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.