Oct
18

Welcome

By | General

Leave a Comment

“DRACONIAN GUN LAWS!”
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT??

Welcome to the Firearms Owners Association of Australia Website. The FOAA aim is to protect all the rights of firearms owners in Australia and to remove the impositions currently breaching those rights.
Our Members uphold the Bill of Rights1688, which is law in Queensland today.
(excerpt) The Subject’s Rights.
And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective letters and elections being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation takeing into their most serious consideration the best meanes for attaining the ends aforesaid doe in the first place (as their auncestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their auntient rights and liberties, declare
Right to petition—That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegall.
Subjects’ arms—That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and is allowed by law.
Freedom of election—That election of members of Parlyament ought to be free.
Freedom of speech—That the freedome of speech and debates or proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament.
The said rights claimed—And they doe claime demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties and that noe declarations judgements doeings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premisses ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter into consequence or example.
Read complete Bill of Rights    Bill of Rights 1688

Join in the fight to protect our rights and freedoms, For All Fireaem Owners and Hunters.

JOIN NOW IMPROVE AUSTRALIA FOR ALL OF US.

JOIN NOW IMPROVE AUSTRALIA FOR ALL OF US.

FREE MEMBERSHIP. Its all work and No one gets paid. MEMBERS have to be dedicated to the cause of Liberty, They must be informed about the evils of GUN LAW s, They must be Persistent, They must be Model A Citizens. They must agree with the Bill or Rights 1688. They must be PATIENT, We need ‘soldiers of the working day’, who will lobby the Members of Parliament, Candidates and the Media for the Freedom of all  law abiding Australian’s to have arms for the defence of their lives, and families lives, suitable to their conditions. The rights to have and use Firearms for Competition Sport, Hunting and collecting are essential, but not as important as defence as without that right all rights can be taken form you.   So join today, for life, not just the next election.

MEMBERS of FOAA can  Speak, Write, Use Street Theatre, or any means at their disposal to inform members of parliament, the media and the public of the disastrous effects of Gun Laws but must not on behalf of the FOAA use obscene language, harass, stalking, threaten, provoke or aggravate anyone. As soon as that occurs Membership is void.
Membership is free but completely voluntary, our only reward is to improve and roll back the useless legislation that is like a millstone around the necks of free Australians. Donations of any description will be gratefully accepted to assist in hosting this page and producing this material.

We Need YOU to help us remove the impositions on our rights, we are offering Free Membership to the FOAA which includes a monthly Newsletter, and  Gun Law Alerts
Contact: owenguns@spiderweb.com.au for more information
Subscribe to our Newsletter. Please fill out this form and we will begin to send you information which you can use to help yourself, and other shooters

Contact: owenguns@spiderweb.com.au for more information.

Subscribe

Subscribe to our Newsletter. Please fill out this form and we will get in touch with you shortly.
May
14

Firearm’s Law Insanity- Simon Munslow

By | Latest NEWS

Leave a Comment

READ THIS AS IF WE DO NOT DO ANYTHING WE WILL WEAR IT AS WELL IN EVER”Y STATE. ron

Firearm’s Law Insanity- Simon Munslow

 

Simon Munslow is a Lawyer with 26 years post admission experience in the areas of Family Law, Criminal law and Administrative law, and who practices extensively in that area that can be loosely described as ‘Firearms law’.  He has been a keen shooter for forty five years. He may be contacted on 02 6299 9690, email: solicitor@bigpond.com.

 

Parliamentary insanity regarding gun laws did not end in 1996.  Here are two prime examples of Parliamentary madness from the current sitting in NSW, sadly one is nothing more than an own goal shot by Robert Borsak MLC.

 

More Problems For Gun Shops = Less Gun Shops= Less Shooters.

The Firearms Amendment (Ammunition Control) Bill 2012 (‘the ammunition amendment) which passed is an amending Act rather optimistically intends to starve members of outlaw gangs of ammunition,

 

I say optimistically, because a logical mind would think ‘outlaws’ (which I understand means they do not respect the law) who we are told import drugs, firearms and possibly people while waging warfare on our streets would simply slip a pallet of 9 mill into their next container of illegal imports that are to cross our porous borders.  After all, we only check one pallet in every hundred although to be fair Customs do say they apply ‘intelligence’ in deciding which pallet to open.

 

Turning to the specifics of the ammunition amendment, it amends the Firearms Act to stop a firearms dealer from selling ammunition to a licensed shooter unless the dealer has sighted a registration certificate or permit to acquire a firearm,  that establishes that the shooter has a firearm that the ammunition will fit.

 

This of course raises problem one.  Currently NSW Permit to Acquire does not stipulate a chambering merely a class of firearm.  The Registry do not know the chambering of the firearm being acquired under a Permit, until details of the purchase are sent to the Registry and a Registration certificate is issued by them several weeks after the purchase.

 

The Act obliges a dealer to keep a record of all sales and purchases of ammunition made by them, recording:

 

- The name and address of the buyer to whom the ammunition was sold:

 

 -The number on the buyer’s licence number or permit authorizing purchase.

 

In the case of purchases of ammunition, the name and address of the person from whom the ammunition is purchased and any other information prescribed in the regulations, must be recorded.

 

The Act does not impose a requirement that ammunition that has not been purchased be logged.  Dealers receive a considerable amount of ammunition either following or incidental to the disposal of a firearm or otherwise from the general community and many people who dispose of ammunition to dealers are not licensed and wish to dispose of ammunition anonymously.  A requirement that they provide details to dealers or surrender to the Police would encourage the dumping of unwanted ammunition in rubbish bins or similar, which is even less desirable.

 

Fortunately the amendment Act does not revise the definition of Ammunition to include components of ammunition, and the existing definition in s4 the Firearms Act 1996 remains. This defines ammunition as:

 

(a)  any article consisting of a cartridge case fitted with a primer and a projectile or

(b)  any article consisting of a cartridge case fitted with a primer and containing a propelling charge and a projectile, or

(c)   blank cartridges, air gun pellets, training cartridges or gas cartridges, or

(d)  any other article prescribed by the regulations of this definition.

 

As there is nothing in the Regulations defining components to be ammunition, shooters can still buy components used in the manufacture of ammunition simply by producing their licence.

 

This should be good news for the large number of shooters reliant on brass designed for one chambering  to create cases for another.

 

In conclusion , it can be anticipated that these amendments:

 

Will not effect crime, but that they will:

 

-Create a need to modify licences to include details on chamberings that firearms   owners own or create a need for the ongoing replacement of Registration Certificates.  Both options having cost implications for the registry and ultimately us.

 

-The carriage of registration certificates may increase theft as a result of shooters leaving registration certificates featuring their address in vehicles that are subsequently stolen (providing a shopping list for thieves). This is after all the reason current licences do not contain personal details of the licensee.

 

-Paperwork will swamp gun shops with the result that they will need more staff during busy periods like Saturday mornings.  The cost of this will increase the cost of ammunition, particularly in respect to transactions involving quantities of less than one case.  

 

Consequentially many shooters will therefore buy ammunition in bulk and thus have more ammunition on hand at home (where it is arguably more vulnerable to theft) or else divide it up amongst friends and associates, creating an illegal secondary market that will subvert the legislative intent.

 

COMMENT:  In his second reading speech, the Hon Michael Gallagher, Minister for Police and Emergency Services advised Parliament that ‘this bill does not seek to disadvantage those appropriately licensed individuals with genuine reasons for being granted a licence’.  With the greatest respect to Mr Gallagher, I believe that while this may not have been its intention, it shall, like most of the gun laws imposed since 1996, be its result.

 

This legislation appears to be little more than a knee jerk tightening of the gun laws imposed, I suspect, at the request of Police without undergoing any analysis of its likely efficiency or effectiveness by a government with little concept of how the current licensing regime works.

 

The second legislation that I wish to comment upon is the Crimes Amendment (Possession or Discharge of Firearms in Commission of Offences) Bill 2012 which I am saddened to say is a Shooters and Fishers Party initiative, as they are  a party who have otherwise done great things for shooters and fishers in NSW. 

 

The legislation seeks to apply an additional sentence of not less than that awarded for the primary offence plus an additional sentence of five years if a firearm is fired, to people convicted of certain types of offence with a firearm. 

 

The perpetrators of most of the offences listed are bank robbers, rapists and such like-really not very nice people, to my mind these people really deserve little more consideration than they provide their victims and I for one would not lose too much sleep to see them spend longer in gaol provided that my tax bill did not increase as a result of a need to accommodate and feed them.

 However, there are a number of difficulties with this legislation.

 

-Similar legislation overseas has not worked as a deterrent.  Criminals simply do not consider the tariff that they face before committing the crime.

 

-People need to be aware that this additional penalty will result over time in the need to build more gaols to accommodate a larger prisoner population.

 

-The Act is unfair in that the Judge will have all ready have considered the presence and use of a firearm as an aggravating factor when imposing a penalty for the primary offence, leading to a person being penalized multiple times for the same element of the offence.

 

-The potential penalty that a perpetrator may face could create a situation where, if they find themselves cornered or identified, the perpetrator may panic and kill potential witnesses to escape a conviction.

 

However, my major concern is that ‘good people’ occasionally get charged with common assault.  The most basic assault offence that just requires a person intentionally put a person in fear of injury.  This could apply to a person who goes beyond what is reasonably proportional when defending themselves.  Discharging a firearm to scare a goblin who you think is up to no good could result in this charge. 

 

Admittedly the bill only applies to the more serious common assaults and not the majority which are dealt with at Local Courts.  However, common assault is a table two offence, which gives Police the power to elect to send a matter to the District Court.

 

Police prosecutors have been instructed to take a hard line on firearms seriously and this capacity for them to elect for a matter to go ‘upstairs’ to a higher Court causes me some concern in that subject to the circumstances, it is not hard to see the person intimidating the goblin charged with an indictable offence.

 

This poor individual could be convicted of Common Assault by a District Court judge and be fined or given a non custodial sentence in respect to that, but find that the judge has no discretion and has to hand down a five year jail term because the firearm was fired.

 

If you think this type of situation is rare you are wrong.  Police have a strong view against people defending themselves in Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand and it is only the common sense of the Jury system and Courts that corrects the wrong of their action. This legislation seeks to remove that sort of discretion.

 

A defender of this legislation would say ah, but a person will not be liable of this section if they had the firearm for a lawful purpose or had a reasonable excuse.

 

Unfortunately the Police view is that the only circumstances where one is lawfully entitled to use a firearm are set out as reasons for ownership in the Firearms Act.   Self defence is expressly excluded as a reason for holding a firearms licence with the absurdity that, the few licences remaining in the hands of private security guards contain an endorsement to the effect that they cannot be used for the protection of persons, suggesting that the protection of money is more important than human life.

 

The second problem is that ‘reasonable excuse’ is vague, and here a Court will already have considered that a persons actions in defending themselves was not reasonable.

 

There appears to be an attitude amongst the Police that seems to be effected greatly by a sense of arrogance that they alone can control crime in the community and by a political agenda to disarm the community.  The attitude of the Police today is sadly that of prosecuting the victims and not the perpetrators and getting a politically correct statistical result in the process.   

 

There are too many incidents where people who have defended themselves have found themselves having to subsequently defend themselves in Court. Usually they are acquitted, though it takes them 2-3 years to clear their name and a few fall though the cracks and land in gaol.  It would be sad to see a person fall through the cracks and land a hefty gaol sentence.

May
09

Death Of A Long-Gun Registry, Canada.

By | Ammunition to Send to Politicans

Leave a Comment

Death of a Long-Gun Registry

Original Story VIA: National Review

Despite spending a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a long-gun registry, Canadians never reaped any benefits from the project. The legislation to end the program finally passed the Parliament on Wednesday.  (April 5th 2012)  Even though the country started registering long guns in 1998, the registry never solved a single murder. Instead it has been an enormous waste of police officers’ time, diverting their efforts from patrolling Canadian streets and doing traditional policing activities.

Gun-control advocates have long claimed that registration is a safety issue, and their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene and it was registered to the person who committed the crime, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but reality never worked that way. Crime guns are very rarely left at the crime scene, and when they are left at the scene, they have not been registered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. Even in the few cases where registered crime guns are left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed, so these crimes would have been solved even without registration.

The statistics speak for themselves. From 2003 to 2009, there were 4,257 homicides in Canada, 1,314 of which were committed with firearms. Data provided last fall by the Library of Parliament reveals that the weapon was identified in fewer than a third of the homicides with firearms, and that about three-quarters of the identified weapons were not registered. Of the weapons that were registered, about half were registered to someone other than the person accused of the homicide. In just 62 cases — that is, only 4.7 percent of all firearm homicides — was the gun registered to the accused. As most homicides in Canada are not committed with a gun, the 62 cases correspond to only about 1 percent of all homicides.

To repeat, during these seven years, there were only 62 cases — nine a year — where it was even conceivable that registration made a difference. But apparently, the registry was not important even in those cases. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police have not yet provided a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a case.

The problem isn’t just with the long-gun registry. The data provided above cover all guns, including handguns. There is no evidence that, since the handgun registry was started in 1934, it has been important in solving a single homicide.

Looking at just long guns shows that since 1997, there have been three murders in which the gun was registered to the accused. The Canadian government doesn’t provide any information on whether those three accused individuals were convicted.

Nor is there any evidence that registration reduced homicides. Research published last year by McMaster University professor Caillin Langmann in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence confirmed what other academic studies have found: “This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008.” There is not a single refereed academic study by criminologists or economists that has found a significant benefit from gun laws. A recent Angus Reid poll indicates that Canadians already understand this, with only 13 percent believing that the registry has been successful.

The problem isn’t just that the $2.7 billion spent on registration over 17 years has produced no arrests, it is that the money could have been used to put more police on the street or pay for more health care or cut taxes. An extra $160 million a year pays for a lot of police or doctors or teachers.

Take police. Assuming each officer is paid $70,000 per year, $2.7 billion would pay for almost 2,300 officers annually. Academic research by one of us (Lott) indicates that adding that many street officers would reduce violent crimes in Canada by about 1,800. Registration isn’t getting Canadians any of this.

And the costs of running the registry aren’t just the $2.7 billion, since that excludes enforcement costs and individual compliance costs. The first step that police in Canada take in investigating a violent crime is to see if their suspects are licensed gun owners. But when Canada has 6.4 million registered gun owners, and police accuse only nine people of homicide each year whose registered guns were found at the scene of a crime, the return seems as close to zero as possible. It is also claimed that registration protects police officers’ safety, but homicide against Canadian police officers is actually up 20 percent since the long-gun registry started, compared with the rate during the previous decade. And more important, not a single police officer has been identified as being killed by someone with a registered gun.

Gun-control proponents have worried that scrapping the long-gun registry after so much has been invested in it would be a waste — “a $2 billion bonfire,” in the words of Gatineau member of Parliament Françoise Boivin. Unfortunately, that money is already wasted, and the registry costs kept growing. It costs about $100 million a year to operate. Instead of burning up more money, Canada can spend it on things that will actually do some good.

— John R. Lott Jr. is the author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, third edition, 2010) and Gary Mauser is professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University

May
06

Freedom Depends On An Educated Voter.

By | General, Latest NEWS

Leave a Comment

Freedom Depends On An Educated Voter.

These  thoughts are not good news, or bad news, they are just as it is, and as
it has always been. They are not happy thoughts, or depressive thoughts,
just thoughts that express our current situation. A situation that at
some times looks better, but due to our collective thought patterns and
media training never really change. Well not yet, but assessing our
collective pattern, unless it gets so bad that our stomachs are stuck to
our backbones, or all out invasion, apathy will always reign against
us.
As a student of elections, being involved in elective struggles
since I was about ten years old, many people would put me down as a slow
learner, but in reality I must be an eternal optimist. I once got it
right and the local masses even elected me to local council. An
independent. I have handed out, put signs up studied election results
for over half a century and I have now the same conclusion as I did
twenty years ago, the only reason I keep getting involved, is I believe
that just once, it may change in my lifetime.
It is not just that in  our local division council election that out of 4000 voters on the
electoral role, about a 1000 protested that they were voting under
duress, as they did not want to be fined, another 1000 did not turn up
to vote at all. Quite a few customers I know purposefully keep
themselves off the voting register so they do not get fined. Again, it
is not just the knowledge that in the last federal election more people
decided not to vote, to either get struck off the roll, vote informal or
not turn up at all, risking a fine than voted for the ruling Labour
Party. That is sad enough, knowing that good men fought and devoted
their life’s work to win the right to vote for all but what really bugs
me is that our brothers and sister fellow sufferers, ‘Do Not’ think, Do
Not make choices on issues or the individual person, they continue in
the majority to vote for which party their grandparents voted for, or if
the candidate has nice teeth, or they have been in office for years, as
don’t make a change that could be dangerous.

We are all please to  see Anna Bligh go, we are all desperately waiting for the day when we
can get rid of Anna’s sister in crime the red headed harlot in Canberra,
but I have questioned customers as to their choice in voting. In the
state elections I asked customers and shooters, ‘why were you handing
out how to vote cards for the LNP,’ Why do you brag about voting for the
LNP, they voted with Labour to give you another set of Gun Laws on
November the 15th, Why vote for the LNP when they brought John Howard’s
Un-informed Gun laws down on your head?

Why work for your enemy.
Some bleated well we just wanted to get rid of Anna. Well that would
have worked just as good, if you had voted for an independent or the
Australia Party is my response. Why donate $4.00 for your vote to their
party funds? It gets even worse, during the local elections I observed
shooters handing out how to vote cards for un-officially the LNP (not
supposed to be party politics in local elections but scratch the surface
a little and it bleeds party politics) Worse than that when the ‘arty
farty’ un official Labour hand outers were missing the LNP hand outers
would hand out for both their candidates to oppose independent
candidates. I asked some customers why they voted one way or another,
some of the responses were almost from a TV comedy script we would
laugh, but it is so sad. “I voted for X, because I did not know who he
was, I knew the other three.” “Oh I voted for Meredith, I wanted to vote
for a ‘sheila’,” “Meredith was his second name you voted for a bloke
anyway.” I said. ” I wanted to vote for the Sheila in the red shirt”.
Nothing about what the people stood for, or Rates or roads.
By about  this time, your going to be saying, what’s this to do with us shooters.
Well this Apathy has everything to do with how out sport, our hobby our
way of life is treated by those we install as our masters. Our American
cousins have a voting impact, they have hundreds of freedoms that we
have already forgotten exist, due to the simple fact that in their
country, shooters will vote with an issue. Not only that, they will
mobilise and phone up and lobby their representatives and because they
vote to protect their property, their rights and freedoms, they win.
They win because they think before they vote. They lobby their
candidates prior to the election not just moan in the local Gun Shop.
The American’s send out lists of questions and then they vote on the
answers, which results in voting, into office, pro-shooting candidates.
It is not that they are a huge majority or that they are in one club,
both of those premises are incorrect. There majority is similar to ours,
and there are many hundreds of different shooting clubs and shooting
lobby associations in the USA. The difference is, they make there votes
count for them. In Australia and the UK we do not, we get easily
sidetracked into debate on irrelevancy like the Prime Minister lost her
slipper. In more ways than one.
John Howard in 1996 had a large  majority when he decided to strike at firearm ownership he knew well,
what I have just told you above. He had utter contempt for shooters and
showed it. He knew that the shooters would still install him or his
opposition, that he still would be in government, even if they were not
in office. Campbell Newman is going to introduce another new lot of Gun
laws. As usual, they always promise that they will not harm the lawful
firearm owner but will only impact on the criminal elements. He talks of
amnesties and we all know that he does not even believe it himself,
everyone knows, it is just feel good politics. It will not change
anything, the crims will never hand their guns in, the Police will still
sell their issue pistols, or supposedly lose them, or purportedly have
them stolen and the only impact will be on the law abiding shooter. 
Campbell Newman now knows that the 255,000 licensed shooter in
Queensland are not going to vote for independents or the Australia Party
at the next election. We have given him the largest majority ever held
in parliament, he knows he can treat us all like serfs, bonded slaves
who will all vote without considering freedom, rights, ownership of
property, or self defence. Yes, and when his new rules of legislation do
not work, as they never do, he will go and produce another set of feels
good legislation. Meanwhile, their Goebbels propaganda machine will
keep the public mesmerised in ‘man bites dog’, or ‘wag the dog’
scenarios to keep the people thinking of only trivia. We used to be
free. 1984 was it science fiction??

Mar
06

Washington residents are up in arms, though not armed

By | General

Leave a Comment

City official insists residents shouldn’t defend themselves

By Emily Miller

The Washington Times

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Washington residents are up in arms, though not armed. With violent crime
up 40 percent in the first two months of the year – including double the
number of robberies at gunpoint – residents are looking for ways to protect
themselves. Elected officials and police have no solution.

Take Benjamin Portman, who lives on Capitol Hill, part of the 1st
District, where violent crime has increased the most. A total of 110 incidents have
been reported in 2012, a 69 percent jump, according to statistics obtained
by The Washington Times. Two weeks ago, Mr. Portman’s male roommate and his
girlfriend were robbed by three armed men in ski masks as they walked home
on a well-lit street.

That spurred Mr. Portman to attend a community meeting on the increased
violence, which was held last week by D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh, Ward 3
Democrat. Mr. Portman asked officials why the city makes it so difficult
for law-abiding residents to register guns and refuses to allow them to
carry weapons outside of the home.

As you can see in the video below, Paul Quander, the District’s deputy
mayor for public safety and justice, responded that crime victims should give
the criminals what they want. Mr. Portman protested, saying, “But how do you
know you’re going live and survive? You’re completely at their mercy.”

Mr. Quander thinks victimhood is preferable to self-defense. “The problem
is, if you are armed, it escalates the situation,” Mr. Quander told
residents. “It is much better, in my opinion, to be scared, to be frightened, and
even if you have to be, to be injured, but to walk away and survive. You’ll
heal, and you can replace whatever was taken away.”

Kristopher Baumann, head of the D.C. police union, also was at Ms. Cheh’s
meeting. “Having the deputy mayor for public safety publicly announce that
being victimized is something we, as residents of the District, must accept
is disgraceful,” he told The Washington Times. “At the same time, Mr.
Quander failed to offer a single short- or long-term solution to fighting crime
in this city.”

The police officer added that, “This is a mayor who, as chair of the
Council, cut 400 police positions and failed to enact tougher laws for repeat
offenders. Now we know why. His crime fighting strategy apparently involves
giving up and just living with being scared. Accepting violent crime and
victimization is not an acceptable trade-off for living in the District.”

The Washington Times caught up with Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier on
Wednesday and asked for her reaction to Mr. Quander’s comments. The police chief
did not remember exactly what was said, but she said she thought Mr. Quander
was referring only to victims of theft, not physical assault. “We always
say, if you are a victim of a robbery, your best thing to do is comply and
try to be safe,” the chief said.

Mr. Portman said Chief Lanier approached him after the meeting, but he
left unsatisfied. “I think if the chief realized that the police cannot protect
us all the time, everywhere, she might come to the conclusion that it’s
the right thing for her to recommend relaxing the gun-control laws in the
city,” he said in an interview. “I have the right to protect myself if the
police can’t.”

While the council is working to ease some registration requirements,
that’s not enough. The city needs to recognize that the Second Amendment
guarantees not just the right to keep arms at home, but also to bear them. Doing
so would give criminals reason to think twice before assaulting residents.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/1/dcs-crime-solution-be-a-victi
m/print/

Mar
06

Our Bill of Rights

By | Ammunition to Send to Politicans, Bill of Rights 1688

Leave a Comment

BILL OF RIGHTS
[1689]
An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown
Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:

•Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;
•By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament; By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;
•By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;
•By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;
•By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;
•By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;
•By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;
•By prosecutions in the Court of King’s Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;
•And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;
•And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;
•And excessive fines have been imposed;
•And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;
•And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;
•All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;
And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight [old style date], in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:

•That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
•That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
•That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
•That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
•That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
•That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
•That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
•That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
•That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
•That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
•That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
•That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
•And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.
And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein.

Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.

“I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.”

“I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”

Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration.

And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties’ royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly.

Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come.

And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to provide and preserve their said Majesties’ royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize, acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquility and safety of this nation doth under God wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established and declared, that the crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of both their Majesties during their joint lives; and after their deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of the body of his said Majesty; and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise that they will stand to, maintain and defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary.

And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, An Act for the more effectual preserving the king’s person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament. But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make, subscribe and audibly repeat the same declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such king or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years.

All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted and established accordingly.

II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by non obstante of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine [old style date] shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.

——————————————————————————–

Feb
01

At Last An Answer From ANNA.

By | Candidates Responses on GUNLAWs

Leave a Comment

At Last An Answer From ANNA.
Of course she does not win any points at all,
(Anna has been using this figure of licenced shooters 160,000. for nearly three years, she must not have read about the 16 % increase per year and there figure of 255,000, we had 47,000 just last year. the purpose of this is to make us seem insignifificant. We have to show them otherwise. In the last paragraph it gropes for power on the receding crime rate, the 6.0clock news might not agree with her but if it is true it must be due to the huge increase in firearm imports and sales over the last ten years. ron)

Office of the Premier

Executive Building
100 George Street Brisbane
PO Box 15185 City East
Queensland 4002 Austra lia
Telephone +61732244500
Facsimile +61732213631
Email ThePremier@premiers.qld.gov.au
Website www.thepremier.qld.gov.au
Dear Mr Harr,……
Thank you for your email to the Premier of 12 December 2011 regarding the Bligh
Government’s position on firearms legislation.
The Premier has asked me to respond to you on her behalf.
Community safety is a priority of the Bligh Government. The Government is committed
to ensuring Queensland’s weapons laws strike the right balance between the need for
community safety and the legitimate interests of weapons users and owners. Weapons
control and the associated licensing and registration systems are fundamentally
important components to making our communities safe and secure.
1. Do you believe that law abiding citizens of Australia should have the right to own and
use firearms for sport, tools of trade, pest eradication, collecting and hunting?
The use and possession of weapons (including firearms) in Queensland is regulated
under the Weapons Act 1990 (the Act). The act stipulates that a person is able to
possess a firearm in Queensland, so long as that person holds the appropriate licence. I
am aware that the overwhelming majority of the 160,000 licence holders are honest
reliable members of the community.
Depending on the type of licence, a person will be entitled to acquire, possess and use
the relevant weapon based on that person’s individual circumstances. A person is also
able to be licensed to possess more than one category of firearm if there is a genuine
reason for that possession. Further, an unlicensed person may use a firearm either at an
approved range; in certain aspects of primary production; at a shooting gallery or when
supervised in theatrical or film performances.
2. Do you believe that law abiding citizens of Australia should have the right to save
lives, by defending their own lives and the lives of their families and friends with
firearms?
A person may only be issued with a licence to possess a weapon if they have a genuine
reason to possess the weapon. Self defence is not a genuine reason for the possession
of a weapon. Section 57(6) of the Act provides that it is not a reasonable excuse to carry
a weapon in a public place for self-defence purposes.
3. Do you believe that law abiding citizens of Australia should have the right to hunt
introduced species in Queensland State Forests and Crown land?
Queensland
Government
Hunting in State forests and on Crown land is prohibited in the absence of a permit or
authority. Section 14 of the Forestry Regulation 1998 creates an offence for the
possession of a restricted item in a State forest. A restricted item includes a firearm or
other weapon capable of discharging an arrow, bullet, shot or other missile.
A licence for the genuine reason of recreational shooting (hunting) can only be issued
where an applicant is able to produce the written permission of a landowner authorising
the applicant to shoot on their rural land.
4. Do you believe that law abiding citizens of Australia should have the right to hunt
introduced species in Queensland with Hand Guns?
While there is no species specifically classified as game for hunting purposes, a
recreational shooter, who is a member of a recreational shooting club, may hunt
introduced species that are feral or pest animals on private land where the landowner
has provided written permission.
A person wishing to apply for a recreational shooters licence may apply to possess and
use a category H (concealable) firearm. However, a.concealable firearms licence does
not automatically authorise the possession or use of a weapon for recreational shooting.
The applicant must show a need for that category of firearm and the possession and use
of a category H firearm must be approved for that purpose by the Weapons Licensing
Branch.
5. Do you believe that law abiding citizens of Australia should have a Long Arms Registry
imposed on them?
The Australian Police Ministers’ Council (APMC) met on 10 May 1996 to discuss national
uniform gun controls. At the meeting Police Ministers from all Australian jurisdictions
agreed to implement nationally consistent legislation to give effect to a wide range of
resolutions, including the establishment of a national scheme for the registration of all
firearms. The Weapons Amendment Act 1996, amended the Act to implement these
resolutions .
. 6. Over the last twenty year Queensland politicians have followed the ‘Wrong’ principle of
collectively punishing the law abiding, property owners, (that property being firearms)
by prohibiting or registering that property and ignored the policing and prosecution of
the individual wrong doers. As no serious attempts by police are made to protect the
community, crime increases and instead of addressing the real problem parliament
again attacks the innocent property owners and prohibits .even more property. This
principle is immoral and should be reversed not compounded. Will you continue to
support these prohibitive Acts of legislation?
The prevention and investigation of offences involving the possession and or use of
illegal firearms throughout the state is a priority of the Queensland Police Service (QPS).
It pays particular attention to the theft of concealable firearms and conducts investigation
to identify the source or sources of firearms recovered in connection with the commission
of serious crimes:
Further, the Organised Crime Group within the State Crime Operations Command of
QPS is committed to bringing those responsible for weapons offences in connection with
the commission of serious crimes to justice. It conducts investigations and operations in
relation to suspected illegal firearm trafficking and major crimes involving the use of
firearms. It works closely with regional criminal investigation branches and interstate
jurisdictions; and where appropriate federal agencies in cases involving suspected
importations.
There is clear evidence that these initiatives are working; crime in Queensland has
steadily decreased over the last decade as a result of this Government’s successful
approach to policing. The latest QPS Annual Statistical Review shows that – for the tenth
consecutive year – the overall rate of crime in Queensland has fallen, by three per cent
this year and by 30 per cent between 2000 1 01 and 2010 /11 . Further, over the same
period , as published in the related QPS Annual Statistical Reviews, the rate of Weapons
Act offences in Queensland, per 100,000 people has decreased considerably from 128
to 74.
I trust this is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
N ick William
Sen  Advisor

Feb
01

UK’s gun laws have only ever generated waste and harm.

By | Latest NEWS

Leave a Comment

 Letters to the Editor, Southern Daily Echo

In Britain they Kill where ever and whenever they like, no one has an Equaliser to defend themsleves.

In Britain they Kill where ever and whenever they like, no one has an Equaliser to defend themsleves.

17 th  January 2012

Dear Sir
It was depressing to read the substantial coverage  (7th January, Jenny Makin)  given to the totally false concept that more and stricter gun control laws will have a beneficial effect on violent crime by linking that concept to the multiple murders committed by Michael Atherton.

Certainly the UK’s gun control laws are strict and generate a great deal of bureaucratic activity, both by the police and law-abiding gun-owners. Because of their complexity and irrationality, they also generate lots of prosecutions of people who have committed no anti-social act.

But linking bureaucratic activity to social usefulness is invalid unless the activity generates genuine, measurable, social benefits. And the UK’s gun laws have only ever generated waste and harm.

There have been 3 major changes in UK gun laws since WW2, in 1968, 1988 and 1997.

 The effects were the same every time:

  Crime increased

  Sport shooting was damaged

  Trade was damaged

  More police resource was diverted from useful work to bureaucracy

 Let us consider 1988, when the law introduced more shotgun controls. Both the police and the government claimed that the new controls would reduce crime without affecting sport shooting. But this is what actually  happened:

 Robberies with shotguns, previously stable, climbed by 26% over the next 4 years;

  From steady growth, lawful shotgun owners went into immediate decline, with police pressure pushing 1,000 out of the sport every week for 4 years, a total of 200,000;

  Trade was severely damaged, with many shops going out of business;

  About 3 million police man-hours were consumed and therefore not available for useful work.

 The device, if any, used in violent crime and murder, is relatively unimportant. By comparison with human intent, it is immaterial.

 Here in Jersey a man snapped about 5 months ago and stabbed 6 people to death with kitchen knives. The Gold, Silver and Bronze in British murdering are held by a doctor with a syringe and 2 arsonists. Over 9 out of every 10 British murders are committed WITHOUT guns. To imagine that the c.9% of British murders committed by shooting (of which about 90% are with illegal guns) would not  occur if, by some magical regulation, the murderers had had their guns removed, requires a substantial level of faith, as there is absolutely no evidence to support such a belief.

The most serious failing of British gun control is that it stops victims from defending themselves effectively – with a gun – against violent criminals.

 Yours sincerely

 Derek Bernard

 

Jan
27

Dr Alex Douglas MP MEMBER FOR GAVEN

By | Candidates Responses on GUNLAWs

Leave a Comment

This is Alex response to the questions. Which does not answer any of them and is a direct lie when he says they will oppose any legislation when on the 15th November 2011 they again (he and his party) all voted to increase the impositions  and fees on shooters. They do no like to expose themselves in the light and prefer to operate in the dark, that is why the majority will not answer as they know it exposes the lie.

Good afternoon

Thank you for your recent correspondence in relation to firearms policy. Mr Campbell Newman recently wrote to the  Sporting Shooters Association concerning this issue.

The LNP ‘CanDo’ Team supports whole heartedly the rights of Queenslanders to participate in recreational sports shooting.

The view of the LNP with respect to weapons licensing and firearms is clear, we oppose any unnecessary changes to the existing scheme that only serves to target law-abiding citizens.

I want to make it clear the LNP would not support any unnecessary hikes in licence fees and charges being imposed on sporting shooters and we have no plans on changing the current system.

When it comes to managing Weapons legislation, it seems Labor is more interested in tightening the screws on law-abiding Queenslanders than addressing serious crime in Queensland.

Labor has forgotten that targeting criminals committing crimes is the area needing most attention and it is the position of the LNP that the priority concern for the State Government should be to overhaul components of the Penalties and Sentences Act that target criminals who use illegal firearms. This is to ensure that tougher laws focus on actual criminals and not innocent Queenslanders.
The LNP acknowledge the thousands of stakeholders who tendered their submissions opposing previous Labor backed changes, please be assured the LNP will oppose any unnecessary changes to the legislation, particularly increases in licensing fees, and will continue to fight Labor’s bungled handling of the new weapons licensing system that has been a $7 million waste.
Once again I thank you for taking the time to write to me on this issue and look forward to working with you to ensure any new laws are actually aimed at the areas where there is genuine fault and concern.

Queenslanders have long enjoyed the time honoured past time of sports shooting and this position should continue to be supported through the existing legislative framework.

Yours sincerely

Dr Alex Douglas MP
MEMBER FOR GAVEN
4/12 Ferry St, Nerang | PO Box 1140 Nerang QLD 4211 P:07 5502 1411 F:07 5502 1433 E:gaven@parliament.qld.gov.au W:www.alex4gaven.com.au

“Let Alex be your voice” ? prompt action on issues with Government Ministers ? document witnessing ? letters of support  ? congratulatory birthday & anniversary messages

Jan
14

Shane Knuth MP Dalrymple, KAP speech 15 Nov 2011

By | Candidates Responses on GUNLAWs

Leave a Comment

 

 

Shane has still not responded to the questionaires sent by our members but has sent a copy of his speech.

Hansard Tuesday, 15 November 2011

 

Speech by

 

Shane Knuth

 

MEMBER FOR DALRYMPLE

 

Mr Shane Knuth

WEAPONS AMENDMENT BILL

 

Mr KNUTH (Dalrymple—KAP) (3.38 pm): I rise to speak to the Weapons Amendment Bill 2011. The

 

draft of the Weapons Bill 2010 was released for public comment and the majority of submissions fiercely

 

criticised it. This bill has been rushed, and was not released for public comment. It should have been

 

brought to the public’s attention before it was tabled in parliament.

 

Mr ROBERTS: I rise to a point of order. The member is misleading the House. All of the provisions

 

in this bill were part of the draft bill which was released to the public for consultation.

 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Elmes): Order! There is no point of order. I call the member for

 

Darymple.

 

Mr KNUTH: Back in the late 1990s, the John Howard gun law reforms were a whopping big issue

 

that caused a great impact across rural and regional Queensland. In the past we saw people rise up to the

 

point where there was a lot of anger and angst. I can understand why, at the moment, certain interest

 

groups are very concerned about this bill and I will bring up a number of amendments in relation to that.

 

When the first reforms were introduced, a number of members of parliament lost their seats over what was

 

a very emotional issue. I believe that those gun law reforms were among the toughest in the country, if not

 

the world.

 

I will give members an example. A gun owner has to have those guns in a safe. If a criminal was

 

breaking into my home while I was away, the first thing my wife and children would have to do would be to

 

find the key. After finding the key, they have to open the safe. Then they have to grab the guns. Then they

 

have to go to another room to grab the bullets. Then they have to go to another room—

 

Mr Schwarten: You ring 000. (forgets he got a visit from the Police and the six un registered firearms)

 

Mr KNUTH: A lot of people do not live close to cities. They have to put the bullets in the magazine,

 

load them up and then use the gun. I feel that that is as tough as you can get.

 

Mr Roberts: Do you want to keep a loaded gun in the house? Is that what you are saying?

 

Mr KNUTH: No, I use this example to show how tough are the laws. I cannot see any problems with

 

the penalties, such as for the possession of knives in schools. There is no issue with that. However, some

 

people are concerned about the classification of folding knives, which will not be classed as ordinary

 

pocketknives. This has to be addressed. The removal of licensing requirements for deactivated

 

monuments deserves acknowledgement. It is plain commonsense. The bill reviews the rights of the RSL to

 

display deactivated and imitation arms.

 

However, the majority of the amendments within the bill increase the penalties for responsible

 

licensed gun owners, do little to enhance community safety and do nothing to address the criminal element

 

involved in weapon ownership. The bill takes the focus off weapons for criminal activities by treating

 

everyone who owns a weapon like a criminal. Alternative deterrents, such as heavy sentencing, will do

 

much more to effectively target criminals than will increasing the penalties for recreational and sporting

 

shooters, gun club members and law-abiding citizens. An essential aspect of our democracy and a

 

necessity of our environment is that Australians have the right to own and operate firearms, with the

 

 

 

exceptions contained in a prohibited person’s register. However, targeting law-abiding gun owners with

 

unjustifiable penalties and loading them up with so much red tape that legal gun ownership becomes

 

impossible is a small step towards prohibition.

 

I grew up with guns, as did many members who have contributed to this debate. I know that if you

 

grow up around guns, you learn how to treat them with respect. This is why rural gun owners and sporting

 

shooters recognise that we need sensible regulations and do their best to comply with the existing

 

legislation.

 

One of the big issues with this bill is clause 44, which inserts section 68CA regarding the possession

 

of a large-capacity magazine for lever and pump action or centre fire rifles. This section has caused a lot of

 

concern in the community regarding lever or pump action and centre fire guns that have built-in tubular

 

magazines with a high capacity of more than 10 rounds. We need clarification on this point: if you have a

 

gun that has a tubular magazine of more than 10 rounds, does the whole gun have to be handed in? That

 

needs to be clarified. When the minister sums up the debate, I would like further clarification on the criteria

 

for obtaining a special provision to own a large-capacity magazine for category B weapons. If you have a

 

magazine that has more than 10 rounds, this bill says it has to be handed in. According to this bill, I have to

 

tell my friends and people who live in rural and regional Queensland who have a magazine that has more

 

than 10 rounds that they have to hand in that magazine.

 

It is important to recognise that further regulation of weapons licensing is no longer effective in

 

deterring the criminal use of weapons, but is casting a burden of bureaucracy on law-abiding firearm

 

owners. The truth is that those who wish to carry out criminal acts will obtain firearms in the illegal firearm

 

trade, which has no restrictions and no regulations. As a gun owner who complies with the current

 

legislation, at a significant cost, I sympathise with gun owners who feel that they are being demonised

 

simply because they own a gun. I believe that the legislation has no relevance to criminal activity or public

 

safety. The draft weapons bill, which was released for public comment, takes the focus off the use of

 

weapons for criminal activities by treating everyone who owns a weapon like a criminal. There are

 

alternative deterrents, such as effectively targeting criminals rather than law-abiding citizens. I have a lot of

 

concerns with this bill. It goes against the Australian way of life. It goes against personal firearm owners

 

and law-abiding citizens. I cannot support the bill.

Jan
13

Jason O’Brien MP Member For Cook Answer To Questionaire.

By | Candidates Responses on GUNLAWs

1 Comment

 

 Maybe Shooters can contact Jason O’Brien MP Member for Cook and explain to him how he is basing his wrong opinion on Wrong information.

I’ve answered some of your questions but not all questions can be answered as simply as a yes or a no.  My experience is that not everything in life or with the law is black and white but a shade of grey.  You use the word rights a lot as well.  I’m not sure if that is the right term in some of these questions.  The ownership of a weapon is lawful under certain circumstances.  We don’t have a Bill of Rights in Australiaso I’m not sure that ownership of a weapon is a fundamental right as you seem to imply as say, for example, as the right to vote or the presumption of innocence.  Nevertheless, I have endeavoured to answer your questions as honestly and accurately as I can.    We have tthe Bill of Rights of 1688, it state Protestants should have armssuitable for their defence. Catholics had them anyway. This is instealled in Queensland Law in two Ways , one throught the Monarchs Coranation Oath, which restricts the Crousn and the Governor to give assent to law in breach of this and also it is listed as current Laws in Force in the Imperial Acts Application Act. ron

Regards Jason O’Brien MP

Member for Cook

Dear Candidate or Serving Member of the House of Representatives.
Dear Sir or/ Madam

I, Name Allan

Address

Would like to know your feelings on firearms legislation, to gauge the support that I could give to your name and could expect in the future if your are elected. I, and my friends and club members, will direct their votes accordingly to your response in the forth coming State Elections.

We appreciate you do not have a lot of time to devote to this as you will be busy campaigning, in the New Year. So could you please just tick , or cross, or type Yes or No accordingly. Reply by mail to the above address or just click the Reply button. We will score them and send them to the FOAA s website where they will be displayed on a page, advising their members how to vote. If at any future time you wish to change your answers just alter and send back and we will amend the score accordingly.

1. Do you believe that law abiding citizens of Australia should have the right to own and use firearms for sport, tools of trade, pest eradication, collecting and hunting?
Yes / No  Yes, as per the provisions of the Weapons Act. Which is restricts all rights, so his answer is a No. 

2. Do you believe that law abiding citizens of Australia should have the right to save lives, by defending their own lives and the lives of their families and friends with firearms?
Yes / No  This sounds reasonable but there are too many complicating circumstances to say yes every single time.  Edging his Bets. 

3. Do you believe that law abiding citizens of Australia should have the right to hunt introduced species in Queensland State Forests and Crown land?
Yes / No  No.  StateForests and CrownLandmay have other titles of land over them.  Again this is not as simple as it seems.  State Land is all Crown land and belongs to all of us, Its our right to use the common land.

4. Do you believe that law abiding citizens of Australia should have the right to hunt introduced species in Queensland with Hand Guns?
Yes / No  I’m not sure that they are prohibited from doing so under certain circumstances now. They are. 

5. Do you believe that law abiding citizens of Australia should have a Long Arms Registry imposed on them ? (Which costs the Queensland tax payers millions, employs 155 full time staff, and thousand of police hours in every police stations in Queensland, and costs the shooter $30. every time he changes a firearm and has to wait sometimes 11 months to have the paperwork returned to him, during that time he cannot use the property he owns. We all believe Governments, cannot make it work, it solves no crimes, it does not save a life so it should be scrapped)
Yes / No  Don’t know about this one.  No one has ever raised it with me before.  Could you please write to be separately about this issue so I can get some background information and check some of the information you have put up here.  Thank you.  The Answer Should be no and he should find out big time from the shooters in his area that he supposedly represents.

6. Over the last twenty year Queensland politicians have followed the ‘Wrong’ principle of collectively punishing the law abiding, property owners, (that property being firearms) by prohibiting or registering that property and ignored the policing and prosecuting of the individual wrong doers. As no serious attempts by police are made to protect the community, crime increases and instead of addressing the real problem parliament again attacks the innocent property owners and prohibits even more property. This principle is immoral and should be reversed not compounded. Will you continue and support these prohibitive Acts of legislation?  Yes / No   I will support any legislation that gives police the power to make the community safer.  Crime rates have actually fallen in the last ten years. Crime Rates began to fall twenty years ago and have kept falling due to the increase in firearms in the community not because of the tin pot impositions. Many more shooters and firearms here in Australia since 1992 then 2012. Ron

« Older Posts