FOU

  • Home
  • Current Campaigns
    • Suppressor September 2023
      • Suppressor letter templates
    • Inquiry into Victoria’s Recreational Native Bird Hunting Arrangements – Submission
    • National Firearm Register consultation submission
    • Bowhunting South Australia – Our Statement
  • Membership
  • How to get your firearm license
  • Merch Shop
  • Database
  • About Us
    • Policy and Stance
    • Meet the team
    • Donate
    • Current Campaigns
    • Articles & Blogs
  • The Australian Firearms Industry
    • Our Partners, Sponsors and Corporate Members
    • Current competitions
Home  /  Uncategorized  /  Amnesty? That’s just a technicality.

Amnesty? That’s just a technicality.

fouadmin June 03, 2017 Uncategorized Leave a Comment

With yet another official firearms amnesty on the horizon, it seems prudent to bring forward a case that really makes us question the value of these amnesties.

Following the COAG resolution to restrict the availability and use of handguns by sporting shooters in late 2002, a national firearms amnesty was announced, which took place in Queensland between the 1st of July and 31st of December 2004.

It was during this amnesty that a licensed handgun collector and sports shooter in Queensland decided to acquire and register a previously unregistered semiautomatic UZI pistol. Thinking he was doing the right thing, by the law and in the spirit of the amnesty, to get unregistered guns off the street. With a 10 round magazine and a barrel over the new 120mm legal limit for semiauto handguns, it was able to fit in under the new restrictions on sporting shooters handguns.

The legislation governing firearms amnesties in Queensland allowed for weapons to be registered by those with a suitable license or surrendered to the state. The new owner of the semiauto UZI elected to have it registered against his firearms license with the details confirmed and entered by his local dealer, a relatively common practice under amnesties in Queensland. This is where this story should draw to an end, but alas disappointingly, we must continue.

About 10 days after the end of the amnesty, the owner had his house raided by the police and all his firearms seized. The basis for the raid was the owner’s possession of the semiauto UZI pistol. Queensland Police had elected to charge the owner with unlawful possession of weapon under section 50 of the Act.

The story broke and made the news, Brisbane 4BC provided some coverage of the charge, reportedly acting premier Anna Bligh provided no comment on the case at the end of this segment.

http://www.firearmownersunited.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Brisbane-4BC-Radio-18-January-2007.wav

Unfortunately for the police, section 168B of the Weapons Act provides protection for those whom register a firearm under a declared amnesty. The provision clearly states that a prosecution cannot proceed against a person for unlawful possession of a firearm when they take action to obtain the necessary authority under the Act to possess the firearm during a declared amnesty.

Whilst the police were able to charge the collector, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) was unwilling to proceed with the prosecution, presumably because they read the Weapons Act and realised & that to proceed clearly violated the Weapons Act and therefore dropped the charge.

With the matter now presumably resolved, the owner was able to retrieve his firearms from the police. Some firearms were damaged due to lack of care by the police, as is apparently their standard practice, that is apart from the semiauto UZI pistol. The police had decided to insist upon their position that the semiauto  UZI pistol was not a Category H weapon and was in fact a Category D or R weapon.

With no other option to retrieve his property, the owner sued the police for the return of the UZI. In a civil court case that took several years to resolve, the owner was able to prove on the balance of probabilities, that his semiauto UZI was in fact a Category H firearm. Demonstrating that it was neither a replica/ facsimile of a submachine gun, nor a substantial duplicate of a military style semiautomatic rifle and instead a Category H pistol.

With the magistrate calling the police’s actions in the case to be ‘oppressive’, he ordered an immediate return of the UZI and awarded costs. With the court orders made and the owner able to recover a small portion of his costs from the police (and thus us the taxpayers), the semiauto UZI was returned to its rightful owner.

This is the first story we are presenting in an ongoing saga of law abiding firearm owners running into serious legal issues because of mistakes in fact and law by the police. Have you been in a situation like this? If so please contact us so we can hear about it.

Tweet

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Previous Article
Next Article

About Author

fouadmin

Related Posts

  • Why we push for self-advocacy

    Why we push for self-advocacy

    3 December, 2023
  • FGC-9s: 3D Printed 9mm Carbines Found in Aus

    4 June, 2021
  • Animal Care and Protection Act Review Qld

    21 May, 2021

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

  • Popular
  • Recent
  • Wankers: Victoria Police tell citizens not to fight back against African gangs 29 December, 2018 123
  • Australia has also had school shootings and they were after 1996 24 February, 2018 46
  • NZ Police shut down gun confiscation website in less than 24 hours due to trolling 22 March, 2019 43
  • Dean Webber case exemplifies everything that’s wrong with defending yourself in Australia 15 October, 2018 38
  • Why we push for self-advocacy 3 December, 2023 0
  • The Grinch that stole reloading for Christmas – A Mark McGowan tale. 21 December, 2021 0
  • Species highlight: The Red fox 11 November, 2021 1
  • Pest control methods spotlight: Biocontrol 7 November, 2021 0

Recent Comments

  • Val on The Sound Case for Firearms Suppressors
  • Anonymous on Species highlight: The Red fox
  • Anonymous on Gel Ball Blasters now illegal to possess in Queensland without ‘reasonable excuse’
  • Anonymous on Gel Ball Blasters now illegal to possess in Queensland without ‘reasonable excuse’
  • Philip Kevin Walter on FGC-9s: 3D Printed 9mm Carbines Found in Aus

Social Media

Firearm Owners United

Firearm Owners United was founded in response to the many hysterical voices crying out for further gun control in this country. We already go through so many hoops to get our firearms as it is. We do not need more hoops. We don’t need a mother/father figure deciding what’s the best for us. We are Law Abiding Firearm Owners, and we are sick of being treated like second-class citizens.

Social Media

Explore FOU

  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Current Campaigns
    • Bowhunting South Australia – Our Statement
    • Inquiry into Victoria’s Recreational Native Bird Hunting Arrangements – Submission
    • National Firearm Register consultation submission
    • Western Australia Firearms Act Reform – our submission to the consultation
  • Database
  • Donate
  • FOU Elite Atheletes
  • How to get your firearm license : state -by- state
  • Media Affiliates
  • Merch Shop
  • Our Partners, Sponsors and Corporate Members
  • Policy and Stance
  • Publications
  • Suppressor letter templates
  • Suppressor September 2023
  • Suppressors 2022
  • The Australian Firearms Industry
Follow @FOU_official

Follow Us

 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d