As many of our viewers will have seen by now , the farce that is the West Australian government has implemented a total closure of all gun shops in the state. The public “servants” have enacted this under the emergency powers act, signed today at 10:50 and delivered to gunshops an hour after, to take effect at 11:59 AM today.
This action is absolutely disgraceful, at a time when general retailers (including such establishments as the absolutely essential JB Hi Fi) are still permitted to be open. The clown like political machinations of the West Australian government are on plain display.
This action has been justified by the Premier, who claims that due to the closure of firearm ranges and clubs that there is no need for the stores to be open. Furthermore he claims that exemptions will allow farmers to purchase ammunition.
These are blatant lies, the Premier should hang his head in shame and our organisation will not forget, nor forgive, his deceitful nature. Quite plainly, there is no exemption to allow farmers or other occupational shooters to purchase ammunition, firearms and other accessories; and to say otherwise is a bold faced lie.
Furthermore, to typify the shooting community as utterly dependent upon the operation of shooting ranges and clubs is another load of absolute tripe from the Premier’s office. Indeed in these trying times, where meat is hard to source from the shops with the grotesque panic buying taking place, many hunters will keenly be resorting to harvesting their own meat from properties on which they can shoot. This activity remains totally lawful, indeed hunting being a primarily solitary pursuit on large rural properties complies with the social distancing guidelines – more so than probably any other activity.
This action is nothing more than a gutless attack on the shooting industry and sport, and one that is totally unjustified. If general retail was closed then certainly we could understand this move, however this is not the case. The shooting industry has been singled out for special treatment by a vindictive government, who are distinctly devoid of a spine.
As wryly noted by Beaton Firearms, this move is totally counterproductive to any notions of community safety, indeed forcing gunshops to now be unattended for months at a time is now spotlighting them as prime targets for burglars. However community safety or common sense, or indeed anything that could be confused for intelligence, has clearly not crossed the mind of the dishonourable Mark McGowan.
At a time when our communities need support, and should be trying to work constructively together to help manage such a massive public health emergency, the divisive move from the McGowan government is truly deplorable. We and our followers will be aggressively targeting the McGowan Labor Government come the 2021 West Australian election.
With a tragic murder and hospitalization of random innocent people on the streets of Sydney today, you might think the media would be asking questions about how a patient of a mental health unit with extremist beliefs was able to escape the facility in which a court had ordered he be kept.
Instead of course, we have pathetic self-serving articles claiming how fantastic our gun laws were, despite an evidently suicidal and mentally disturbed individual being able to kill one person and severely injure another before eventually being detained by heroic bystanders on the street.
The danger these people put themselves in cannot be understated, it is readily apparent from the video that fortunately the attacker’s state of mind rendered him as a relatively ineffectual opponent. This could easily have been a fatal encounter for those bystanders too, had they been unlucky and faced a more determined and focused attacker. We won’t provide credit to killers and provide links to videos of attacks with bladed weapons, suffice to say going for a melee in a knife fight is a nearly surefire way to get stabbed in some way or another.
The interesting take away from this is of course the amount of time it took for police to respond, once again demonstrating that when seconds count the police are only five to thirty minutes away. Even if you are in the center of the busiest city in the country.
The comments that fantasize about how much worse it would have been had he had access to firearms are tiresome to the extreme. There is no need to imagine, we can look back at our recent history in Australia to see what happens in similar situations. See the mass shooting perpetrated by a criminal in Darwin earlier this year, the 2014 Martin place siege or even more lethally in Melbourne, using a car in Bourke street to rob six people of their lives whilst the country looked on in horror.
Our gun laws are effective in stopping people who do not wish to break the law from obtaining prohibited firearms, they do little else. When we see some of the most strictly controlled firearms in Australia in the form of pump-action shotguns and handguns showing up in the hands of these murderers it is clear the laws are ineffective in preventing their proliferation.
Patting yourself on the back because an escapee from a mental institution decided to stab and murder people with a kitchen knife in the CBD is insentive to those injured and killed and naïve beyond belief.
Instead imagine if we allowed people to possess less than lethal means of self defense; like pepper spray and electroshock weapons. Perhaps we wouldn’t even be talking about an incident that ended in a fatality at all.
Just when you though it couldn’t get anymore farcical across
Question Time, Bishop asked Police Minister Stuart Nash if he stood by
statements of police in relation to the theft of 11 guns from the Palmerston
North police station and if police paid for the return for some or all the guns
that were stolen.
After Question Time
Bishop told reporters he had credible sources to back up his claim and the
Police Minister should front up. “My understanding, which has not been
denied by the Police Minister is police paid for the return for some or all of
the firearms that have been recovered.”
Nash owed New
Zealanders an explanation about whether police had to buy back the guns that
were stolen when they left the backdoor open, he said.
“Mr Nash and the Prime Minister said New
Zealanders could hand their firearms into Police following the Christchurch
terrorist attacks. But they didn’t check first whether Police could securely
hold them. Mr Nash refused to say whether or not police paid for the return of
the guns, despite being asked twice in Parliament today.
needs to be honest about what has happened here. It would be deeply embarrassing
for the Government’s gun buyback scheme to start by paying criminals for
weapons stolen from a police station.”
Interesting to see what Comrade Nash has to offer in explanation, but you would think that there would be something serious behind the claim to bring it into question time.
This is also after crime gangs point blank stated that they would not be surrendering their firearms.
That’s not all, earlier in the week Jackboot insulted Kiwi gun owners with this ‘offer’:
Essentially your options are:
1. Surrender without compensation or go to gaol 2. Surrender for compensation or go to gaol 3. Apply for an endorsement that you’ll never get and then surrender or go to gaol
This also looks like a trojan horse to compile a list for government confiscation. In other words, as there is no registration on most categories of firearms in New Zealand, NZ Police likely do not know who has what. This looks like a ploy to generate a list of firearms, by giving gun owners the facility to admit that you have the firearms that the government doesn’t know about.
And then you’ll get a visit from NZ Police, as they have already been doing to collectors, anyone who bought an AR15 after 15 March or, it appears, anyone with a political opinion that the NZ Government doesn’t approve of:
Learn from Australia’s mistake. Give them nothing.
WA Police have gone off the reservation in the last 18
months with regards to anything firearms related.
The ‘very powerful
firearm’ debacle, the transport issue, the attack on Ella Valla station,
etc among a slew of other incidents that have revealed a distinct anti-firearm
culture within WAPOL and Firearms Licencing.
Now WAPOL want to follow in NSWPOL’s
“WA could follow New
South Wales and rewrite its gun laws to prevent people with mental health
problems and histories of family disputes getting a licence.
Michelle Roberts this week confirmed she had asked Police Commissioner Chris
Dawson for advice about an overhaul of NSW’s firearms legislation to see if WA
should adopt similar changes.
In a revamp that has
been described as the most significant of its kind at a State level, NSW will
apply more stringent checks on a person’s mental health when applying for a gun
This could include
requiring GPs or other medical experts to report to police when a person with
an existing firearms licence shows signs of risky behaviour.”
The article pretty much reads as a spruik for WA Police to adopt these laws.
Put simply, these proposals are ridiculous, not to mention a privacy breach.
One only has to look at the MyHealth Record fiasco to know how much of a disaster the proposal is. How are WA Police going to obtain private medical records from a number of private health care providers and keep that information safe, when their own registry can’t do that already? The answer is they can’t, particularly when they were mailing out licences to the wrong addresses.
Further, “mental health” is
a vague term in itself. There’s a difference between a fully functioning adult
with a mild bout of managed anxiety or depression, which would also realistically rule out a lot of serving Police,
to a full-blown schizophrenic who likely should be institutionalised. Who
defines what is a precluding condition?
This proposal will also further discourage those with issues from speaking out or getting help, if the consequence of having their personal property confiscated should be a potential outcome.
issue of domestic violence is also a grey area. It already is the law that an
IVO subjects you to a 10-year exclusion period on firearms. Given that knives
the choice of weapon in domestic violence incidents, it’s easy
to argue that this really makes little difference. There’s also plenty of
vexatious domestic violence claims made by ex-partners to have their firearms
taken away – how will this be addressed?
Ultimately, it does absolutely nothing to stop the use of illegal firearms. The red flag laws in the US have essentially been used as a form of pre-crime and this is essentially how they will be used here if brought in.
Call it for what is is: just another excuse to further civilian disarmament and confiscate firearms.
WA Police and Firearms Licencing need to get their house in order because they are becoming more of a farce every day.
Gun City owner David Tipple has given his views on Jackboot Jacinda’s gun grab:
The only thing we disagree on is the statements on E Cat firearms – all vetted individuals should absolutely have access to these if they have the endorsement.
We also disagree with his concessions on the ‘buyback’ aka
compensated confiscation – there does not need to be one at all.
Other than that, well said David.
New Zealand’s gun
laws do not need to change at all.A
statistical anomaly in nearly 40 years of some of the fairest firearm laws in
the Western hemisphere, is absolutely no reason to confiscate the property of
250,000 innocent people.
Particularly when it will likely cost half a billion dollars
and criminals admit they won’t be handing over their firearms.
The NZ Labor government have decided they’d champion democracy and equality like they always do and initially offer a farcical 48-hour consultation period to firearm owners, before they use taxpayer money to steal their property:
“Public submissions are now being called for Arms
(Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill
closing date for submissions is Thursday, 04 April 2019
your submission on the bill by 6.00pm on Thursday 4 April 2019.
bill seeks to extend the existing restrictions on military-style semi-automatic
firearms (MSSAa) to ban most semi-automatic firearms and some shotguns, as well
as magazines and parts that can be used to assemble semi-automatic firearms.
small-calibre rimfire semi-automatic firearms and lesser-capacity shotguns are
excluded from the ban. The permitted firearms are ones commonly used in the
farming, hunting, and recreational communities, and have a limited magazine
“The Arms Amendment Bill will
have its first reading tomorrow, and be referred to a Select Committee for a
swift public submissions process. It will return to Parliament next week to pass
through its remaining stages. It is intended to come into force on 12 April,
the day after the Royal Assent.”
Does Stuart Nash even read his own press releases or does he not care? Likely the latter.
However, it got even worse as of a few minutes ago as Stuart Nash and NZ Police decided to change that period to an absolute farce of just 24 hours:
“Gun owners are appalled a parliamentary select committee is giving them just one day to make oral submissions on the government’s fast-tracked gun law changes.
The Finance and Expenditure Select Committee has decided to close written submissions on the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines and Parts) Amendment Bill at 6pm today and to hold in-person submissions tomorrow.
The committee will request oral submissions from “a representative group”. The timeline shocked Council of Licenced Firearms Owners chairman Paul Clark who said he had expected oral submissions would run for several days.
“It’s appalling. I was brought up to respect the parliamentary system,” he said.
“On something like this, which is fundamental to New Zealand society, you don’t just trample over everybody and then say, ‘well we’ve discussed it’.”
Mr Clark said he had hoped to get a fair hearing but the short submission time shook his faith in the democratic process.”This undermines the whole democratic system that we have in this country, there is no other way to say that. It is destroying democracy.”
Mr Clark said he did not know if his organisation would be asked to make a submission in person, but he hoped it would be.He said the committee would not get a representative view of firearms owners’ views of the bill from just one day of submissions from a limited number of people.
“I thought we would get a fair hearing because that’s the basis of the system we have,” he said.
“The minute you start short-circuiting democracy for political convenience you’re sending out a lot of alarm bells.”
In other words: here’s a 24- hour window (that was originally a ‘generous’ 48 hour window) to lodge your dissent which will go straight into the spam folder, while we rush through laws that we already had drawn up months ago without any meaningful consultation. But hey, we listened.
This is another tried and true method of government
worldwide. Offer consultation as an out clause for saying they listened, while
carrying out what they wanted anyway.
Ask the Brexit folks how that is going.
That’s not to say don’t make a submission, by all means do, but this 48 hour offer is a farce. COLFO have done an excellent job in working up a submission template which you can find here.
Stuart Nash has got some real explaining to do on how this
is democratic and not blatantly communist.
As he awaits the results of the NSW election count, which is currently looking favourable, David Leyonhjelm weighed in on the smear against Pauline Hanson for her comments on the Port Arthur Massacre:
Not the first time David has attempted to get some answers:
Port Arthur has been considered a taboo subject politically for the last 23 years, in terms of any questions to the contrary of the official story. The media attack on Pauline Hanson’s comments and the public response is a reflection of that.
Even Liberal idiot Eric Abetz tried the old “I know someone that died so shut up”silencing tactic.
There are plenty of intelligent and valid questions to be
asked of the events of April 28, 1996 and that should be the subject of
rigorous investigation and debate; not the subject of rubbishing and dismissal
from statist types that seem to think that taking John Howard’s word on everything
is the de facto setting.
It’s arrogant to assume we know everything that happened
then and one can argue if the events of Port Arthur had happened in the era of
social media and the internet, we might not be where we are at now, in terms of
the level of information available.
Sure, it’s valid to argue that it may be too late to have
one. For example, key witness and pro-Inquiry activist Wendy Scurr, the first
person into the Broad Arrow Café after the tragedy, sadly died last year after
campaigning for a Royal Commission from day one.
However, if we can have a Royal Commission into decades-old child abuse by the Catholic Church and the Whiskey Au-Go-Go Inquiry can be re-opened after 44 years, then we can attempt to resolve some unanswered questions.
It’s obvious to many that the Australian media and politicians have been at the forefront of shaping Australians’ perception on firearms, particularly to those who are indifferent or against firearms in general.
The level of astounding mistruths and misinformation that are promulgated on this topic in Australia is of epic proportions, but like any issue, unless you’re a firearm owner or clued on about guns in some way you aren’t going to know that. Frankly, most Australian journalists and politicians are rubbish when it comes to the issue of firearms.
It’s important to understand how they have been able to achieve this and it’s very simple: through language. In reality, they nearly always employ a barrage of emotive buzzwords in place of any sane debate or discussion on this topic in Australia. It is exactly the same trick as yelling “racist” or “bigot” when you want to shut down a debate on immigration or any other issue.
There many terms used by the Australian media and politicians to stifle debate on firearms and we’ve identified the five worst phrases.
Google just about any article on firearms in Australia and it’s a safe bet that the Port Arthur Massacre is in some way mentioned.
This is, in reality, a form of trauma-based neurolinguistic programming. When Port Arthur is uttered, the average Australians’ thought process goes something like this: “Port Arthur Massacre – man killed lots of people – semi autos are bad – John Howard changed gun laws – no mass shootings since.”
All of these points are demonstrably false when explored with an open, objective mindset and a hint of critical thinking. There’s little to no discussion by the media of where the AR15 used allegedly came from, the Police response time, the active role John Howard and Tim Fischer took in ensuring there was no Coronial Inquiry or Royal Commission or any discussion about how the National Firearms Agreement was formulated as far back as 1991 by Labor. There’s no exploration of the relationship between NFA architect Rebecca Peters and her personal financier, George Soros.
It was infamously said that the reason for no Royal Commission into the events at Port Arthur was because of ‘trauma to the victims’, but it seems that goes out the window whenever there is some issue regarding firearms in this country and it’s ok to keep bringing it up and put the victims’ through it every time.
It is the go-to weapon of the media but fortunately, the knife has really started to become blunt. Continually relying on Port Arthur as your primary argument for gun control is in fact, a weak one.
“American style gun culture!”
Another buzzword deemed fail safe and arguably the 2nd worst used. If in doubt, just bring up some vague comparison to the USA and the debate is, apparently, over.
There’s never any discussion about the complete disparity between the two nations which add validity to any discussion: levels of income disparity, population size, gang activity, health services, demographic crime trends, etc. It’s just a straight up, superficial black and white reference.
Comparing Australia to the United States is an intellectually dishonest, false binary argument. There’s never any mention of the daily examples of firearm self-defence by US citizens which far outweigh the total number of homicides ever year. There’s no discussion about disproportionately higher African-American crime rates or the scourge of Mexican cartel violence spilling onto US soil. Those who cite this argument also almost always don’t know what the laws actually are or the wide variance of laws at the federal, state and county level.
There’s also no comparison to other western countries such as Canada, Switzerland, Czech Republic, etc which have far more liberal gun laws and comparable crime rates to Australia.
The reality is the per capita murder rate in the US has declined 49% over the last 25 years while firearm sales and concealed carry permit holders have nearly trebled. Meanwhile, south of the border, Mexico just posted a record number of homicides for 2017 in a country with gun laws stricter than the UK. Don’t worry though, their lives don’t count.
It’s also amazing that Australians’ are so open to sledging the US on this issue, yet we complain about not being able to defend ourselves in our own homes and are 100% reliant on the ANZUS treaty for military protection against foreign threats.
The amount of lies told about self-loading, semi-automatic rifles in Australia is astounding.
The biggest one being is that they’re banned completely in Australia. Well no, they’re still legal. Semi-auto handguns are also still available. However, the restrictions on both of them are absolutely ridiculous and make very little common or legislative sense that they are virtually banned.
The doublespeak around semi-automatic rifles is even more blatant when Police are praised for having them yet citizens are demonized for the same. When the Police have them they are deemed “proper and necessary tools to protect the public” but when the public have them they are “killing machines designed purely to commit the next Port Arthur”. Seems fair and reasonable.
Semi-autophobia is one of the leading causes of ignorance in Australia in the firearm debate. Meanwhile, over the ditch in New Zealand (and a slew of other countries), one of these can be hand on the lowest category of licence and remains the most popular rifle in NZ. No “mass shootings” there in 21 years either.
First of all, you cannot buy back something you did not own in the first place – this is sleight of hand. The use of this term is deliberate and invokes a sense of mutual agreement. “Don’t worry mate, we’ll be a good government and give you some cash for that gun and she’ll be right”. The reality, as we have seen, was far more sinister than that.
Call it for what it was: compensated confiscation with the threat of imprisonment. Seriously, does this look like a passive buy back to you?
Further, the number of number of firearms that were confiscated by the government seems to inflate year on year and depends on who is doing the reporting. There’s also no mention of several of those firearms re-entering circulation due to negligence and corruption in 1998 either. Or you could ask Michael Keenan about how many were recently handed in.
“No mass shootings since 1996!”
Patently false and one of the more annoying catch cries. If we want to get technical, then the last mass shooting in Australia honour goes to NSW Police, who shot an escaped mental patient with a pair of scissors and three old ladies out for morning tea at Westfield Hornsby in 2016. But that’s ok, because the government did it.
There is no international consensus on what constitutes a mass shooting. The FBI uses mass killing as 4 or more. Interpol use 4 or more, some countries use 3 or more. Should it be people shot or people shot and killed? Who is right?
Australia has changed the definition of mass murder multiple times since 1996 and the latest research by the notoriously anti-firearm University of Sydney used “5 or more killed by one or more perpetrators” to get around the Logan shootings in 2014. They also were forced to concede they couldn’t attribute any decline to the 1996 laws.
They also discount the massive decline in firearm homicide, as shown by the ABS no less, between 1980 and 1995.
Mass shootings are a poor metric of firearm law effectiveness. We now have daily gun crime in our cities, home invasions and car jackings are now a regular occurrence and the public is unable to protect themselves against it with so much as a pepper spray.
Declaring that victims of mass shootings are somehow more dead than those that are killed by other means is also a facile argument. Do victims care how they’re killed or injured? No, they care about why it happened and how it could have been avoided. We have had many sickening mass casualty attacks since Port Arthur, some with and some without firearms, with vehicles now seemingly the latest trend.
There’s absolutely nothing to stop another mass shooting – as Man Monis, Rick Maddison and a slew of other incidents have shown. And the second another major one happens in Australia, the apologists won’t know what to do with themselves.
There’s also been no mass shootings in New Zealand for the last 21 years either despite not changing the laws, but that doesn’t count for some reason.
Obviously, the above is not an exhaustive list. There are several other terms that they employ like “assault rifle”, “high powered”, etc, which are equally as dishonest and have the same objective.
Again, education and experience are key in the firearm debate. The media and political class know this, hence why they invest so much time and energy in emotive linguistics to keep the debate in a juvenile context.
However, you can only cry wolf so many times before the magic wears off and the fake news MSM seem not to have learnt their lesson.
It’s not all bad though, in 2017 during the firearm amnesty Channel 9’s Brett MacLeod interviewed Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MLC Jeff Bourman in a very balanced and noteworthy interview. This is the standard the debate should be at in the media and kudos to Brett MacLeod for providing some much needed balance.
Liberal backbencher John Alexander is expected to announce his resignation from parliament at the weekend, becoming the latest MP to be claimed by the dual citizenship crisis.
Alexander, who holds the Sydney seat of Bennelong, sought advice from the British Home Office about whether he had British citizenship by descent, via his father. Previously he had thought his father had renounced his UK citizenship.
It is not clear whether the government would hold a byelection for Bennelong on December 16 or wait until next year, after the High Court rules on any referrals that come out of the disclosure process Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has announced. The plan then would be to have whatever byelections were needed on one day.
A December 16 byelection would need to be called on Monday. The loss of Alexander would drive the government, which currently has lost its working majority after Barnaby Joyce was knocked out of parliament, further into minority government.
Bennelong, John Howard’s old seat, is held by a margin of just under 10%. While the Liberals have a strong buffer, a byelection held when a government is unpopular provides an opportunity to send a protest.
The Liberals would also need the personal vote of Alexander, a former tennis star, to help hold the seat. But one complication is that he has been expected to resign at the next election, so at a byelection there would be questions about his longer-term future.
Alexander has made several statements in the past regarding gun control, including his most recent one where America was supposed to care what he thought about them.
Bennelong is generally a safe Liberal seat, so it would be unlikely that the LNP would lose this in said hypothetical scenario. It was last lost by the Liberals in 2007 to Labor’s Maxine McKew.
Let’s hope this works out and John Howard protege Alexander joins the two Greens Senators and Nationals MP’s on the unemployment line.