Category Archives: Peter Dutton

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.

“Semi-semi-automatic” – Gun Control Australia and David Shoebridge hit peak desperation over Verney-Carron speedline

The memes write themselves: From their ABC:

“Mr Casagrande said when the Australian Federal Police inspected the gun, instead of giving it a classification they listed it in a special schedule of prohibited items, banned from importation into Australia.

“Things like machine guns, mortars, any of those military-type weapons that are actually used in war … they can’t come in under any consideration whatsoever,” he said. Mr Casagrande applied for a judicial review in the Federal Court and is awaiting the judgment.

He believes the AFP got it wrong, that the Veloce is a typical lever-action shotgun and should be classified as a category B firearm, one of the two least-restrictive categories.

It (hilariously) continues:

Gun control advocates disagree. They say the Veloce is a dangerous new style of “rapid-fire” gun. Gun Control Australia chair Samantha Lee says it fires faster than typical category A and B lever or bolt-action firearms.

“With this particular firearm the concern is the rapid-fire mechanism. The ability for cartridges to be loaded at a very quick capacity,” she said. It’s been described as like a semi-automatic firearm. It’s quite a different mechanism to what’s been imported into Australia before.”

But far more troubling, according to Ms Lee, is that a rifle version of the shotgun is already available in Australia as a category B gun. It is called the Verney-Carron Speedline.

“We’ll be meeting with the Federal Justice Minister this week and we’ll be raising this issue, our concerns about the import of rapid-style firearms into this country,” she said. Any rapid-style semi-automatic type firearm should not be available to recreational hunters. Any firearm that is rapid style should be at its highest category possible — a category C or D.”

New South Wales Greens MP and gun control advocate David Shoebridge said the guns potentially needed their own unique category.

“This is effectively a new category of weapon, a new dangerous category that a number of firearms experts have described as a semi-semi-automatic weapon, with a high rate of fire. It doesn’t fit neatly into any of our current categories,” he said.

Mr Shoebridge said the Verney-Carron Speedline and Veloce firearms are a step up from the controversial Adler lever-action gun. And he does not understand how the Speedline has achieved a category B rating.

“This weapon though has an even more rapid rate of fire action. It’s designed for an extremely rapid cycling through of shot after shot, after shot, after shot,” he said.”

You can go read the rest for yourself but you get the drift. The same, tired old non-outrage from Shoebridge and Lee.

Gun Control Australia have tried the exact same technique with the Adler, the Pardus and now the Verney-Carron: pick a random firearm, ascribe some arbitrary and non-defined adjectives to it, whinge about how it circumvents the non-legally binding national firearms agreement and then use it as an excuse for more bans.

The ABC also didn’t run this on their social media threads for obvious reasons.

There are several obvious reasons for this latest salvo from Gun Control Australia:

– Trying to drum up as much hysteria as they can in regard to the Tasmanian Firearm Proposals which are open for public comment from 2nd June 2018.

– Are upset about the relationship with GCA Non-Executive Director Piers Grove and the Betoota Advocate/Three Rivers being made public last week.

– Was also cynically timed to coincide with the funerals of the victims of the Osmington mass shooting for maximum emotive value, because grave standing is Gun Control Australia’s standard modus operandi – because a mass shooting in the state with the strictest laws in the country really helps your case for more?

They are also reeling from constant daily examples of our gun laws being proven useless, particularly when criminals in Melbourne are now using grenades.

This also goes to show what a monumental waste of time the firearm classification process is. It would be a far better approach to remove the licence categories completely for those already licenced.

Considering the absolute debacle that Australian Border Force and Peter Dutton had with the Riverman OAF, it would be wise for them not to repeat it.

Funny also what the Australian Federal Police said three years ago about the Adler:

The usual consistent inconsistency from our national law enforcement agencies pertaining to firearms. How is the Verney-Carron any different? How does a firearm that requires manual chambering of a round get anywhere near the definition of a semi-automatic?

An also pressing question is: on a matter currently before the Federal Court, a commercially uninvolved prohibition activist organisation gets a face-to-face meeting with a Federal Minister?

But above all, what the hell is a “semi-semi-automatic?”

Guess all those Category B centrefire bolt actions in circulation might have to be reclassified as semi-semi-automatics:

I actually agree with Shoebridge: the non-legally binding national firearms agreement has got to go. It serves no purpose.

It’s not as if three lawyers working for an anti-firearm lobby would know that though.

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.

Flailing Fischer whinges about “gun lobby” he created

Lack of self-awareness and Tim Fischer couldn’t be a more perfect match. The man decided to continue his unhealthy fixation with the NRA with this unhinged rant in the Guardian:

“One of the architects of Australia’s strict gun control laws says he is “deeply concerned” about the emergence of what he described as a US-inspired firearms lobby.

Tim Fischer, the former deputy prime minister and leader of the National party who alongside John Howard helped to pass landmark reforms after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, says he believes a “wave” of firearm lobbying influenced by the US National Rifle Association is putting renewed pressure on Australian gun laws.

Fischer told the Guardian he believed “NRA-inspired” lobbying coupled with the increased influence of rightwing parties such as One Nation in Canberra and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party in New South Wales had influenced a “pushback” against Australia’s gun laws, and called on politicians to stand up to pressure. 

“Waves of NRA-originated ideology do descend on Australia and have done since 1996,” he said. “I think we are seeing another wave of the NRA’s indirect influence descending on Australia at the federal and state levels [and] that’s deeply concerning to me.”

Fischer’s warning comes in the context of an increasingly well-funded and organised gun lobby with ties to weapons importers and manufacturers.”

Fischer is upset about Peter Dutton’s plan to form a national firearms advisory committee with Rob Nioa after the recent Riverman OAF import fiasco. Forming a panel of experts who actually know about firearms instead of a sea of bureaucrats who do not and who also continually make poor and frankly ridiculous decisions on firearms laws? Gee, what a terrible idea.

As one of the so-called “architects” of the non-legally binding National Firearms Agreement, Fischer had the apparent sense to make it compulsory that non-primary producers be forced to join an association in order to have a firearm, ie the “genuine reason” criterion. What did that do? Concentrate money into some associations to represent their members.

You created the so-called “gun lobby” in this country, Tim. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

However, firearm lobby groups existed well before 1996 anyway, and the only reason you are seeing pro-gun groups in full voice now is because of the repeated attacks on firearm owners in this country, for no reason other than pure authoritarianism.

Further, Fischer’s assertion that the NRA is active in this country is incorrect. The NRA does not involve itself in the domestic affairs of other countries – there’s no money or sponsorship from them. Sure, it comments on Australian gun laws from time to time as they are entitled to do, but that’s about it. Apparently, it’s “outrageous” for them to do that but completely ok for legions of uninformed spivs such as Tim Fischer to wax lyrical about Australian gun laws and America on social media, every time there is some kind of firearm incident anywhere in the world.

Firearm owners were not consulted in 1996 and are being left out of government consultation consistently today. While that tide has started to turn, most recently with the fake outrage over the Will Hodgman government’s proposals, the notion that Fischer implies that firearm owners should just essentially shut up and be dictated to, is absurd. Apparently, the firearm community is the only community that should not be allowed to lobby to protect itself, unlike every other community in Australia.

And for Tim to point the finger at the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party is a joke. The Nationals are clearly on the nose with the electorate and unnecessarily played the fear card re: gun laws at the recent Cootamundra By-Election, in a cheap scare mongering attempt.

Tim, take your $250,000 a year government pension and ride quietly off into the night. It’s just getting embarrassing now.