun owners in the US to watch out for is not 922(o) or Assault Weapons Bans [which of course should still be opposed], but the seemingly little things that make it harder for someone to get into guns - age limits, hunter education requirements, complicated paperwork, OSHA regs, etc.

If every existing gun owner recruited another new gun owner to the sport/hobby/lifestyle and then they both recruited another, all the other issues would go away.
 
WOW im glad i started this thread thanks to the other Aussies for fielding the questions to

i started this thread because there was alot of 12-16 year olds saying things like "australia sucks you cant even own a BB gun here" and so on not to mention the misinformation given buy the ANTI'S
 
And I am glad you started this frightening (to me) thread, as well.

But I find this thread to be not entirely about guns.

No, this thread is about a few people in positions of power who would whittle away the rights of us all, just to advance their own private agendas.

Whether they be in Australia or in California....in New York or in London, it doesn't matter. They don't like _____, so you shouldn't have _____.

Fill in the blanks, folks. Today, it happens to be guns.

As long as people remain relatively quiet in the face of what amounts to be tyranny, they can expect the erosion of their God given and Unalienable rights to continue.

I would urge everyone who reads this post, on all sides of the earth, to make their voice heard.

In the US, join the NRA, the GOA, the RKBA.

As well as posting here, write your representatives and make your opinions known. In all likelihood, your government is not participating in this board. They can't hear you here.

Write your local newspapers. Make your voice heard. Over and over and over again. Become a pest.

In the UK and Australia, gun owners and prospective gun owners should also not be quiet. Your representatives should be inundated frequently with letters asking to have your rights restored. You don't need to be the majority, but rather just a significant and very much aligned voting block.

Can you imagine thousands of letters arriving in John Howard's offices? All at once? Every week or so? If that effort were organized and sustained, it might have an impact.

I know in the United States, and according to our Constitution, I have the right to address my representatives and make my views known.

Well, at least for today, I do.

Use it, or lose it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top