Firearm Legislation Review Queensland, Police Fight With Lies.

Firearm Legislation Review Queensland, Police Fight With Lies.
(I might not get a Christmas Card from the Queensland Police this year, but they have made thise statements in public so in public they have to be answered. Come to think of it, I have not been on their Christmas Card list for 25 years or more)


Police Fight to Save Administration Jobs, With Lies.

In past Centuries tools were used by tyrants to suppress the people, swords, Guns, Bows, and the Lance, but all it takes in the 21st Century is ‘Words’. Well not all words but to be more specific ‘Lies’.
Within one week we have had two lies, used to mislead the politician’s and the general public first one on August 27, 2012 by Queensland Police Union President Ian Leavers, stating, 
“Statistically, since 2000, police are just as likely to be killed by licensed firearm owners,” to the Brisbane Times.
Then to the Courier Mail on the 28th he slandered every lawful firearm owner in Queensland again,
Since 2000, half the police gunned down in the line of duty were killed by licensed firearms owners.”
Repeated again,
However, Mr Leavers said Queenslanders were just as likely to get shot by a legal firearm user, which was the case for Norm Watt and Perry Irwin – two officers fatally shot since 2000.”
He had been challenged on his information on the 27th and this later report on the 28th in the Courier Mail was his premeditated reply. While we cannot locate information on a, trial or coroners report to confirm the Licence status of the shooter of Norman J. Watt in the year 2000. We can state that in the inquest into the deaths of PERRY James IRWIN by DAMIEN LAWRENCE COATES Coroner’s Court FILE NO(s): COR 721/04(2) DELIVERED ON: 07 October 2005,by Mr Michael Barnes, the State Coroner states,
Page 15 “Mr Coates was not licensed to use a firearm”.

Just in case, Mr Leavers had wanted to use it as an excuse, that he had quoted the wrong Policeman’s name, I found another corners inquest into the deaths of Constable Brett Andrew IRWIN by Craig Anthony SEMYRAHA Coroner’s Court FILE NO(s): COR 3311/07(4) and COR 3338/07(0) DELIVERED ON: 06 October 2009 by Mr Michael Barnes, It is quite clear from that report that SEMYRAHA did not have a Firearms Licence either.

So ‘Watt’ in the year 200 could be a “Maybe” and two definitely have not had licences, Constable Damian Leeding was shot June 1, 2011, at the Gold Coast but no one has been found guilty yet of that deed so no one can ascertain if they had a licence or not.

Lying Is An Unfortunate Habit.

On April 18, 2012 Queensland Police Union president Ian Leavers said
“the service had seen a rise in gun crime over the past two years, particularly with criminals arming themselves with handguns.” “Gun crime, in general, has been on the increase in Queensland,” he said.
Before making a statement like that person who was representing other people and supposedly speaking on behalf of public safety should have consulted his own departments latest figures; Queensland Police Annual Statistical Review 2010 –11 states Weapons Act Offences

“The rate of weapons act offences decreased by 3% from 76 offences per 100,000 persons in 2009/10 to 74 offences per 100,000 persons in 2010/11.”

PROFIT, At Our Expense.
So why would this powerful Police union boss, say such things? Well more money for his members, more staff working under them gets them a bigger pay scale, a seat on the new Firearm Consultative committee could lift his profile into preselection into a State Labour safe seat in parliament? It is amazing what profit can be gained from a lie at our expense. Yes, due to that lie the Police Minister rewarded him by appointing him to the committee. Was it all to cover the fact that only 3 Policemen were murdered in the 15 years, prior to the registration of firearms legislation, and 4 Policemen in 15 years after the introduction of the legislation? No, more than likely it will be because of money. Why would the Police Minister put someone on the Firearm Consultative Committee with a reputation for lying like this. Maybe, he does not know that the Police Union rep is just trying To Protect, “Salaries”

 NEW Police Commissioner For the State’s Largest Criminal Organisation.
(30 Years of Constant Crime Commissions Have Never Suppressed its Operations.)

Then to finish the week off we have our new incoming Police Commissioner Ian Stewart who joins a rogues gallery of Commissioners Terry Lewis, Jim O Sullivan, Bob Atkinson, to lead an organisation that has been under investigation by a specific Crime Commission for 25 years. He made these comments to the ABC News ‘Gold Coast’ 4th September.

“We see it every second day where a house is broken into and a firearm is stolen.”

This again is nonsense, another lie with a political objective, self importance, more jobs for the boys at the expense of the licensed shooters. He gives the impression that every second house is broken into and a firearm is stolen.

Queensland Police Annual Statistical Review 2010 –11, “Unlawful Entry which is house breaking 43,024 offences were reported to police in 2010/11.”

Well, if the new Police Commissioner is giving a truthful impression we should be looking for over 20,000 stolen firearms, but the last Police Commissioner Mr Atkinson stated in the Courier Mail April 20, 2012,

“500 firearms had been stolen last year.”

A great difference and Mr Atkinson figures seem a little more realistic when compared with the figures quoted in the Annual Statistical Review 2010 –11 as it records,
“Unlawful possession of a Firearm as ‘125′ 2009-2019, and a decrease to ‘117′ for 2010.”

This information was only released in June 2012 so it would be difficult to imagine that we were suffering from a massive increase of stolen firearms, since then.

Sir Terry Lewis, Police Protection.

Sir Terry Lewis, Police Protection.

Do They Care, If Homes  Are Broken Into?
What would be more difficult to imagine, is if the Queensland Police knew or cared that a firearm was stolen, as when a break in reported the response from the police is very hum drum, lucky if they bother to come out and look, well its even more paper work. How many convictions occur from the 43,024 offences reported 96 ??? Even at that figure it does not explain if it is 96 different people, or 8 people with 10 offences each and 1 person with 6 offences, again we are left guessing.

Would We Be Better Off Without Police ?

With figures like this we have to wonder, would we be better off without Police at all. It would be cheaper. We could get more insurance and leave it to the insurance companies to catch people and take them to court. We have to look after our own security anyway. Now politicians are even legislating to order citizens to fit bars and steel doors and alarms which are further admissions that they cannot organise a Police Force to protect our lives and property.

We all have to ask, where has the registration of 600,000 firearms, saved a life, or solved a crime? Australian Institute of Criminology 2012, reports, ” Firearms were used in 13 percent of homicides”.So why all the big fuss and expense about licenced firearms are they really going to register all the other tools? ?? So is it  POWER, CONTROL, or MONEY?    Ron Owen.

The Alteration,  ‘Permit To Aquire’ Applications Issued by Dealer Instead of Police Administration Staff.
 When the Licensed shooter wishes to purchase a long arm he selects one at the licensed Firearm Dealer, provides his license (and the money) the Dealer checks the photo, checks that it is current, (as he has to do now) checks his current address from his driving licence or other ID. He writes out a Permit to Acquire which has a triplicate copy. One for the customer, to prove he was the registered owner. One for the QPS one for the Dealers records. (As he does now already) The Dealer fills in the Licensed shooter details into the register along side the details of the firearm. (As he has to do now) The Dealer, within 14 days post the copy of the PTA signed by the licenced shooter and the dealer to QPS (as he has to do now). The QPS update the electronic register (as they have to do now). Quick easy, done on the spot, The only alteration to the legislation required is that the Dealer provides the Permit to Acquire after he ascertains that 1. the licence is bonafide and 2. the firearm is in the Category that the licence states they are licensed for. (As he has to do now)

This same procedure can be completed by a dealer for a brokerage to transact a firearm between two licensed shooters. The Dealer is made responsible under the current act for carrying out these duties with repairs, and records the transaction with a form 10 to QPS and when selling to other licensed Firearm Dealers within Australia and within 14 days those form 10s are sent to QPS and the dealer register registers the transaction. So in effect all the legislation for carrying out this alteration is already in place it is just a legislative change of procedure. That retains registration and free’s up the police staff to carry out much more important procedures.





IAPCAR Welcomes FOAA Affiliation as a Representitive in Australia.


International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights

IAPCAR Welcomes FOAA Affiliation as a Representitive in Australia.


Story Via:

BELLEVUE, WA – The Firearms Owners Association of Australia (FOAA) has become the latest organization to join forces with the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR), which now boasts 21 affiliated groups in 12 different nations around the globe.

According to IAPCAR Executive Director Philip Watson, the affiliation of one of Australia’s premier firearm owners’ groups with IAPCAR means there is now representation from every continent.

“IAPCAR’s steady growth over the past two years has been gratifying,” Watson noted, “because it proves that firearms owners from every corner of the world believe in their right to keep and bear arms. Personal security and the defense of one’s home and family are values shared across international borders, regardless of an individual’s background or nationality.”

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was instrumental in creating IAPCAR, and he was delighted that FOAA is now affiliated.

“We welcome our colleagues from Down Under,” he observed. “Australian gun owners have had unique experiences over the years with firearms regulations and gun prohibitionists, and we can learn a great deal from each other in our effort to protect firearms rights around the world.”

Timing of the announcement is important, because this boosts the influence of the international gun rights movement as the United Nations prepares to consider an Arms Trade Treaty in July. IAPCAR strongly opposes such a treaty if it infringes on national sovereignty or individual rights, noted Julianne Versnel, director of operations at the Second Amendment Foundation, which was also instrumental in launching IAPCAR.

The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights ( is the only worldwide political action group focusing on the human right to keep and bear arms. Founded in 2010, IAPCAR has grown to more than 20 major gun-rights organizations and conducts campaigns designed to inform the public and promote the right of self-defense and gun-ownership.


More Gun Owners = Safer Nation, says FBI latest figures.

More Gun Owners = Safer Nation, says FBI latest figures.

FBI violent-crime rates show safer nation with More Gun Owners


By Emily Miller

The Washington Times

Monday, June 18, 2012

Gun-control advocates are noticeably silent when crime rates decline.

Their multimillion-dollar lobbying efforts are designed to manufacture mass anxiety that every gun owner is a potential killer. The statistics show otherwise.

Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced that violent crime decreased 4 percent in 2011. The number of murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults all went down, continuing a pattern.

“This is not a one-year anomaly, but a steady decline in the FBI’s violent-crime rates,” said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association. “It would be disingenuous for anyone to not credit increased self-defense laws to account for this decline.”

Mr. Arulanandam pointed out that only a handful of states had concealed-carry programs 25 years ago, when the violent-crime rate peaked. Today, 41 states either allow carrying without a permit or have “shall issue” laws that make it easy for just about any noncriminal to get a permit. Illinois and Washington, D.C., are the only places that refuse to recognize the right to bear arms. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence did not respond to requests for comment.

If the gun grabbers were right, we’d be in the middle of a crime wave, considering how many guns are on the streets. “Firearms sales have increased substantially since right after the 2008 election,” said Bill Brassard, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents the $4 billion firearms and ammunition industry. “There was a leveling off in 2010, but now we’re seeing a surge again.”

The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) serves as one of the best indicators of gun sales because it counts each time someone buys a gun. Checks hit an all-time high of 16.5 million last year. In the first five months of this year, the numbers have gone up 10 percent over the same period last year as Americans rush to the gun store in case.
President Obama decides to exercise “more flexibility” in restricting guns in a second term.
Gun manufacturing is the one private-sector industry “doing fine” on Mr. Obama’s watch. Sturm, Ruger & Co. sold 1 million firearms in the first quarter of 2012 – an amazing 50 percent increase from the first quarter of 2011.

The jump was so steep that the company stopped accepting orders from March to May to catch up with demand for its products.

Last month, Smith & Wesson announced a firearm-order backlog of approximately $439 million by the end of April, up 135 percent from the same quarter in 2011. Sales in that period were up 28 percent from 2011 and 14 percent over its own predictions to investors.
NSSF estimates the industry is responsible for approximately 180,000 jobs and has an annual impact on the U.S. economy of $28 billion. Mr. Obama could honestly take credit for this jobs program, economic boost and the reduction in violent crime that has followed the spike in gun ownership on his watch. Instead, he’s silent about his greatest positive accomplishment.


Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.


Who amongst us is Free?

Who amongst us is Free?  Not Free to go to Westpac, or Free to go to ANZ, but really Free??      
Did we vote ourselves into Slavery, Again?

Are you Free to Defend Yourself, with your Firearms?

In the last edition of the Owen Gun Bulletin, I Asked why shooters had voted Liberal/National Party when,
“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?”
Well just this last week, the Liberal in NSW pushed through with the help of the
Greens and Labour the legislation to impose Ammunition Registration.
Maybe, this is there way of teaching shooters to vote for independents.
Independents are much more dependent on their electorate. They do not
have the Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dummer, who vote Lib/Lab because their
granddaddy did.
Free people own property Slaves don’t.

As soon as you cannot freely use your property it is not really yours.
If you cannot dispose of property it is not really yours anymore. The
legislation imposed on NSW shooters, which previously took away the free
ownership of firearms now takes away the ownership of ammunition.
Ammunition registration means you, or the dealer cannot dispose of it
Freedom, is only appreciated after it is Lost.
Only the old Dinosaurs over sixty can remember what real freedom was, before
our country dissolved into a demoralized, scurrilous, manipulating
bureaucratic ‘Socialist State”. Some of our younger shooters are proud
to flash their licence card. Not realising that it is the modern symbol
of bondage. 3000 years ago the Celt Warriors would only wear fancy gold
and silver armlets that were never joined, as the ring was a symbol of
slavery, the symbol of subservience, bondage. We still have that symbol
with the wedding ring, but these days it is the plastic card, the
licence. Lose it and you lose all your shooting property. It is not
really yours anymore.
Australian’s have accepted socialism, bureaucratic slavery.

Only the old Dinosaurs, like me, over sixty can remember that it was
the ‘Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ that the free world fought
against in the ‘Cold War’. Those old socialist like Lenin, Stalin and
Mao Tse-tung will be laughing in their graves with the knowledge that
their brand of slavery won. These day the only idea of freedom we have
is choosing if we are going to have Hungry Jacks, or Macca’s for lunch. 
We have the “dumbing down” of our children in the government schools.
It is beyond laws of nature to artificially raise someones
intelligence beyond his potential ability, so to alter public thinking,
everyone is turned into a dunce to make the dunce “feel better about
themselves” so after a few decades, those who were turned into dunces
don’t even know what it means to think at all.  When everyone is reduced
to slavery, it gives the illusion of everyone having freedom; even as
when everyone is reduced to being a dunce it gives the illusion of
everyone being intelligent.
The main concept that distinguish a free  country from a communist slave state, is the right to freely own
property.  The first four principles in the Communist Manifesto are:-
1.Abolition of property.
2.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3.Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Does it sound familiar? I suppose we are classed as ‘emigrants and rebels’
we have to have a licence to own a dog or a chicken. As soon as your
property is taxed you’re a part owner, when they turn the tax up, so you
cannot afford to pay, then they own all of it and you own nothing.
In the old days that was plainly called theft. Your taxed when you buy
property, you are taxed when you sell property, you pay rates, that’s is
a yearly tax. That is not ownership, we are only left with an illusion
of ownership. The bureaucrats run the new Socialist States of Australia
and they own the land, they own the firearms and they own you.
 We firearm owners are ‘conned’.
We act like circus performing dogs, we are given some degree of “freedom”
like a dog on a chain may have 12 feet of slack… but if we have a slight
fall, forget to renew a licence, make a mistake in our paper work, take
all of your guns out of the safe to clean them at one time, that takes
us over the line and offends the “powers that be,” then they tighten the
leash, you lose your licence and lose your property. We then feel the
crack of the tyrants whip. We have the SWAT team breaking down our
A crime used to be an act that hurt another person but now in
the new communist Socialist State of Australia , all crime is against
the State. The only ones that can be wronged is the Master’s, the
bureaucratic State, as us mere slaves cannot never be wronged we are
born only to serve and obey.
These same mechanisms of control were  the same ones that built the
slave states of the  Roman Empire or the Third Reich, more than likely,
they too felt it was better to suffer in silence rather than to raise up and rebel.
Are you all going to just sit back and take it? I must be the last one to see it like this.
Maybe, I  am the last one to remember freedom. ron

If you think your Free, just jack up and don't re-new your Firearms Licence. Don't hand them in, and see what happens?


Firearm’s Law Insanity- Simon Munslow


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:


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.


Freedom Depends On An Educated Voter.

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
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??


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

 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



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

 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.

Is This Why The Government Wants All Our Guns?

Is This Why The Government Wants All Our Guns?

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.

Save a Life, Carry a Knife.

Banned Folding Knives Save Lives.
Banned Folding Knives Save Lives.

On the 15th November a day that will live in infamy LNP and Labour united to vote for the Weapons Amendment Bill 22011 within its 48 pages are huge penalties for carrying a knife. Yes just a pocket folding knife or a fishing knife. We tried to warn the public, we lobbied all our MPs but to no avail. This will cost good people their lives as knives and guns save lives, on a huge percentage factor than they take them. read the folowing article and please pass it on to your local MP. ron

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

Why punish the innocent, why register them like cattle, when the Crims are protected?



 “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:


For more information contact:

Blair Hagen, Executive VP Communications, 604-753-8682

Sheldon Clare, President, 250-981-1841