Sep
07

Personal Frank Owen

OWEN_F

Dec
06

8th June 1996 Letter To Russell Cooper Minister of Police

Ron Owen
Firearm Owners Association of Australia
PO Box 346
GYMPIE 4570

Minister for Police and Corrective Services
Honorable Russell Cooper MLA
8 June, 1996

Dear Russell,
You will more than likely receive this letter via the newspapers as this seems to be the medium that you have chosen to communicate with the Firearm Owners and myself. I received your letter to me of the 7th of June courtesy the Courier Mail, Queensland Newspapers.
Your letter saddens me greatly, as I wished to personally see you on a face to face basis and point out that if you wish to retain any dignity whatsoever, you should resign from your position as a Minister of the Crown. It was reported by Hansard, on the 12th April 1994, page 7440, that you stated
“… to regiment gun owners into a permit based or licensed based register. Demonstrably, that attempt has been a dismal failure and the basic thrust of the Act has not been achieved. In roughly rounded figures, 250,000 licences have been issued, yet there are an estimated one million gun owners in Queensland”.
“Responsible, law abiding citizens who have sought and obtained appropriate licences are not the people whom weapon control legislation should be, to use an apt term, aimed at. Clearly hundreds of thousands of guns exist in the community in the possession of unlicensed people.”

How can you, as Minister of Police, be telling the truth then AND now. Were you lying to parliament then or are you lying now? One way or the other, you have lied to Parliament which is sufficient cause for your resignation. Perfidy by a Police Minister destroys public confidence and lowers Police morale. This bad enough but Russell you have compounded it by doing a complete reversal of your electoral policy on which you were elected. A letter from your electorate office, 67 McDowall Street, Roma addressed To The Gun Owner, stated
“I am not of the view that regulation and licensing is the answer.”
“The answer to the increase in violent crime in Australia does not lie in licensing gun owners and imposing unbearable restrictions”
“Licensing restrictions only treat sporting shooters, hunters and land owners as criminals and have no effect whatsoever on the real criminal bent on destruction.”
You would also have to resign from parliament, as the elected representative for Crows Nest you are not representing the wishes of your electorate. You have bunkered down in the concrete citadels. Doubt me if you dare, call a public debate in your electorate, I don’t mind coming and debating it with you in public. Ask the floor what their resolution is, both you and I know what their answer will be Russell.

You would also have to resign from the National Party, your reversal on the National Party platform policy has finished your party as a political force in Queensland. Your dishonour has put them in a position where, even if you back down again and do another 180 degree reversal, it will be to late, only political oblivion awaits the National Party because of your betrayal.

What makes all this sadder for me is that I have admired you as an intelligent human being who seemed to possess what is rare in a politician these days, an independence of mind and a quiet toughness, unlike the pasty faced wimps that usually confront us on the six o clock news. However, after the last few weeks of watching you shame yourself by attempting to plug up your leaking bath by saying that we have it all wrong and that we are extremist and scare mongering, you, as a firearm owner yourself have even spoken at our Firearm Owners Brisbane Branch meetings. You are fully aware that John Howard s Australasian resolutions impact on every firearm owner in this state, even if they only have an air rifle. You have got your copy of the resolutions, I have mine, I don’t think there are two different versions. When these resolutions are explained at public meeting in Gympie, Brisbane, Nambour, Kingaroy, Rockhampton, Cairns, Emerald, the people are horrified at what you are attempting to do.

I honestly will find it impossible to believe anything you ever say again without corroborative evidence or a weight of probability. So it saddens me and leaves me to wonder what sort of country I’m bringing my daughter up in.
Is it necessary for a politician to break promises and be willing to commit any atrocity to further his career in today s Australia? This hypothesis would account for a lot of what you have said in the last few weeks.
Be they evil or not, Ministers are supposed to be answerable to parliament and it should be axiomatic in a constitutional democracy that when a diminution or withdrawal of liberty is proposed, it is incumbent upon those who propose it to justify their case to the parliament.
If we had a state or federal parliament that operated constitutionally, we would have parliamentarians who represented their constituents and not be controlled by the totalitarian coalition of party hierarchy. Then we firearm owners would not be looking into the legislative apocalypse that faces us today. ie. confiscation of our property and the registration of what you decide to leave with us with until next time. Russell you have made no case whatsoever, we firearm owners have been accused, arrested, tried, convicted and persecuted, with no opportunity to say a word in our defence.

We know how helpless it feels when you have been disarmed, but we do not know yet, how it feels to be in a Death queue.

You have produced no research, you have failed to demonstrate the existence of a problem requiring legislative correction, you have failed to demonstrate a probable benefit derived from any of the measures proposed and you have indeed stated that you don’t intend to. To be sure we have asked for that proof but the requests have been ignored.

Russell, you now say “but should these people be allowed to own such things” the fact that you own guns that are outlawed in your own white paper speaks loudly of your hypocrisy, and deceit. You used to want to speak at Firearm Owners Association meetings, you used to want to know us when you were a customer of “Owen Guns” and you wanted your semi-automatic rifles repaired. You wanted to know Lock Stock and Barrel when you wanted a quote for us to print a small newspaper for you. What has changed Russell?.

In your invitation on the 3rd of June you regarded the Firearm Owners as a peak stakeholder, on the 7th of June you suggest that we are not a responsible organisation and that our members do not engage in legitimate shooting and related pursuits. Is this another 180 degree change Russell, when can you be loyal to anyone?

Yes, I do agree you are correct in one major part of your letter of the 7th and would have been disappointed if you had considered that I would have thought otherwise. The executive of the Firearm Owners Association and myself and the resolutions of each and every meeting remain intolerant and inflexible and we are not prepared to seek to accommodate any spirit of the resolutions of John Howard s special police ministers conference. In fact the resolutions at every one of our meetings is for our association to accept only the coalition proposals on which you were elected a few short months ago. Don’t you remember your promises, only a licence if we wanted one and a prohibited persons register – instead of the 1990 Weapons Act.

If it is true that your main reason for withdrawing your invitation is that I remain intolerant and inflexible and not prepared to accommodate the spirit of the resolutions, then it would follow that all the major organisations that you meet with are prepared to accommodate those resolutions.

Yes I do agree, that some major organisations such as the SSAA are seriously embarrassed in the on going debate, the SSAA to be investigated by the Criminal Justice Commission for making underhanded deals with Wayne Goss and the Labor party and they are now again ready to seek deals with yourself compromising the rights of their members. Yes, that is embarrassing. The Firearm Owners will never compromise or negotiate with the rights of the firearm owners of this state or any other in Australia, yes that’s what embarrasses them, we are not turncoats. Yes, these associations who have stated to their members that they believe letters from Wayne Goss, are all embarrassed when the labor party betrays them.

Yes, admittedly we do speak up and yes the media, hacks and chops and sticks together what ever story it wishes to present. You of all people know that the media do this. If you had wished to check anything, a full unedited transcript would have been and still is, available to you.
We are appalled at the extremism of what you are attempting to do to our country, our rights and our property. We did check the resolutions of the police minister meeting and did check that you really intended to implement them. You could have given us the benefit of checking the authenticity of the reports before you became appalled about us. It matters little now the die is cast.

If you would prefer to debate this issue with equal conditions and time in Gympie and if you have an explanation as to why your beliefs keep turning around, please let us know what nights you have available within the next few weeks and we will provide a venue and an audience of our members to patiently listen to the next Russell Cooper story.

Yours

 Ron Owen.
This was probably the reason that Owen Guns did not get compensated for its stock during the ensuing buy back.

Nov
24

Article on the Rotating Gun Buy Back from 1998.

 

Article on the Rotating Gun Buy Back from 1998.

Subsequently to this article the Police Armourer was charged and convicted as firearms were going in from the Police and coming out again. He was only the small fall guy the men at the top remain untouchable. Ron. 

Firearm Owners Association of Australia

RE: POLICE & POLITICIANS, THE CAUSE OF RISING ARMED CRIME

The Australian Bureau of Statistics Report on the rise of armed crime, as printed in the Sunday Mail, October 18th 1998, is no surprise to firearm owners, as they who have had to suffer under the scorn and derision of the mass media, borne the brunt, sacrificed their possessions to sate the egos of politicians, made it their main business to research armed crime on a historical world basis. This research material was sent by literally ton-loads to politicians, in submissions and advice. Many of the politicians came out publicly and admitted they knew that John Howard’s draconian 1996 Gun Laws would have an adverse effect on the lives and security of Australians’, such as Neil Turner, Bob Katter, De-anne Kelly, and Bob Dollin. Many more politicians on both sides of Parliament admitted privately they knew this party-imposed legislation was wrong, yet besides Liz Cunningham, State Member for Gladstone and Graham Campbell, Federal Member for Kalgoorlie, they all voted for it.

So, when you have had your home invaded, your property stolen, your children raped and your wife murdered, you, the people, have no rights to protect yourselves or your family. These politicians installed the legislation that ensures you are vulnerable. Whom do you hold responsible? It has to be these same politicians. Don’t vote for them. Sue them for compensation. They legislated with foreknowledge and intent, completely aware that the criminals would not register or hand in their guns, that the Police had guns to defend themselves and that the politicians employed men with guns to defend them. The only people who are not allowed to defend themselves with guns are people in the law abiding community.

Previous to the Weapons Act of 1990, there was no licence for a long arms in Queensland. In N.S.W. registration, licensing and gun bans prevailed, which had been installed over many years. The Bureau of Statistics and Police figures constantly proved that the misuse of firearms was only a third of the N.S.W figure. This is what made the installation of gun laws in Queensland much more difficult, as every time they tried we would show the comparisons. It was only when Wayne Goss’ government was prepared to defy logic that gun licences were introduced into Queensland.

It may be difficult for some people to get their minds around, but if you were an armed robber, on which side of the border would you operate: – the one in which one in three houses held a firearm that had the capacity to retaliate and hurt the intruder, or the other side which was defenceless? Of course, now that all law abiding citizens in Australia are defenceless, the armed crime is going to increase all over on a consistent basis. It is still higher in N.S.W. because they have had it longer, but eventually, if this situation persists, we in Queensland will catch up.

What magnifies the situation is as the Parliament misplaces its resources and efforts, the real cause of crime is ignored and increases. It spends 18 million employing sixty people to run a gun registration system that only has 150,000 licenced shooters complying with it. Under the old lifetime licence without registration, 320,000 shooters obtained a licence, but when registration was introduced, over half did not comply. It is recorded in Hansard during a speech by Russell Cooper, ex-Minister of Police, when he was opposing gun licences, before he betrayed them, that there were one million firearm owners in Queensland by their estimation.

In years gone bye, we sent our young men overseas with guns to defend our country. We trusted them when they returned. Now they are disarmed and distrusted. Let us not forget.

 

When all know that gun registration is the same as car registration. No-one with any sanity robs a bank with their registered car, neither will anyone commit a crime with a registered gun. I keep myself reasonably informed on the subject and have yet to ever hear of a Police force finding any information from a Police operated Firearms Registry that has led Police to conviction for a felony. Of course, I have heard of many cases where it is used to harass good citizens who have been late with a renewal or a dealer who has been slack with his mass of paper work. Real crimes, crimes against the public, have never been solved using gun registers.

Where do criminals obtain their hand guns (handguns are the main choice).To learn, one only has to have an idea of who has their hand in with the most drugs in the State of Queensland. If an honest investigation was made historically, the biggest suppliers and growers have been the Police. It’s not that all Policemen are bent, but senior police are bent and no one has the power to remove them. None of these CJC or Connelly/Ryan investigations come to anything because their staff are appointed and vetted by Jim O’Sullivan. Jim was the first into Terry Lewis’ office to get at the files. Jim was the number one man under Fitzgerald, the man who got all the money and found travel rorts, but not drugs. It was supposed to be about drugs, gambling and prostitution, but the only thing they have done about these issues is to ignore one and legalise the other two. Jim O’Sullivan is not about crime control, but about controlling crime. The situation is mirrored in every state in Australia with an investigating commission on a full time basis putting up a show of an investigation. Only the small fry who are not in the circle get prosecuted, for standing over shopkeepers for fish and chips and such like. The big police crims get protection. Some may say “where’s your evidence’? Well, we have it and when we go to the media with our evidence, which in one small instance is one of the computers from the Gun Buy Back Project, which has evidence of the Police re-circulating guns from the Police Armoury, the Police Museum and. Police Training Academy, it’s too heavy for them and they pull out. The Project gave a figure for all the guns handed in. The computer which prints the receipts tells us another figure, less than half. What happened to the rest? Did they not exist or were they sold through the back door? Mr. Robert Carson was the head of that Project, Jim O’Sullivan’s number one man. Jim has protected him through thick and thin. When the same Police staff that was re-circulating Police guns through Buy-Back are suspended from the Police Armoury, when the Auditor-General finds massive deficiencies, when surrendered guns from Police Armoury are used in armed robbery, Jim pulls Robert Carson out of the fiery furnace again and again.

It’s not just in Queensland. Earlier this year the NSW Police lost 1400 40-calibre Glock Pistols which were to replace some of their revolvers. At first, when contacted by Courier Mail journalist Rory Callinan, the Police information officer denied it on two separate occasions.  They were offered for sale in lots of 20 on the NSW black market at $3,000 each (Crims always have plenty of money). The NSW Police information officer still denied that they have lost them. Then two were recovered in a robbery. Then the NSW Police admitted they were part of their missing consignment (phone NSW Police Armoury to confirm this information).

If you still have any doubts about thousands of guns going for a walk via the Queensland Police, we can supply you with serial numbers and descriptions of guns handed in to “Buy Back” with documentation. Phone up the Weapons Licencing in Queensland and ask the Senior Officer if they have any record of serial numbers and descriptions of guns handed in to “Buy Back” . If they say they have, then ask them to supply the details to the serial number we gave to you, or why their staff are requiring dealers to submit statutory declarations that they handed in firearms to “Buy Back”. If they already have that confirmation, there is no point asking for the declaration. If they have not got a record of those forty-five thousand guns, anyone who used to have a gun or a Gun Licence, all they have to say is they handed it in to Buy Back and signed a statutory declaration and nobody can say any different. If they know they have no record of that forty-five thousand or really any idea what happened to them what’s the point of spending the 18 million dollars registering some of the rest? None at all.

 

15/10/98

 

Jimmi Hendrix  JIMIPAW.jpg (1279 bytes)
FOAA Media Liaison Office

Nov
06

Operation Strike Back 100% Victorious 18th Feb 2001

Ron Owen
Sun, 18 Feb 2001 02:44:37 -0800

Sorry, the First one had not been edited, please excuse the mistakes and pass on this message. Ron
 
 
 
 
Firearm Owners Association of Australia
 
Box 346 Gympie
Queensland 4570
Phone 07 54825070
Fax 07 54824718
 
Message to all Firearm Owners in Australia

Operation Strike Back 100% Victorious

In 1986 Howard, Fisher, Cooper and Borbridge were all warned by the FOAA that if they continued to ignore the individual rights of Firearm Owners, traditionally their core supporters, that they, having ‘sown the wind would reap the whirlwind’. They were told in no uncertain terms via, thousands of letters, faxes personal visits by former members and in countless media interviews by our executive, that to proceed with the dictatorial Gun Laws would be political suicide. That they would end up taking all their MP’s to parliament in a bongo van.

They did not want to listen, in fact Cooper and Borbridge invited the FOAA executive to a conference, prior to the introduction of the Act and then cancelled the meeting at the last minute, saying we were considered ‘INTRACTABLE’ that means, unsubmissive, unyielding, uncompromising, and it was true. We would not compromise the rights of our members by ‘treating’ with the enemy.

The Road Back

It has taken nearly four years, countless days and many nights of burning the midnight oil by thousands of Firearm Owners throughout Australia but the Liberal, National betrayal has finally been driven to its conclusion. Every state Government that agreed to the Inter-National Gun Laws has been thrown out of office, the Nationals and Liberals as a political force in this country are now a non event. Cooper has Resigned, Fisher has resigned, Borbridge has resigned and Prime Minister Howard is riding an (at the most six months) avalanche of disenchantment into a chasm that the Liberal/National coalition will never crawl out from.

 

‘Bang Bang And You’re Dead’

 

quote by Sir Richard Court referring to One Nation’s effect on the West Australian Liberal Party.

‘One Nation’ the machine that has produced this stunning result would not have had substance if the shooters did not supply the legs. Both the Firearm Owners and Pauline have both been quoted as saying that ‘Pauline is the Train Driver and the Firearm Owners are the Engines and Wheels’. We have split Liberal and National asunder, now One Nation is the fastest growing political force in Australia’s history.

Only One More Party To Beat

Of the three Major Parties whose ‘bi-partizan’, or as I would call it ‘Tyrannical’ behaviour introduced the Inter-National Gun Laws in 1996 there is only one left. Labour. It seems that the only vehicle that has a chance of bringing Labour to its knees is, One Nation. One Nation is the only Opposition.

Labour is the last one to go, it cannot hide now behind a shield of Liberal Socialists, it’s on its own, isolated ready to be knocked off its perch.

Labour has not won an election on its merits, it offers no solutions, no fairer attitude to the electorate, it has only sat on the sidelines benefitting from the massive split in the coalition parties. As all action causes re-action. Labours 10% swing, a backlash from Liberal due to GST can soon swing to One Nation with the certainty of a ticking clock.

Let’s do it.

Ron Owen

Nov
05

Commensense from the Past

Commensense from the Past
Alan Jones Today Show Editorial
GUN BUYBACK 17 June 2003

Not a Knee Jerk Reaction but Their Final Solution.

Not a Knee Jerk Reaction but Their Final Solution.

“I can tell you, there is positive outrage at what the Prime Minister is trying to do in relation to another handgun buy-back from July 1.”

“Police vans will be touring the countryside, seizing and destroying handguns and paying compensation to owners, and with the money in compensation, owners will just buy another gun of an approved barrel length.”

“But this involves a phenomenal amount of taxpayers’ money that could be spent elsewhere.”

“No-one who writes to me seems to be able to understand why we have buy-backs when the only people handing in the guns are the people who aren’t breaking the law.”

“No-one has ever seen a criminal queuing up to hand in their weapons.”

“But the worst feature of all of this is that it’s a government policy fashioned independently of all research.”

“The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics Report demonstrates that the most up to date figures show 49 people in Australia killed with firearms.”

“And this is not just with handguns, which we are going to buy back, but rifle as well.””49. ”

“You might recall in 1996, a fellow broke into the Dunblane Primary School in Scotland and opened fire on a class in a gym, killing 16 children and a teacher.”

“Suddenly handguns were banned.”

“London’s Daily Telegraph editorialised earlier this year and I quote, “The increased use of handguns bears out criticism that the ban imposed after Dunblane took weapons out of the hands of law abiding, shooting club members, rather than criminals, and had no impact on gun crime.”

“Whereas, in America, since 1986, more than 25 States passed laws encouraging people to carry concealed handguns and an academic, Dr. Gary Mauser, recently wrote about this, “As surprising as it is to the media, these new laws have caused violent crime rates to drop, including homicide rates.”

“At a time when there is no money for the disabled, the mentally ill, or to improve the quality of aged care, the government has spent over $500 million in the Port Arthur gun buy-back and now, more than $100 million is proposed to be spent from July 1 onwards on a gun buy-back that will do nothing to reduce the incidence of crime.”

“This is madness.”

“49 people have died in one year on the latest available statistics from firearms.”

“And that includes rifles as well as handguns.””49.”

“So buy-back handguns.”

“Well 50 pre-school aged children died in swimming pools last year – do we close swimming pools or buy them back.”

“80 people died in boating accidents.”

“What are we going to do about boats.”

“60 people died on beaches last year.”

“Spare us the thought!”

“If this is called public policy, we need to start again.”

“Says it all really.”

Oct
30

More Gun Controls? They haven’t worked in the Past.

Wall Street Journal
More Gun Controls? They haven’t worked in the Past.
By John R. Lott

Everyone from President Clinton to the hosts of the Today
Show attributes the recent wave of school violence to the greater
accessibility of guns. Gun-control groups claim that today “guns
are less regulated than toasters or teddy-bears.” Proposed
solutions range from banning those under 21 from owning guns to
imprisoning adults whose guns are misused by minors. Today the
House will consider yet another measure, this one requiring a
waiting period and back- ground check for anyone wishing to make
a purchase at a gun show.

Such legislation might make sense if guns had indeed become
easier to obtain in recent years. Yet the truth is precisely the
opposite. Gun availability has never before been as restricted as
it is now. As late as 1967, it was possible for a 13-year-old
virtually anywhere in the U.S. to walk into a hardware store and
buy a rifle. Few states even had age restrictions for buying
handguns from a store. Buying a rifle through the mail was easy.
Private transfers of guns to juveniles were also unrestricted.

But nowhere were guns more common than at schools. Until
1969, virtually every public high school in New York City had a
shooting club. High-school students carried their guns to school
on the subways in the morning, turned them over to their home room
teacher or the gym coach and retrieved them after school for
target practice. The federal government even gave students rifles
and paid for their ammunition. Students regularly competed in
city-wide shooting contests, with the winners being awarded
university scholarships.

Since the 1960s, however, the growth of federal gun control
has been dramatic. Federal gun laws, which contained 19,907 words
in 1960, have more than quadrupled to 88,413 words today. By
contrast, in 1930 all federal gun-control laws amounted to only
3,571 words.

The growth in state laws has kept pace. By 1997 California’s
gun-control statutes contained an incredible 158,643 words —
nearly as many as the King James version of the New Testament —
and still another 12 statutes are being considered in this
legislative session. Even “gun friendly” states like Texas have
lengthy gun-control provisions. None of this even begins to in-
clude the burgeoning local regulations on everything from
licensing to mandatory gun locks.
The fatuity of gun-control laws is nowhere better
illustrated than in Virginia, where high-school students in rural
areas have a long tradition of going hunting in the morning. The
state legislature tried but failed to enact an exemption to a
federal law banning guns within 1,000 feet of a school, as
prosecutors find it crazy to send good kids to jail simply
because they had a rifle locked in the trunk of their car while
it was parked in the school parking lot. Yet the current attempts
by Congress to “put teeth” into the laws by mandating
prosecutions will take away this prosecutorial discretion and
produce harmful and unintended results.

But would stricter laws at least reduce crime by taking guns
out of the hands of criminals? Not one academic study has shown
that waiting periods and background checks have reduced crime or
youth violence. The Brady bill, widely touted by its supporters
as a landmark in gun control, has produced virtually no
convictions in five years. And no wonder: Disarming potential
victims (those likely to obey the gun laws) relative to criminals
(those who almost by definition will not obey such laws) makes
crime more attractive and more likely.

This commonsense observation is backed by the available
statistical evidence. Gun-control laws have noticeably reduced
gun ownership in some states, with the result that for each 1%
reduction in gun ownership there was a 3% increase in violent
crime. Nationally, gun-ownership rates throughout the 1960s and
’70s remained fairly constant, while the rates of violent crime
skyrocketed. In the 1990s gun ownership has grown at the same
time as we have witnessed dramatic reductions in crime.

Yet with no academic evidence that gun regulations prevent
crime, and plenty of indications that they actually encourage it,
we nonetheless are now debating which new gun control laws to
pass. With that in mind, 290 scholars from institutions as
diverse as Harvard, Stanford, Northwestern, and UCLA released an
open letter to Congress yesterday [Wednesday June 16] stating
that the proposed new gun laws are ill-advised: “With the 20,000
gun laws already on the books, we advise Congress, before
enacting yet more new laws, to investigate whether many of the
existing laws may have contributed to the problem we currently
face.”

It thus would appear that at the very least gun-control
advocates face something of a dilemma. If guns are the problem,
why was it that when guns were really accessible, even inside
schools by students, we didn’t have the problems that plague us
now?
___________________

Mr. Lott, a fellow in law and economics at the University of
Chicago Law School, is author of “More Guns, Less Crime”
(University of Chicago Press, 1998).

Oct
20

Historic Speech on Weapons Act Amendments 1998 by One Nation

This speech is history now, 12 years ago in Parlaiment One Nation tried to offer the Nationals a way out a half baked solution, which would have saved the National Party half the membership that was walking away from it and have still never returned. They refused, the Bill never got up, the Nationald lost, One Nation lose and we the shooters of Queensland have been losing since 1996. Now is the time to Act. This is interesting not just from a history persepective but as the Editors Note at the bottom by J. Hendix, fortune favours the brave, half measures inspire no one. Ron

The Grand Gun Theft had already occured.
The Grand Gun Theft had already occured.

Weapons Act Amendment 1998

W.Feldman MLA (One Nation)

Mr Speaker,

Today represents a historic occasion for the firearm owners of Queensland.

I will now introduce to the Parliament One Nation’s Private member’s Bill to amend the Weapons Act 1990 which will return some commonsense and sanity to the firearms debate.

Firstly let me reiterate our philosophy on firearm ownership. We believe firearms should only be acquired and used by fit and proper and licensed persons, and our policy reflects this.

We also believe that licensed firearm owners should not be treated like criminals, should not be harassed by government departments, and should not be subject to unnecessary regulation or intrusion into their day to day activities.

Most importantly, we believe firearm owners must not be blamed and punished for things that are not their fault.

One Nation’s policy is based on the following principles.

That shooting is a legitimate sport and pastime and participants should be treated accordingly.

That Australians have the right to defend themselves and their families in their own homes.

That disarming law abiding Australians is not in the national interest and will do nothing to reduce crime.

In addition, the existing Weapons Act has grown to be an administrative nightmare, and very wasteful of police resources which would be far better utilised in fighting real criminals.

On the subject of crime, the number of robberies involving firearms has jumped 39% last year according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures as reported in the Sunday Mail on 18th of October 1998.

In the same article a criminologist expressed surprise and bafflement at the increase and tried to explain it away. The reason why armed robbery has increased despite the buy-back Mr Speaker, is that the criminals didn’t hand in their guns, only honest people did.

This Bill contains a number of new initiatives designed to ensure that only fit and proper persons can legally own and operate firearms in Queensland, and at the same time reward law abiding firearm owners by sensibly amending many provisions in the current Act.

We support the existing 28 day cooling off period and we agree with compulsory theoretical and practical training before a license is issued.

This legislation will establish a Prohibited Persons Register of persons who are not fit and proper to hold a license or possess a weapon.

Under this legislation, a doctor or psychologist must report a condition or illness, which for the purpose of this Bill, would make a person unsuitable to obtain or hold a firearms license or weapon.

This person will be placed on the register and will remain on the register until cleared by a doctor or psychologist.

In addition, a domestic violence order, other than a temporary protection order, will continue to prevent a person from obtaining or holding a license or weapon for 5 years after the expiry of the order.

A person who has been convicted of any of the following offences in Queensland or elsewhere will not be able to obtain or hold a firearm license or weapon within 5 years from the time of the conviction.

A non-indictable offence relating to the misuse of drugs.

A non-indictable offence involving the use, or threatened use of violence.

A non-indictable offence involving the use, carriage, discharge or possession of a weapon.

The conviction for an indictable offence in Queensland or elsewhere will mean a ban for life against obtaining or holding a license or firearm.

We strongly support the concept of self defence, and so in this Bill, defence of a person or the person’s family in the person’s place of residence will be a valid reason to obtain a firearms license subject of course to satisfying all other requirements under the Act.

Under this legislation, a fit and proper person, once obtaining a firearms license, which is issued for life subject to good behaviour, will be able to acquire a category A, B or C class weapon.

A permit to acquire will not be required for category A, B or C class weapons.

Category A, B and C class weapons will not have to be traded through a licensed dealer, but a person must not acquire a weapon unless licensed, nor may a person sell or dispose of a weapon to an unlicensed person.

Category D and H weapons will require a permit to purchase and membership of an appropriate organisation or another acceptable reason to acquire and hold as defined under the Act.

Interstate residents moving to Queensland will have to satisfy all additional requirements under this Bill before being issued with a license.

The time limit to obtain a Queensland license is 14 days for category A, B or C weapons, and 7 days to obtain a license for category D and H weapons.

The commissioner will have to maintain a firearms register for category D and H weapons only. Information on the firearms register can only be released by the commissioner to the chief executive of the police service of the Commonwealth or another state for a valid purpose as defined under this Bill.

This Bill will also remove the anomaly whereby someone legally acting in self-defence may nevertheless still be guilty of an offence under the Weapons Act.

Likewise, practical amendments have been made to make the transportation of an uncovered firearm in a vehicle legal in certain circumstances.

This Bill will also establish a community liaison committee to provide advice to the Minister on the administration of the Act. Establishment of the committee is provided for in the current Act, but for some reason, the committee has never been established.

The committee will consist of nominated representatives from various interest groups who will be appointed by the Minister. This committee should provide a valuable interface between government and the public on the administration of the Act, and firearms issues in general.

This Bill is a sensible compromise and will stop unsuitable persons from accessing firearms legally, and will allow law abiding firearm owners to go about their business with a minimum of government interference.

I commend the Bill to the house.

Editorial Note. Bill commends it, and we realise it would take a miracle to get it past.

We realise that it may win them enough publicity to win the By-election of Mulgrave, if the media are kind and hound them for proposing such revolutionary stuff. But is it revolutionary? I don’t believe that you can half skin a cat. Its either skinned or it’s not. Bill Feldman has tried to half skin the cat, and could lose people like me, who believe that proposing half measures when you know they are ridiculous and won’t work.. Twenty eight day cooling off periods, registration of semi-auto’s and pump action shotguns, renewable shooters licences (Yes all that is still in the One Nation proposed new Act) and permits to purchase will not bring the armed crime rate down from 39%. Hand gun lifetime carry permits at a $1.00 each would. Bill may not realise how easy it is to collect a D.V.O. If he owns guns he should think of this before he refuses to put sugar on his wife’s cornflakes in the morning. Bill should look up Indictable offences in a comprehensive legal dictionary before banning people for life. Any offence can be indictable if the matter is not dealt with in a summary fashion. I know a person who was indicted instead of summonsed for contempt of court. I am not saying I won’t vote for a One Nation candidate again but I sure will look for better options. On the other hand Bill will have already lost the bleeding hearts who think that a demon killer lives down the barrel of every gun. Historically, bandaid solutions don’t work. Half measures because they think the media will laugh do not solve any problems or win them any friends. Victory goes to the brave heart, truth wins, sometimes, but lies never do..Pauline was brave and said, “The King has no clothes,” “ATSIC is corrupt”, she won the seat of Oxley. You have to inspire, and provide leadership. Compromise! Bill and both sides run off like the half skinned cat.

Jimmi Hendrix