Category Archives: NFA

Herald Sun Helen Lovejoy uses Bourke Street attack for anti-gun whinge

In today’s instalment of “who are you and why should we care what you think about firearms” it’s Newscorp luvvy Claire Sutherland:

“Imagine if we decided maybe the threat was passed, maybe Martin Bryant and his murderous Port Arthur massacre was a one off horror show.

Maybe we acted too rashly, maybe we’ve grown up and can be trusted with semiautomatics after all. Maybe we shouldn’t have to reapply for gun licences after five years, maybe silencers aren’t so bad, maybe there is a legitimate reason for a person to own a gun that fires 600 rounds per minute.

And now imagine if the pathetic sociopathic and Islamic terrorist who was Hassan Khalif Shire Ali was able to get his hands on a gun. If he’d been able to wander into a gun shop and without checks or paperwork or cooling off periods been able to walk out with a shotgun or pistol. Imagine if he didn’t have to use instead a knife and some gas bottles rigged as ineptly as a half-hearted science experiment by a dud student.

Ergh, it continues:

And now imagine what today would be like. How many faces would be on the front page of the Herald Sun, instead of the one lovely face of adored and already sorely missed gentleman coffee-purveyor Sisto Malaspina.

How many more families would be haltingly telling journalists how loved their mother, father, brother or sister was, what their hobbies were, what their plans for the future had been?

Would those brave junior cops be dead? Would the homeless man who wielded a trolley to help the citizens of his city now be in a morgue?

This is why we must resist with every fibre of our bodies new attempts by gun lobbyists to water down our gun laws.”

So the question I have is: how did we go from a terrorist attack using a vehicle laden with explosives which turned into a stabbing spree, ended by a good guy with a gun, into a debate about gun laws?

Sutherland’s angle was obviously the “what if it was a gun?”

To be blunt, we got lucky that the gas bottles didn’t go off and that he didn’t decide to turn his vehicle into a projectile like the previous two CBD assailants did.

“And now imagine what today would be like. How many faces would be on the front page of the Herald Sun”.

In short, this guy didn’t need a gun and the death toll could have still been much higher. In loonies like Sutherland’s world, being stabbed, blown up or run over seems to be a morally superior way to go than being shot. How noble and a great way to minimalize the victims that have already been murdered in non-firearm attacks.

Regardless, illegal firearms are not hard to get your hands on and just a couple of months back the Herald Sun was reporting on teenagers getting their hands on Kalashnikovs in Melbourne.

It’s pretty obvious what’s happening here. The current fear from the anti-gun crowd about SIFA and the pro-firearm parties at the Victorian election is palpable, and they’re using every opportunity they can to attack. The hand of the Herald-Sun’s favourite Alannah and Madeline board member Peter Blunden, is again visible here.

Further, the incident further exposed Australia’s woeful self-defence situation as well as questions about immigration and law enforcement’s ability to respond to these incidents.

Australian journalists seem to have a template they pass around to write these articles. Sutherland was promptly blown out in the comments section and rightfully so – the public are tired of it.

 “Study after study” has found they don’t work.

That’s what the latest study found:

The NFA had no additional statistically observable impact on firearm-related suicides in women (P = .09) and was associated with a statistically significant increase in the trend in men (P < .001). Trends in non–firearm-related suicide deaths declined by 4.4% per year (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.1%, 4.8%) in men after the introduction of the NFA and increased in women by 0.3% (95% CI = 0.1%, 0.7%). Trends in non–firearm-related homicides declined by 2.2% per year (95% CI = 1.5, 3.8%) in women and 2.9% per year (95% CI = 2.0%, 3.7%) in men after the introduction of the NFA, with a statistically significant improvement in trends for women (P = .04) but not for men (P = .80).

Conclusion:. The NFA had no statistically observable additional impact on suicide or assault mortality attributable to firearms in Australia.”

Or a 2017 study before that:

The current study used systematic literature search methods to identify evaluation focused studies examining the impacts of legislative of firearm homicide in Australia, a country that made significant changes to its gun laws in the mid-1990’s. Five studies met the inclusion criteria. These examined various different time periods and used a range of different statistical methods. No study found statistical evidence of any significant impact of the legislative changes of firearm homicide rates.

And suicide is now at an all-time high in Australia despite “muh gun laws”:

Meanwhile, at the same time in the US, a citizen with a concealed firearm prevented a stabbing from turning into a spree. That “never happens though” according to types like Sutherland.

I get your more than likely over leveraged in the Victorian housing market and are forced to write garbage like this to pay off your mortgage Claire, but perhaps ask for a different topic next time.

Rest assured, the same article will get written in the next couple of weeks.

GetUp losers whinge about gun lobby again

This just in, shady lobby group linked to subversive international billionaire complains about others lobbying:

“A cashed up weapons industry is trying to weaken our gun laws in order to boost their profits. But when their influence is exposed, politicians are forced to side with our popular gun laws. 

We need to fund a critical new investigation tracking the money and political influence of the weapons industry and a public campaign to let people know. 

Can you chip in to stand up for public safety by exposing the influence of the weapons industry in our politics?

A 4Corners report showed gun companies taking politicians on ‘shooting trips’, amassing a warchest of over $1.2 million,1 and bankrolling political advertising campaigns under other names and issues.2

But when we shine a light on the weapons industry, the politicians scatter, because Australians are rightly proud of the gun laws that are keeping our communities safe.

That’s why we need to support experts at Gun Control Australia to commission a critical report from The Australia Institute to see who is under the thumb of the weapons industry.

Will you chip in to help us fund it and to support a public campaign to let people know?”

Gun Control Australia ‘experts.’ LOL.

Complete with a picture of school children to invoke your inner Helen Lovejoy and hit you right the feels. Predictable.

Standard hypocrisy from GetUp. Essentially GetUp are complaining about other people using their own private funds to lobby for their own interests. It’s ok if they lobby Australian politicians for their own (usually nefarious) ends, but god forbid anyone they don’t approve of does it.

SIFA aren’t required to discuss firearms at all.So what if SIFA wants to use it’s own money to get involved politically? It’s not just firearms under attack at the Victorian election but just about every regional Victorian as well, with issues such as the Great Forest National Park and proposals to hunting laws on the table.

And at least SIFA are using their own cash to do it, unlike GetUp using other people’s money.

It’s also apparently ok for GetUp to have a notoriously anti-gun Police Minister in their back pocket:

They were also whingeing earlier in the year about Peter Dutton actually listening to Rob Nioa about setting up a consultative committee on firearms, to avoid debacles like the Riverman OAF from happening again. Because god forbid people who know anything about firearms be involved in the process.

To be honest, GetUp have no business being in the firearm debate, if not only for the fact they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and pull the same old “muh Port Arthur” and “think of the children” emotive drivel. It’s this kind of inane authoritarianism to further the cause of civilian disarmament at all costs, that has no place in the debate.

To be fair, GetUp are nervous about continued probes into their actual structure and funding model resulting in them changing their constitution last week:

“GetUp has removed any suggestion it operates as a charity in a reworking of the left-leaning campaign group’s constitution.

A swag of amendments to GetUp’s internal management rules appear to be part of resistance to efforts by Liberal senator Eric Abetz and other government MPs to end its independent legal status. Senator Abetz is pushing to have GetUp formally recognised by the Australian Electoral Commission as an “associated entity” of Labor, and possibly the Greens, claiming it is a really a campaign front dominated by party operatives pretending to be non-partisan.

A decision by GetUp to abolish in its “objects” that it was formed to advance progressive policy “where that advancement furthers a charitable purpose” follows the Liberal senator’s claim in June that GetUp was “falsely” posing as a charity to help boost its appeal by appearing independent.”

Guess George is trying to cover his tracks.

GetUp have already caused a lot of trouble in Australia with their meddling on immigration, political correctness, energy and the rest.

They could do Australia a favour and GetUp and leave the country.

Australian Malpractice Association wants all guns banned

Straight from the horse’s mouth:

“The Australian Gun Safety Alliance, a coalition of concerned organisations committed to ensuring that gun laws are upheld around the nation, will save lives, AMA President, Dr Tony Bartone, said today.

Launched by the Parliamentary Friends of Gun Control this morning, the Alliance will work together to ensure that State and Territory Governments continue to comply with the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), the landmark gun law agreement that was forged in the wake of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

“Gun deaths have halved in Australia over the past two decades, thanks to the National Firearms Agreement,” Dr Bartone said. “Countless lives have been saved.

“But there is still work to do, and illegal gun possession remains a major health concern.

“It is estimated that there are anywhere between 260,000 and six million guns held illegally in Australia, and most gun-related deaths in Australia are within the families of gun owners.

“Guns have a legitimate role in areas such as agriculture, regulated sport, and for the military and police, but gun possession in the broader community is a serious risk to public health.

“Doctors see first hand the damage, and physical and emotional trauma, caused by guns, whether through accidental or intentional misuse, and the AMA strongly opposes any campaigns or policies that seek to dilute or relax the restrictions on firearm purchase and ownership.

“The Alliance provides an important forum through which the AMA will continue to advocate for gun safety in Australia.”

The AMA Position Statement on Firearms 2017 makes a number of recommendations to minimise gun-related violence, including:

  • Continued, consistent laws across all States and Territories,
  • A real-time, readily accessible National Firearms Licensing Register,
  • Stronger laws banning high-powered semi-automatic weapons and pump or lever action rifles, and
  • Tighter restrictions on applications to own a firearm, to avoid misuse of the current “genuine reason” eligibility rule.”

So there you have it. Not exactly ground breaking or new but given the AMA, a doctors union, has now joined the rebranded Gun Control Australia outfit, you can be clearer of their intentions. They may say pumps and levers now, but that’s just the next target and we saw that with the Adler fiasco. Also amusing to see them still pushing the National Firearms Agreement as legally binding, but we don’t expect them to stop pushing that lie.

The AMA, along with a slew of public heath organisations, have jumped on the Australian Gun Safety Alliance bandwagon which as we previously stated, is the same people with the same intentions – this time just hiding behind the linguistic guise of “safety”.

This is also a reminder to those LAFO’s who think your firearms are safe. As we’ve also said many time before, the end goal of these authoritarian groups is complete civilian disarmament via incrementalism, nothing less. It’s a comforting lie to tell yourself otherwise. If you’re not going to look out for your fellow LAFO’s, then you may as well hand your guns in now and save yourselves the trouble.

As for the AMA, it’s just the latest in a long line of anti-gun, public health zealotry from them. Plenty of health professionals in Australia who shoot and hunt and disagree with the AMA’s position.

The AMA needs to clean up their own backyard and leave the LAFO community alone.

Relevance Deprivation Syndrome: Fischer spruiks more anti-gun drivel

The man responsible for the biggest ever wipeout of the Nationals’ primary vote is at it again, this time spruiking more anti-gun drivel as part of a Monash University alumni event:

In other words, three left-leaning anti-gun spruikers are getting together in an echo chamber on behalf of the most left-wing university in the most left-wing city in the country, to nod furiously in agreement with each other for an hour. Identical to Sam Lee and David Shoebridge’s stunt at Politics in the Pub months ago.

Donald Betts is a former Democrat Senator from Kansas, so no guesses as to his leanings on firearms. It’ll be interesting to see if Mr Betts is keen to discuss the disproportionately high homicide rates of the African-American community vs the rest of the country. I doubt it.

If you’re in doubt as to the views of Andrew Saindon, here’s what he said about the landmark DC vs Heller ruling in 2008:

“Andrew J. Saindon, a D.C. assistant attorney general, argued the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the right to carry. Mr. Saindon claims the carry ban prevents crime and increases public safety. Echoing a favorite argument of local politicians, Mr. Saindon asserted, “The District is a unique place. It’s the seat of federal government, home to hundreds of politicians … and a proven target of terrorists’ attack.”

Yep, another anti-gunner. Government officials are already protected in Washington DC by, oh I don’t know, guns?

Three simple questions for the panellists:

Will the panel discuss the 49% reduction in the per capita homicide rate in the United States since 1980, despite the firearm supply now over 400 million?

Will the panel also discuss the 46% drop in the firearm death rate in Australia in the 16 years before John Howard got anywhere near the PM’s office?

Will Tim Fischer provide an accurate, non-waffling explanation about how the non-legally binding National Firearms Agreement has any relevance at all, given the legal flavour of the event?

I doubt it, given there’s no pro-gun counter balance on the panel, as is standard.

Call this event for what it is – the usual, self-aggrandizing, echo chamber wank about apparently how much better Australia is at regulating firearms than America, while avoiding any real in-depth discussion about the complex myriad of socio-economic, political, historical, cultural and other factors that render this simplistic, binary argument completely irrelevant.

The event claims to be exploring this side of the debate: “in particular, this panel will focus on what makes Australia and the US distinct both legally and culturally in the context of gun regulation.”

Well, we could have told you that for free and saved you the trouble of listening to Tim Fischer.

Speaker Sue Hickey allegedly behind Liberal Party betrayal on firearm law reform

As sure as night follows day, the Liberal Party sells firearm owners out again:

“The state Liberal government’s controversial proposal would have doubled the duration of some gun licences and made weapons such as pump-action shotguns more readily available. The policy was designed in the lead-up to the March state election but only became public on election eve.

 On Friday, it was abandoned by Premier Will Hodgman.

“This is an area of some public interest to Tasmanians given our history, given the fact that many people are concerned about public safety issues,” he said. ”We will not pursue the policy proposals that we have previously put forward.”

Naturally, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association were upset:

“Tasmanian farmers have urged people in Sandy Bay to witness the impact of browsing animals on agricultural land in light of the State Government’s decision to scrap plans to provide farm workers with greater access to guns.

President of the Tasmanian Farmers and Grazier’s Association Wayne Johnston said profits were being eroded every night as native animals like wallabies grazed on pastures.

“It would probably be good if we had an industry where we could actually use our browsing animals, but again being native animals, that’s probably not something that the people in Sandy Bay like to hear,” he said.

“But it would be good for some of those people to come out and see what’s happening on the farm and see what pressure we’re under.”

Spot on. This is the same Liberal Party that are feigning outrage over the farming disaster taking place in NSW, but are now telling farmers in Tasmania to get stuffed.

Let’s be honest, they were never going to deliver. This is the Liberal Party after all, the ones that were responsible for the treachery of 1996, 2002, the Adler and the rest. They are no friend of firearm owners: the only difference between themselves and Labor/Greens is they pretend to be your friend while they are sticking the knife into your back.

That doesn’t mean that we should not have tried. FOU and many others submitted to the firearm inquiry and will continue to push for the changes that were proposed.

However, all is not what it seems.

FOU has since learned that the main culprit allegedly responsible for this latest LNP betrayal, is none other than Speaker Sue Hickey.

Two sources inside the government have told FOU that Labor and Greens’ MP’s approached Hickey several weeks ago, asking her to oppose and block the proposals by the Hodgman government.

Hickey has since withdrawn her support for the Inquiry and threatened the LNP that she will not support the government on future legislation as Speaker, if Hodgman follows through with the proposed changes. Therefore, Hodgman wussed out and the latest withdrawal is what we have now.

If you’re in doubt as to Hickey’s political leanings then read on:

“Ms Hickey, however, has said she will “mostly” vote with the Government, assessing bills “on their merit”.

She has also said she will not attend Liberal Party meetings. With the Liberals holding a one-seat majority in the House, Ms Hickey’s vote is the decider on any legislation if Labor and the Greens take the same side.

All of this and the 49th Tasmanian Parliament is only a week old, with Ms Hickey’s Liberal colleagues left in no doubt she is unafraid of a stoush — something amply reinforced this week after she accepted a nomination from Labor and the Greens to stand for the role of Speaker, winning the vote and infuriating her fellow Liberals, none more so that veteran Rene Hidding, who was the party’s pick. Ms Hickey once called the police following an altercation with Elise Archer at public food festival.

And then:

“Ms Hickey, 60, is known to be socially progressive and sometimes left-wing by Liberal standards. She has a business background and appears to support many Liberal policies.

She vigorously backed the Liberals’ election policy on gaming, telling the ABC last year that she believed gambling was a choice. However, she does seem out of step with her Liberal colleagues on some issues. As lord mayor she advocated for Australia Day to move to a different date, something Premier Will Hodgman does not support.

As mayor of Hobart, Ms Hickey refused to lower the rainbow flag until marriage equality passed into law, enraging Tasmanian Liberal Party heavyweight Eric Abetz who wrote directly to Ms Hickey.

In 2016, Ms Hickey struck trouble after weighing in on the Museum of Old and New Art (MONA) proposal to transform an industrial site at Macquarie Point into a cultural precinct highlighting Tasmania’s troubled Aboriginal history”.

Essentially, she’s a Green in LNP clothing. It also looks like she’s just another high-maintenance political narcissist in it for herself, but that’s just par for the course.

Labor, the Greens and the LNP have again colluded to shut down firearm reform in Australia. While this is not surprising it just further shows that being pro-civilian disarmament is tri-partisan.

Knifings seem to be the order of the day in the LNP at the moment, and if Will Hodgman has any cajones, he’d promptly show the exit door to Sue Hickey.

We’ll keep saying it: if you are a gun owner and are still voting Labor, Coalition or Greens then hand your firearms in now. LAFO’s don’t let LAFO’s vote Liberal.

Sue Hickey might want to do some “speaking” right about now.

Firearm Owners United are taking Queensland Police to court over WT15-01 fiasco

If you follow us online, you’ll probably have come across our posts about the recent Wedgetail WT15-01 drama in Queensland. But what is it, will it affect you, and why should you care?

If you shoot IPSC, ISSF, Metallic Silhouette; or enjoy collectable pistols; you should read on.

Background

Unfortunately, there is a lot of apathy going around the shooting community at the moment, mostly driven by some shooters’ belief that this will not affect them. It might not affect you directly, but the implications might. This toxic paradigm needs to go, which is exactly why we do what we do.

“If they’re going to start just arbitrarily changing categories of anything, we can expect they’ll keep doing this in the future so it’s the principle, that’s the issue.”Bob Katter (October 2017)

In late 2017, the Federal government and state governments were trying to ratify a 20-year review of the NFA – one of the outcomes of which was a push to reclassify (and effectively ban) lever-action shotguns in all states and territories. In Queensland in particular, this saw the “Weapons Legislation (Lever Action Shotguns) Amendment Regulation” come into force, and all lever-action shotguns with a capacity over five rounds were moved from Category A to Category D. This time, owners got to keep them under “grandfathering” laws.

Fast forward to 2018, and the Australian Border Force decides it has made a mistake by allowing the Riverman OAF rifle into the country. They are reclassified to Category D and a seizure notice is issued to owners.

This time though, whilst they are compensated they are not allowed to retain ownership of the guns – the same ones that Queensland Police Weapons Licensing Branch (WLB) saw fit to issue Permits To Acquire (PTA) for, and allowed them to purchase and obtain.

This is the same QPOL WLB that is currently at war with Queensland farmers, attempting to take Category H licences off of the farming community for no good reason at all.

Notice a pattern? Those seem like isolated cases? What’s the big deal?

Wedgetail Industries have been producing a handgun named the WT15-01 since 2016. The manufacturer was told by QPOL WLB that they would be a Category H firearm.

Weapons licensing issued PTA’s for the WT15-01 some time in 2016 for Metallic Silhouette unlimited division per IHMSA & NRA match rules. In mid 2017, they asked an owner for photos, they were provided and still nothing was said; weapons licensing continued issuing PTA’s until early 2018.

Suddenly in late July, demand notices are sent out telling owners to surrender the firearms to a dealer or Police, and PTA’s start being rejected.

Owners will receive no compensation, and the value of these firearms if sold in Category D would be virtually nil; as there are numerous semi automatic firearms in that category with more utility and a lower price than the WT15-01 which retails for $5850 AUD plus costs.

This is entirely a backdoor method of confiscation without any form of compensation. It shows that QPOL WLB are getting more reckless with their behaviour towards firearm owners.

The Facts

These firearms are under 750mm, semi-automatic and under .38. They are usable in approved matches. By all reasonable logic (and previous decisions by the courts), they should be Category H.

Weapons licensing approved PTA’s for a period of almost two years, and did so after seeing photos of the firearm. In short, weapons licensing are using reclassification as a backdoor method of confiscation without compensation. They won’t even return the cost of their “mistakenly” approved PTA applications

The reasoning given by weapons licensing for the reclassification of these firearms is:

  1. They don’t like the calibre (not covered under the act as it’s < .38)
  2. The “parent firearm” (also not covered in the act)
  3. They believe that it has the appearance of a Category D self-loading rifle. Therefore (they claim), it is exempt from the Weapons Regulation 1997 7(1) (Category H) because Section 5(1) (Category D) captures it (except that it only applies to a rifle).

Herein lies the problem, Right To Information requests obtained by LAFO Inc show that the officer who carried out a ballistics report for weapons licensing admits he never obtained one, and analysed the firearm from a photo alone. Incorrectly identifying the calibre among other specifics, and even alluding that it could be considered a pistol.

There is a clear agenda at play here – the same one that has been in play the last 22 years.

Previous cases in QLD have seen an Uzi, Jager AP80, Mac-10 and others tested, and declared to be Category H firearms. This is not unwinnable!

It’s a very technical case, and nothing is certain, but we have a chance to set a precedent here. We just need to be organised and well enough funded to challenge it.

The thin end of the wedge

The main argument being made is that of a “parent firearm”, and substantial duplication of a military rifle. This will affect you regardless if you shoot IPSC, Metallic Silhouette, ISSF or collect historics.

Here are some stand out firearms that could be captured, because they also have rifle equivalents. Do I have your attention yet?

1911

Ruger charger

Browning Buckmark

Mauser C96 “broomhandle” (we’re not kidding, the stock makes it arguably more at risk)

And if we allow them to start blurring the lines and applying Category R “parent firearm” arguments, then even the humble collectables like the C96, or the common Glock are not immune.

This isn’t some hypothetical. This sets a precedent. If this case is lost, QPOL WLB have the precedent to keep pushing this argument. You can be sure Ruger Chargers will be next. Then where will they stop?

First they came for the Adler, and I did not speak out; I don’t shoot cowboy action..
Next they came for the Riverman, and I did not speak out; the OAF is a toy.
Then they came for the Wedgetail, and I said nothing, because no one needs one of those…
Then they came for the Chargers, the Glocks, the Mausers; and more. The remaining shooters were not enough to speak out for me.

Regardless how you feel about the WT15-01, much more is at risk here. We need to stop this in its tracks.

So what has FOU done? What do you need?

We’ve consulted a very prominent lawyer in QLD, well versed in firearms law. We’ve considered our options, made several QCAT applications and begun fundraising.

Our best bet is Judicial Review, this means the Supreme Court will hear the case, which tends to favour more technical argument surrounding the legislation. But, this costs money. Serious money.

We’re a relatively new organisation and unlike some organisations, we don’t hoard member’s money. It goes into elections and political campaigning and action like this. We need $20,000-30,000 just to have the case heard if we apply for judicial review.

Worse, we only have 28 days to apply. Regardless what happens, we will continue to fight all using all avenues available to us until we exhaust funds or options to appeal.

If you wish to strike a decisive blow against the continued onslaught facing our community, then now is your chance.

If every follower on our Facebook page alone gave just $1, we would blow past our target. We urge you, if you enjoy shooting and you like interesting firearms or pistol shooting. Please donate whatever you can afford. $1, $5 or $50. Help protect the future of shooting!

If you wish to strike a blow at this continued assault on our firearm freedoms and turn the tide then now is your chance.

You can donate at our GoFundMe here: https://www.gofundme.com/WT15-01FightingFund

A huge thank you to all who have already donated.

If you want to learn more, have a listen to the conversation between FOU Vice President Kirk and Jason from the Australian Hunting Podcast:

http://australianhuntingpodcast.com.au/ahp-175-qld-police-bans-wedgetail-firearm-with-kirk-yatras/

Gun Control Australia launch ridiculous legal challenge against Tasmanian Government over firearm proposals

GCA have hit full panic mode in relation to the Will Hodgman government’s proposed changes to the Firearm Act in Tasmania. From the Mercury:

“ANTI-firearms campaigners are taking Premier Will Hodgman to court in a bid to make public legal advice over planned changes to gun laws.

Gun Control Australia today announced it had launched proceedings in the Supreme Court to review the State Government’s refusal to release the legal advice on the grounds it was not in the public interest. Spokesman Roland Browne said the case listed the Supreme Court on June 18.

“In late February 2018, the Government released a firearms policy which proposed to move Tasmania away from the 1996 National Firearms Agreement,” he said.

“The Premier said at the time he had advice from his Police Minister that the policy did not contravene the National Firearms Agreement. Under the Right to Information Act, Gun Control Australia Inc. sought release of the advice referred to by the Premier.

“The Premier by his delegate refused release of the information. He concluded that ‘it would be contrary to the public interest to release’ the information sought.”

It was revealed shortly before the March state election that the Government was considering changes to gun laws that would give farmers greater access to Category C firearms such as semiautomatic rifles, self-loading rifles and pump-action shotguns, and increase the duration of some licences to 10 years.

Premier Will Hodgman said the Government would not introduce changes to the law that were outside the National Firearms Agreement and the legal advice indicated the plans did not breach the deal.

“Changes to our firearms laws have occurred in the past including as recently as last year when we strengthened them, so they can be changed. It needs to happen within the context of the NFA,” he said.

“Our aim and our objective here is to ensure that people who lawfully use firearms — they might be a farmer needing to protect their crops, it could be a recreational shooter — are able to do so safely and not in endanger any Tasmanians but able to use their firearms in a way that is contemporary under laws that are very strong and retain the integrity of the National Firearms Agreement.”

If this isn’t the definition of vexatious litigation then I really don’t know what is? How can you launch legal proceedings against an agreement that is non-legally binding in the first place?

Where is the money coming from for this challenge? I highly suspect Browne is doing this pro bono and it’s highly likely a phone call to Rebecca Peters’ financiers have wired funds his way.

There is literally nothing in either the original 1996 NFA or the 2017 edition that requires states to notify the public of said changes or anything along the lines of Browne’s so-called argument.

Rene Hidding notified relevant stakeholders about the proposed changes on 9 February 2018 – the changes were already in the public domain:

It’s not much of a stretch to have acquired one of these letters or be informed about the existence thereof, considering the state’s approximately 40,000 gun owners and larger rural and farming community.

Even more embarrassing to Gun Control Australia’s position is this from Roland Browne. Back in 2013 he “had considered joining the committee until he found out about confidentiality agreements. I wasn’t prepared to tie myself in to confidentiality clauses as an advocate for gun control, it would be a conflict of interest.”

That’s right, Browne was fully aware of and considered joining the Tasmanian Firearms Consultative Committee, which advised none other than Police Minister Rene Hidding about the current proposals.

Fast forward to 2018 and Browne claims he “had not been aware the state had a firearms consultation group before the letter surfaced. He said the group was not mentioned in the state’s gun laws.”

Some of the people, some of the time Roland.

Gun Control Australia’s Piers Grove is founder of Betoota Advocate

Nope, this isn’t satire.

You may have noticed that satirical paper The Betoota Advocate has run several firearm pieces of late. The latest being in the wake of the Santa Fe incident in Texas.

Well it gets better. Turns out that none other than Gun Control Australia Executive Director, Piers Grove, is the founder and contributor to the paper:

And Wikipedia:

As you can see, he’s pretty much a professional activist. He’s also produced “comedy” for the ABC – which would explain quite a few things.

Now why is this important? It shows you how far the tentacles reach of the most dishonest and deceptive organisation in Australia.

Sure, Betoota may seem like harmless satire on the surface and most of their non-firearm articles are, but the problem is the subtle effect on the narrative. Comedy has been a very effective political and propaganda delivery mechanism since time eternal. There’s a difference between comedy and indoctrination by comedic imposition.

For example, this article that ran last year about Victoria’s gun owners vs a Cyclone:

“Just months after Floridanese police and sheriff departments had to ask citizens to not shoot at Hurricane Irma, a similar situation is currently unfolding in Victoria where thousands of gun owners plan to shoot the impending bad weather away.

Owners of Victorian shotgun, centre and rimfire rifle, as well as a few handgun owners, have vowed to make a stand against what the Bureau of Meteorology is calling a “big storm”. Speaking to The Advocate this afternoon via telephone, one Ararat shotgun owner said he will do his best to stop the storm before it does too much damage.

“I went down the Elders this afternoon and bought me some shells,” said Rhett Bong, a 47-year-old workman. “Also got some castor oil, polony and a few loaves of bread. I’m going to live like a king and shoot this got dam f–king cloud back to the Artic where the somabitch come from,”

“F–k you John Brumby! M—f–ka [sic] not laughing now! Praise be upon Ricky Muir, the merciful and kind, ya’ll. Woolooloooo!”

In other words, Victorian gun owners are just irresponsible, redneck yobbos who would use their firearms in this manner – from the article’s picture down to the text. Note the references to Ricky Muir and types of firearms.

Sure, I’m not trying to be an uptight stick in the mud and humour is subjective but this is left can’t meme territory and slyly serves the purpose of GCA, considering who is writing it.

A relevant comparison? Have a look at just about every late-night television host in America and their political views – they’re identical. The purpose isn’t as much humour as it is about pushing political talking points in the minds of the public. You can bet your bottom dollar that if you asked most Australian comedians their view points on firearms, aside from obviously Jim Jefferies, you would get a similar answer.

It’s generally the same with the firearm debate across the board in Australia. Apart from dedicated shooting organisations and groups putting out material, it’s constantly anti-gun or a variation thereof, comedy or otherwise.

The fact that Gun Control Australia have a direct stake in one of the largest growing media companies in Australia, should raise red flags. Not that it’s really surprising considering how a shady group that has basically no membership or credibility, is able to get access to any media outlet on cue.

While it’s surely not the last of their efforts, the smug and snarky overtones of Betoota’s infamous “Australia’s Oppressive Gun Control Regime” article have surely been quietly retired in the wake of the Osmington Massacre.

Pro tip Piers – you’d be better off just cataloguing the daily satire that comes out of your organisation rather than funnelling it through Leftoota. Sam Lee seems to have an endless supply of material.

GCA’s comedy writes itself.

Grenade attack in Melbourne is another “win” for Australia’s gun laws

Is it too early to call Victoria the new Sweden, given the fact they seem to be wanting to emulate them in just about every facet of society? This from the ABC:

“A hand grenade has been used to target a notorious family in a troubling escalation of gang violence in Melbourne’s north-west.

It is the first time a hand grenade explosion has been investigated in the state’s history, Victoria Police believe, underlining the fears of senior officers that underworld figures are increasingly accessing military-grade weapons.

A mother and her infant child were sleeping in a front room of the Tiba family’s Lalor house only metres away from the blast on November 19 last year. The grenade, an M52 manufactured in the former Yugoslavia, is understood to have bounced off the house and detonated between the property and the nature strip.

A front window in the house was shattered and two cars parked on the street were significantly damaged in the explosion. No-one was injured.

The ABC has delayed reporting on the attack at the request of police. It is unclear how the grenade was brought into Australia, or how many may be in circulation.

Why would that be, embarrassment?

And of course, the predictable “more laws” response:

The State Government and senior police believe the recently introduced firearms prohibition orders will quell the spread of illegal guns in the underworld, and could reduce the number of shootings.

The orders are expected to be handed to about 3,000 crime figures, and will allow police to search them, their property, their car, or anybody in their company, without a warrant.

Melbourne’s north-west has been plagued by gun violence, with the armed crime squad revealing last year that almost two thirds of all non-fatal shootings in the state occur in the region.

New South Wales police believe a similar order regime introduced in that state four years ago helped reduce shootings”.

The so-called “successful” legislation in NSW only yielded results 2% of the time:

As you can see, 2% of the time it works 100% of the time.

While tougher penalties on crooks for illegal firearms is a good thing, there is also a concern that Firearm Prohibition Orders are purely a trojan horse for warrantless search powers for Police that can be expanded onto innocent people who have nothing to do with organised crime.

Furthermore, the fact that crooks are getting their hands on Category R items (as they did with the Cat E stolen M72LAWs), is yet another nail in the coffin of the Australian gun law farce. All the while, the law-abiding public is defenceless against events such as this from this element of society. One could imagine the outrage if this had killed or injured a bystander or neighbour.

The argument that “oh they’re just targeting each other” is patently ridiculous, as they are also targeting the public over and over in a slew of armed robberies, home invasions and the rest. These are the people that the laws are supposed to stop from obtaining this stuff, yet they still are. Coupled with a weak judicial system and Victoria, and indeed Australia, really is a criminal’s paradise.

Chapman, Alpers and Lee must be tearing what’s left of their hair out after these last couple of weeks.

Another Australian gun law fail: Man walks into Border Force HQ with illegal firearms

Australian media not knowing which way to turn at the moment with the Osmington shooting and now this:

“A man who allegedly entered the Melbourne headquarters of the Australian Border Force with two guns, was not a client, the federal government says. The 38-year-old man was arrested at the Docklands building about 1.30pm on Monday and police say they seized guns, ammunition and drug paraphernalia.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton said the man is not a client of the Australian Border Force.

“On the advice available to me, a person that wasn’t a client of the Australian Border Force entered into the foyer of the ABF facility there, and there was an incident then that the Victorian police responded to,” Mr Dutton told reporters in Melbourne on Tuesday.

“As I understand it, the person was taken into custody and charges have been laid against that person. I will let Victorian Police comment on it further.”

The man, of no fixed address, was remanded in custody overnight to appear in the Melbourne Magistrates Court on Tuesday. He is charged with two counts of possessing firearms, criminal damage, assault police, resist arrest, aggravated burglary and reckless conduct endangering serious injury.”

Channel 7’s report:

The pump shotgun appears to be without it’s foregrip and part of the trigger guard missing. It appears, on first glance, to be a Remington 870 Marine but that is yet to be confirmed. Both are illegally shortened notwithstanding they were stolen in the first place. No fixed address makes it difficult to conduct storage inspections and issue PTA’s.

Firstly, it’s good to see no ABF employees were hurt in this incident which easily could’ve turned into a nasty scenario and a complete embarrassment for the government. It’s unclear from the information provided as to what exactly happened inside the building and whether or not any shots were fired.

It’s kind of ironic and alarming that an agency who’s management and commissioner has made some mind-boggling decisions regarding Airsoft, importation of firearms and making life tough for some firearms owners, is unable to protect itself against illegal firearms in it’s own building.

Several major questions arise out of this, the most obvious being how does a man known to Police with illegal firearms, walk into a national law enforcement building unchallenged? It is understood from the report that the firearms were in the man’s bag, but this still asks serious questions about security in that environment.

It is understood that the ABF building in Docklands, who share a building with other businesses, does not have armed security. Contrast this with the AFP building just a few hundred metres down La Trobe Street, which has armed officers visibly present out the front of the building.

Further, why does a national law enforcement agency require state police to resolve a situation like this? Some ABF officers are armed and it’s unclear what the security arrangements are for obvious reasons, but you would think they would have a team or plan in place to deal with such incidents like this inside government buildings?

You would also think that a national law enforcement agency, arguably the most politically sensitive in the country and the recipient of constant large-scale protests at it’s facilities, would have some kind of armed presence to deter events like this and protect it’s employees.

Peter Dutton did some good work establishing a consultative committee to review firearm policy after the Riverman OAF debacle.

Here’s hoping he can establish some common sense for protection of ABF employees from a potential tragedy.