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.

 

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.

 Letters to the Editor, Southern Daily Echo

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

 

 More Guns = Reducing Crime Rates, Yet MORE POLICE POWERS??

Crime rates have been dropping for 20 years and yet today there is more danger to civil liberties posed by government than ever before. Our government continues to expand the definition of crime while approving special powers usually found in police states.

December 30, 2011

 By Matt Holzmann

 Last week, the FBI released its preliminary crime statistics for the first half of 2011, and across the nation violent crimes dropped 6.7% while property crimes dropped 3.7%. This continues a downward trend that dates back to the 1970′s.

Many of the violent crimes reported this year have been sensational. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and Federal Judge John Roll were targeted by a lone, crazed gunman and there were a number of other gruesome crimes. The Giffords/Roll shooting was brought to an end by a bystander. The Ft. Hood massacre on November 5, 2009, which killed 13 American soldiers and wounded 29 others was brought to an end by two base police officers using conventional sidearms and procedures. The warning signs for this terrorist attack, the first on American soil since 9/11, were ignored and yet it was the local cops on the beat who faced and dealt with a terrible crime.

Every case one can think of was resolved by conventional methods. And yet the police powers of government on a local and national level have been growing at an alarming rate. And despite a dissonant data base there is a growing trend towards militarization of police forces and of an invasive state security apparatus.

 The concept of militarization of police forces in this country began with the Special Weapons & Tactics (SWAT) teams in Los Angeles in 1967 -68. Its formation was a response to events including the Watts riots of 1965, and the emergence of snipers such as Charles Whitman, who killed 13 people on the campus of the University of Texas in 1966; the rise of armed revolutionary groups such as the Weathermen and, later, the Symbionese Liberation Army. Eventually SWAT returned to a more traditional police role of hostage/barricade incidents and suicide intervention.

Prior to and concurrent with this, the FBI in its battle with communism regularly investigated American citizens and the Hoover Files became famous. Today they are known primarily for salacious tidbits in the files on celebrities such as John Lennon and Marilyn Monroe. It was a time with different mores and the democratic principles of the country were in a cold war with a real and formidable enemy. Such was Hoover’s justification.

 With the fall of the Soviet Empire, instead of the “end of history”, the world was fragmented into dysfunctional states and many of the same pawns used during the Cold War turned their hands towards criminal operations. The drug wars became the new front for law enforcement. Sometimes the gangs were as well or better equipped than the police.

 Today, Afghanistan provides 90+% of the world’s heroin while the largest military action in the 21st Century takes place in that country; the opium poppies in many cases grow right up to the razor wire of American bases. A de facto civil war is taking place between the government and the narcotraficantes in Mexico that has cost 36,000 lives. Today the street prices of cocaine and heroin are at historic lows. It would seem that the War on Drugs is truly lost and that our government simply doesn’t care. And yet over $20 Billion/year is spent on the War on Drugs; most of it on law enforcement. This seems to be a very poor return on the investment.

 On September 11, 2001 the jihad being waged against the West since the mid 90′s struck at the heart of the infidel empire and 3,000 civilians were murdered. Everything changed that day. The West invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq with the goal of defeating the jihadists. Over 10 years later there has not been a single successful attack on the United States. Attacks in the UK, Spain, and Indonesia were successful, but there has been a steady decline caused by greater global cooperation and information sharing as the primary differentiators.

 Along the way a massive security infrastructure and bureaucracy was created. The Patriot Act authorized the broad use of enhanced surveillance techniques and intelligence gathering while including domestic terrorism under the scope of the intelligence services. To date the only truly domestic terror prosecution seems to have been a few retired white supremacists in Georgia. The Ft. Hood massacre was officially classified by the White House recently as a workplace related shooting.

 A key provision of the Patriot Act was the expansion of the authority of the Department of the Treasury to investigate money laundering, and yet the narcotics trade has risen from $321 Billion in 2003 according to the United Nations to an estimate of $500 Billion this year by the Center for Strategic & International Studies. In Afghanistan, hundreds of millions of dollars in cash are shipped out to banks in Dubai openly and with the government’s approval with no questions asked. The opium/heroin trade alone is estimated at $4 Billion/year which funds both the warlords on our side and the Taliban warlords. So Afghanistan is not only bleeding our military, but also our civilian population.

 And we now have a Department of Homeland Security that employs over 216,000. The Transportation Security Agency consists of over 58,000 of those employees. The Border Patrol is of equivalent size, while ICE employs approximately 20,500. In an address delivered by retired General Barry McCaffrey, he emphasized the real dangers of the War on Drugs and an out of control border. The criminal networks have become ever more sophisticated and now act as paramilitaries, destabilizing one of our most important allies. And yet the inward directed nature of much of our security establishment does nothing to address real and present dangers.

 The Wall Street Journal in an article entitled “Federal Offenses: law enforcement teams grow at government agencies” wrote on Saturday of the proliferation of heretofore nonexistent police forces in federal agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Commerce, Labor Department, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Agency, and many others who have the power to conduct investigations, seek indictments, or simply raid violators of even regulatory violations. Cases where armed agents have raided homes and workplaces have included the infamous Gibson Guitar raid for illegal wood; documentation errors on otherwise legal imports, and even the recent batch of a 881 lb. Bluefin Tuna by a New Bedford trawler. “Put the tuna on the ground and raise your hands”.

 The Internal Revenue Service has been strong arming countries around the world to open their bank records not to trace narcotics cash or Russian mobsters, but income tax evaders. The “Stop On Line Piracy Act” (SOPA) and the recent NDAA Act, which is now law, have broadened the policing authority of the Federal government to a never before greater degree at a time when ordinary crime is decreasing. The SOPA Act, in the words of one IT manager, would make our internet similar to China’s. The NDAA allows for the President to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens. The law then becomes a matter of semantics to the unprincipled.

 In the meantime, corruption and cronyism have risen to a level not seen since the 1870′s.

 Nat Hentoff has written extensively on the assault on civil liberties and on due process starting with many of the measures of the Bush Administration. This accelerated, according to Mr. Hentoff, under President Obama, who has concentrated power in the White House to an extraordinary degree. By avoiding Congressional approval and his own Executive Branch through the appointment of “czars” ranging from the auto industry to regulation to ethics to climate to consumer affairs, the president has subverted the separation of powers repeatedly in an imperial presidency that is unparalleled.

 Crime rates have been dropping for 20 years and yet today there is more danger to civil liberties posed by government than ever before. Our government continues to expand the definition of crime while approving special powers usually found in police states.

 When Members of Congress urged the President to ignore their own branch of government during the recent Congressional debt ceiling debate and act by fiat or the insistence of some of those same Members of Congress on the recusal of Justice Thomas in the health care case before the Supreme Court, one can easily understand the danger of even a well intentioned government to its own people.
As the terrorism threat used to rationalize many of these powers has receded, government power has never been greater or more at odds with the Constitution. In the meantime the narcoterrorism network which funds many those terrorist organizations, is on the sidelines. The law is at odds with itself.
Our government has built an anti-Constitutional framework that can and will eventually be turned against our citizens. On one side we have our civil/criminal system, and the other the growing power of Orwellian dysfunction. Think about it.

Save a Life, Carry a Knife.

Death in a Burning Car as No One Had a Knife to Cut the Baby From The Seat Belt.

The recent tragic death of the 11-month-old infant who onlookers were unable to free from a burning car because no one had a knife to cut the baby free from a jammed seat belt is heartbreaking. First and foremost, a young life was snuffed out in a most painful, terrifying way. My thoughts and prayers go out to the child’s parents and family, as well as those on the scene who were unable to save the infant. The incident will continue to haunt all concerned for many lifetimes.

The lack of a knife carried by any of the bystanders to cut the seat belt and free the baby was a contributing factor in the infant’s death. The fact it happened in Los Angeles with its strict anti-knife ordinances is even more detestable, where anti-knifers continue to succeed in their crusade against knives. Anti-knife laws indirectly—some might say directly—kept the child from being rescued, and no doubt will prevent others from being saved in future catastrophes as well.

Ordinances designed to keep people from carrying knives and, as a result, from saving the lives of others in emergency situations must be repealed. Of course, organizations like the American Knife & Tool Institute and Knife Rights and elected officials such as New Hampshire Rep. Jenn Coffey are the standard bearers in focusing on the repeal of anti-knife legislation. By joining and supporting them and speaking out on your own, writing your legislators and local newspapers, voicing your concerns on social media like Facebook, Twitter, etc., you can do your part, too. And be sure to voice your concerns in non-knife venues. You are “preaching to the choir” if you do it in pro-knife venues. It is the non-knife ones that need to hear the message.

In a heartrending way, the infant’s horrific death in a burning automobile magnifies the folly of anti-knife laws. In fact, thousands upon thousands more fatalities occur in car accidents than because of knives.

In place of anti-knife ordinances that exaggerate the problem, why not institute pro-knife ordinances that not only protect your right to carry knives, but also address the slaughter that occurs on our nation’s highways by enabling you to respond to emergencies such as the one in L.A.? Moreover, why not require the manufacturers of automobile baby seats to equip each of the seats with a seat-belt cutter conveniently placed for a parent or onlooker to use to cut the baby’s seat belt in an emergency? And while we are at it, why not require automobile and truck manufacturers to stock each and every vehicle with a seat-belt cutter?

Ideally, said manufacturers would take the lead and include seat-belt cutters with their products. Not only would it be a public service, the manufacturers would add value to their baby seats and vehicles. However, in today’s cost-cutting atmosphere, most manufacturers probably will not act without some kind of legislative push.

A number of knife companies have seat-belt cutters with the edges recessed for safety. Columbia River Knife & Tool offers one—the model also has a window breaker and flashlight—that attaches to a seat belt and is thus immediately accessible in an emergency situation. Seat-belt cutters can be the next best thing to carrying a knife, and are probably better and definitely safer when it comes to cutting a person from a jammed seat belt.

Repealing anti-knife legislation and promoting a seat-belt-cutter law would save the lives of innocents like the baby in L.A.—and, ironically, given the proper circumstances, maybe even the politically correct idiots who refuse to carry knives themselves.

Canada’s National Firearms Association Media Release

                           

GUN REGISTRY MISSES THE REAL TARGET

 “324,723 firearm prohibition orders issued and the gun registry doesn’t keep track of their addresses.”

New statistics obtained from the RCMP under the Access to Information Act has revealed a startling increase in the number of persons prohibited from owning firearms in the last five years.   On October 8, 2011 the RCMP reported a total of 324,723 persons recorded on CPIC (Canadian Police Information Centre) as prohibited from owning firearms.  This figure was up from 201,097 as reported to House of Commons on May 12, 2006 – an increase of more than 123,000 firearms prohibition orders over the last five years.  “The problem is,” said National Firearms President, Sheldon Clare, “that none of these convicted felons are tracked by the Canadian Firearms Program.  Police only know the current addresses of licensed gun owners – not the addresses of criminals determined by the courts to be too dangerous to own firearms.”

This is just the tip of the dangerous persons’ iceberg.  In the same release of information, the RCMP reported an additional 177,326 records of persons wanted on Canada wide warrants plus 88,995 records of persons wanted on Province wide warrants.  The RCMP also admitted that they do not have statistical information of the number of persons charged with violent offences that are currently out on bail.

Recent Statistics Canada homicide data analyzed by Professor Gary Mauser of Simon Fraser University showed that licensed gun owners are not the real problem.  Of 7,720 homicides committed between 1997 and 2009, just 95 (1.25%) were committed with a firearm registered to the accused murderer, and only 151 (1.98%) were committed by a person that held a valid firearms licence. On October 25, National Post columnist Lorne Gunter wrote: “The murder rate among gun owners using a gun is just 0.38 per 100,000 licensed owners, while the overall murder rate in Canada since 1997 has been about 1.85 per 100,000 population.” 

 “Over the last fifteen years, the Government of Canada has spent more than two billion dollars creating a registry of two million law-abiding people while completely ignoring those who have been determined by the courts to be too dangerous to own firearms. Clare concluded, “Taxpayers should be very concerned because their money has been wasted tracking the most law-abiding people in Canada.  Front-line police officers should be the most concerned because they only have a list of addresses for the good guys and nothing to tell them the current whereabouts of the bad guys.  In addition to this legislative oversight, the Firearms Act gives police the authority to “inspect” the homes of law-abiding gun owners but not the homes of those most likely to acquire firearms illegally.  This didn’t make any sense in 1995 when the Liberals rammed Bill C-68 through Parliament and it make even less sense today now that we have the evidence proving that the Firearms Act has always been aimed at the wrong people.  It is incredible that firearms owners are more strictly controlled than sex offenders.”

More background information on this and other Access to Information (ATI) Act requests can be found at the Firearms Facts link on the National Firearms Association website: http://www.nfa.ca/firearms-facts

 

For more information contact:

Blair Hagen, Executive VP Communications, 604-753-8682 Blair@nfa.ca

Sheldon Clare, President, 250-981-1841 Sheldon_Clare@shaw.ca

 

Dear Ron
Shooter Union Queensland was present in the public gallery at parliament house to watch the vote on the Weapons Amendment Bill last Tuesday. We had earlier been in touch with one of the Independents and several other politicians. Both the Katter’s Australian Party representatives in parliament came up to have a chat on a couple of occasions. All of those we were in contact with on the issue were asked about calling for a division when it came time for a vote and all agreed.

To explain, as a general rule, when a vote is taken in Parliament, it’s by show of hands and it’s so quick that nobody knows who voted for what. When a division is called, the vote is taken much more graphically. If the bill is presented by the government, those who wish to vote FOR the bill cross the floor to the government’s side of the House. Those who wish to vote AGAINST the bill cross the floor to the opposition’s side of the House. If there are 5 or more to vote against the bill, the names are recorded in Handsard. This is the process that occurred when the Weapons Act was originally voted in and when registration was voted for as well. On that occasion (1996), the only one who voted against the bill was Liz Cunningham.

Last Tuesday, there were six who voted against the bill: the Independents Liz Cunningham, Dorothy Pratt, Rob Messenger and Chris Foley and the two Katter’s Australian Party members Aiden McLindon and Shane Knuth.

Whilst some of the opposition spoke during the debate, ALL of them crossed the floor to vote with the government – again! Only those six stood up for shooters.

Of the debate on the individual clauses that followed in the evening, there was only one item where a division was called again. This was on the penalty for theatrical ordance suppliers without a licence. Your local high school production could very well be in breach of this clause, if they use “replica” firearms in their production and they don’t have a theatrical ordnance supplier with a licence to supply the replicas. Yes, really!

Remember the names of those who voted against this atrocious piece of legislation. They are the only ones we as shooters, can rely on to stand up for us. The rest of the parliament let us down. You can read the whole transcript of the debate in Handsard. Follow the link below and access the record for Tuesday 15th November.

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/en/work-of-assembly/hansard

Happy reading!

Kind regards
Rob Harrold
Shooters Union

The Letter below Was sent ont he 18th November 2011  to ‘Our Hero’s’ who voted against the LABOUR/LNP Coalition Weapons Amendment Bill of 2011,

 

An Open Letter toMrs Cunningham, Mrs Dorothy Pratt, Chris Foley, Rob Messenger, Aiden Mc Lindon, Shane Knuth.

Dear
After reading Hansard of the 15th November 2011 and being very pleased to see that six valiant defenders of the rights of Queenslanders, voted against the latest Weapons Bill 2011, one of those, being yourself. I felt moved to write to you to thank you on behalf of myself, and the law abiding firearm owners of the State. Even though we knew that the thousands of submissions we sent to the members of parliament would make no difference to the outcome, this time, your actions combined with the other five will enable us to publish the infamous names of those that voted for it.
We also realised that our little show of force at this date would go to remind the LNP on the next election day, of why they lost again. When they are looking at the tally board they will remember the 15th of November 2011. I’m sure the 250,000 licenced firearm owners, multiplied by 6 for their families and friends, will all vote accordingly, against the coalition of LNP/LABOUR in the forth coming election.
The LNP either, have to face complete extinction as a party or, change their voting pattern, and stop betraying the people of Queensland, stop voting with Labour and be an effective opposition. They have to accept that Russell Coopers Gun Laws are a billion dollar debacle. The Long Arm registry, has solved no crimes or saved any lives, is just a useless imposition on the people of Queensland and they should commit to scrapping the Long Arm Registry, or face political oblivion. In fact, the reaction to the National Party betrayal of Firearm Owners the National Party as an entity ceases to exist.
I read the earlier speeches and the ones of the 15th of November. I always had a very low opinion of the morals, intellect and lack of ability to read, of your contemporaries in the established main parties. Reading those pages shows that the majority of major party politicians must be chosen for their ability to be primary school bullies, lying, bickering, spoilt ignoramus whose sole skill is to join in the gang and steal one another’s jelly beans. Excepting the valiant few from your independent and Australian party, the level of debate could be heard in the primary school toilets, name calling, uninformed, ill read garbage.
One of the Crowns Minister’s Mr Roberts, a member of the cabinet, an advisor to the Governor in Council, made it very plain that he had not read the Weapons Act 1990, or the Regulations, that he had not read the amendments that he was proposing, that he did not understand the effect of the provisions within those clauses and what’s more had no idea of the doctrine of the sovereignty of the Parliament, and his function is a part of it. He referred to a definition of a magazine, that is within the current Act that includes the word ‘detachable’, yet was oblivious that sovereignty of parliament doctrine ensures that the words in his current amendments replace and repeal the previous definition. A magazine will now be defined as the “capacity of the weapon”, a box that holds ammunition will be just a separate box and the firearm may only have the capacity of one as the space in the chamber, once the box is removed. Ludicrous. I will not bother you with the other Monty Python idiocies within the amendments as sadly, even though they are so bazaar they still will wreck further havoc on the law abiding firearm owners of Queensland.
Thank you again for standing above the crowd.
Yours
Ron Owen J.P (Qual)
24 Mc Mahon Road
Gympie, 4570

 78 Thieves Stole More of Your Rights. 6 Hero’s Defended Them

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2011/2011_11_15_DAILY.pdf

Page 3615
AYES, 78—
 Attwood, Bates, Bleijie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Crandon, Cripps, Croft, Darling, Davis, Dempsey, Dick, Dickson, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Farmer, Finn, Flegg, Fraser, Gibson, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Hopper, Horan, Jarratt, Johnson, Johnstone, Jones, Kiernan, Kilburn, Langbroek, Lawlor, Lucas, McArdle, Menkens, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nicholls, Nolan, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Powell, Reeves, Rickuss, Roberts, Robertson, Robinson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Shine, Simpson, Smith, Sorensen, Spence, Springborg, Stevens, Struthers, Stuckey, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt,Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. T: Keech, Male

 NOES, 6—
Cunningham, Knuth, McLindon, Pratt. Messenger, Foley

The Betrayal.
If you wrote to any of the LNP members and received a response it would have talked glowingly about the LNP s efforts to protect firearm owners.  Well when the blarney is over. They show their real colours, the are the Quislings the collaborators of modern times. Please write and support the brave six  who voted No.

We did not lose.
We did not lose, as such. The thousands of submissions recieved by the members, some of them read out by Mrs Cunningham has told parlaiment that there is a force out there in the electorates that they have to deal with. They know that 200,000 firearm owners, (47,000 recent ones) are going to dictate the next election. (Coming Soon). They are afraid, there worst fear is that this 200,000 or 250,000 votes are not unified, they are not controlled by one organisation, they cannot infiltrate that organisation, they cannot buy off that organisation. Ultimately they will lose for this days betrayal. 

Ron Owen

Government are Todays Criminals.

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2011/2011_11_15_DAILY.pdf
For anyone who wishes the proceedings are reported in the link above.

Betrayed

Today the 15th November will be a date remembered in infamy by the 200,000 licensed firearm owners that it affects. We morn the loss of more of the few remaining human rights of our brothers in arms. Again, we were betrayed by the Labour Party the party that used to respect freedom, a party that produced Andrew Fisher, King o Mally, and Curtain. We betrayed, yet again by the National Party, the party that sold us out in 1996. Now amalgamated with the Liberal Party that also betrayed us today as it did with its decietfull leader John Howard in 1996. Howard, who signed letters in 1996 prior to his election stating that he would defend the rights of firearm owners then betrayed us in an instant after the Port Arthur murders. Instead investigating and prosecuting the Perpertrators he prosecuted the innocent. This process has just been an ongoing enslavement of  law abiding Australians. Instead of prosecuting the guilty they fine the innocent, its easier for them to blame us.

Defended By Independents and Two Katter members.

Today though as usual, the independents and now the two members of Katters Australia Party voted against and all the LNP and Labour voted to support the Bill. They will still be debating it tomorrow but the Vote has been cast. Tomorrow we will be distributing the list of ‘fors’ and ‘against’. These lists will be very handy as guides of who to vote for in the up and coming election. We must become political activists and insure that all Firearm Owners, shooters , hunters, collectors know who to voter for and who to vote against. Firearm owners have to write to local papers letters to the editor, write to your clubs, write to other clubs inform them of  this further betrayal.

The Police have just been given another small book of legislation to punish us with, they write it for the politicians and then they carry it out.  Did they consult with you, did you give your assent for them to pass this further list of impositions? No. We have to train our politicians to stop ignoring us. How many of you wrote to the LNP and they  wrote back and said they were going to object about the rights of shooter being over ridden. Yet they went and voted with Labour. In other times they would be branded collaborationist, Quislings, and held in suitable disrepute. It is our duty to remind the people of this betrayal. The LNP are so close to Labour there is no difference. They are not the opposition they are a part of the twin duopoly that tyrannise Firearm Owners.

 Hansard Today WEAPONS AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Resumed from 8 September (see p. 2922), on motion of Mr Roberts—
That the bill be now read a second time.
Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.21 pm): I rise to speak to the Weapons Amendment
Bill 2011. Every time one of these bills is presented to parliament, there is a reaction in the community. I am sure I, along with other members, have received correspondence, particularly from current licensed weapons owners who have expressed concerns. I will get to some of those soon. Mrs Cunningham goes to bat for the shooters. Page 358