Category Archives: Jeff Bourman

Victoria: Duck Hunting on thin ice!

We have recently had some extremely concerning news reach our ears from senior Liberal sources, that the Liberal party in Victoria at present is seriously considering adopting an ‘amend but not oppose’ approach to the Duck Hunting Ban Bill that has been introduced from Andy Meddick of the Animal Justice Party. This could mean that whilst they might amend the legislation in some meaningless way, they would abstain from voting against it. This would only leave the (presumably) Nationals as well as the SFFP and LDP to oppose such a bill.

However we need to keep in mind the recent news that the Labor party is seriously contemplating adopting a position to ban the time honoured cultural tradition. With the Victorian Labor conference over the weekend passing a motion calling for a ‘hunt review’. Of course we all know a ‘hunt review’ is just code for a ban on recreational duck hunting, something one of the backbenchers (MP Lizzie Blandthorn) has made exceedingly clear in her comment that “On the eve of 2020, it’s time to end this practice once and for all”.


This all might combine to mean the 2019 duck season is the last time Victorian shooters had the opportunity to enjoy some delicious freshly harvested waterfowl.

Now is the time to call, write to or email your local member in Victoria and strongly but politely let them know that if they do not oppose this outright that you will not be able to support them or their party in the next election. You can easily find your electorate and representative here.



Some photos generously provided for this article by Blair Findlay, you can see his instagram here.

So are we going to let Australians carry pepper spray yet?

It’s tragically happened again in the world’s most liveable, progressive utopia:

“A 27-year-old man has appeared in court charged with what police describe as a “horrendous bashing” murder of a woman whose body was found in a major Melbourne park.

Courtney Herron, 25, was found dead by dogwalkers near a pile of logs in Royal Park, in Parkville just north of the CBD, about 9:25am on Saturday. Henry Hammond was arrested and interviewed on Sunday, and homicide squad detectives charged him with one count of murder overnight.

Mr Hammond, 27 and of no fixed address, made a brief appearance at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court this morning and was remanded in custody until September.”

Victoria Police blamed all men:

“Nonetheless, he acknowledged the enormous community concern after a spate of killings of women in public places over the past 12 months.

“Certainly there have been instances in our recent past where women have been attacked and they have been attacked by men,” Mr Cornelius said.

“The key point is [that] this is about men’s behaviour, it’s not about women’s behaviour.

“Every time I hear about a woman being attacked – for me as a man – it gives me some pause for reflection about what it is in our community that makes men think it’s OK to attack women, or take what they want from women,” he said.”

Looks like Lisa Wilkinson is writing press releases for Victoria Police now. Pathetic.

Yes, Australia is generally a safe country but even that reputation is on the decline as we see everyday examples about the violent crime infesting the country. And reputation matters little in the heat of the moment of a violent crime encounter.

As we’ve said before, tragedies like this are just going to keep happening especially as the economy gets worse. Criminals know their victims are defenceless and have the upper hand – they want prey not a fight. Sure, situational awareness, training and all that are relevant to self-defence. However, right now you’re a legally enforced victim and you don’t even have the choice to carry anything.

Self-defence is a useless right without access to the legal means. So why can’t we at least start with pepper spray for law-abiding citizens?

Pepper spray in WA is legal but the legalities concerning it’s carriage and use is a grey area. Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MLC Jeff Bourman attempted to get pepper spray over the line in Victoria during the last government, but was voted down.

There’s no reason we can’t at least have non-lethal items for the purpose of self-defence, other than inane authoritarianism and the usual shrill cries of idiots who think that violent criminals who already have access to whatever they want, will inevitably get their hands on it.

By the way, wasp spray doesn’t work so this myth needs to stop being perpetuated:


If we could cut through all the predictable schtick – the patronising lectures towards men, promises of funding for non-tangible causes and all the other superfluous nonsense that usually happens when tragedies like these occur – and implement practical self-defence options to give people a fighting chance instead of being beaten to death, that would be great.

Labor, Liberal and Greens wankers team up to reclassify lever actions in Victoria

The Adler debacle has now hit Victoria, with state parliament voting to reclassify lever action shotguns more than 5 rounds into Category D and those with 5 rounds or less into Category B. Victoria is one of the last states to pass this abomination.

This from Shooters, Fishers and Farmers’ MLC Jeff Bourman:

“The changes to the Firearms Act to move lever action shotguns finally went through parliament yesterday despite an amendment being proposed by the SFFP. The amendment was to retain the status quo, a situation that’s worked well since 1996.

It needs to be noted that both the Labor AND Liberal/National parties voted AGAINST the amendment, yet again proving that the SFFP is still the preeminent party out there fighting for the rights of shooters to not be punished for doing nothing wrong.

Next election, remember that what you are told by the major parties and what they will actually do are rarely the same.

Those who did vote for the amendment:

SFFP
LDP
Dr Cumming (independent)”

Tim Quilty nailed it again:


Thanks to SFFP, LDP and Dr Cumming for their attempt to stop this lunacy.

Another reminder that the major parties are no friend of gun owners, if you didn’t already know by now. The slimy Nationals also again voted against their constituency. This is all off the back of 4 people shot dead this week in Melbourne and another drive-by shooting in Geelong, all with illegal firearms but not a peep said about that.

The Adler debacle continues to be one of the dumbest moments (and there’s a lot of them) in Australian political history.

Victorian Fudd Federation’s Leonard Vallance sells out shooters over suppressors

Jeff Bourman’s bill to have suppressors legalised in Victoria has been defeated after Labor, Liberal, the Greens and Nationals all teamed up to shoot it down. It gained support from Australian Conservatives’ Rachel Carling-Jenkins and James Purcell:

Kudos to Jeff Bourman for the time and effort he put into the bill. It was always going to be a tough ask but the SFFP put a lot on the line and it did end up being the largest government e-petition in history in Victoria.

The usual uniparty ticket of Labor, Liberal, Greens and Nationals all again joined forces to snuff out anything firearm related. If you’re a gun owner and still voting for one of these parties, then quite frankly, hand your guns in now.

That aside, remember those names in November at the Victorian state election.

While this was not unexpected, it was comments made by Victorian Farmers Federation’s Leonard Vallance in the Australian Bolshevik Commission that drew the ire of shooters:

“Sheep, cattle and grain farmer, Leonard Vallance, is the head of the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) livestock group and is also a licensed firearm user. He said that while most shooters do the right thing, illegal shooting on rural properties was a problem and he did not want that group having access to silencers.

“They shoot stuff that they shouldn’t shoot, they leave gates open, they leave rubbish around the property, and they’re generally a nuisance,” Mr Vallance said. “They are a safety hazard to the farmer, livestock and the wider community.”

Mr Vallance said if more people could legally use silencers there would be other safety risks as well. “My concern would be that if the firearms were stolen with silencers fitted to them they could then enter into the illegal crime market and that would be a problem for everyone,” he said.

“In the last 12 months, two of my neighbours have had their gun safes broken into on their properties and they were locked away properly, bolted down and secured, and they still had their firearms stolen out of their gun safes.”

Talk about victim blaming.

What absolute unqualified drivel. Judging people by the lowest common denominator and then punishing everyone accordingly is the default setting for numpties like Vallance. People who aren’t following the law and have access to whatever they want anyway is a moot point: punish those people for misuse and leave the rest of us alone.

Vallance then comes up with this doozy:

“Mr Vallance said knowing where the shooting was coming from was very important.

“I’m aware that it’s very difficult to get a reading on where the firearm was coming from when they’re shooting because it [a silencer] changes the noise,” said Mr Valance.

“If you’re a landowner and you have an illegal shooter on your property it would be very difficult to work out where they actually were located.” Mr Vallance said there was some division among farmers on the issue, but he thought the majority supported the current regulations on silencers.”

Absolute rubbish. How many people did you actually consult, Leonard?

Further, poaching and suppressors are two completely separate issues that he has conflated. Absolutely terrible argument – I award you no points.

The reality of noise levels of suppressors are spelled out here:

They are freely available over the counter in New Zealand and the sky hasn’t fallen in. They are mandatory for private land hunting in the UK.

The rest of the ABC article is the usual unqualified sook from Lesley Podesta and Sam Lee that isn’t worth the time of day.

This is the same Leonard Vallance that whinged about Wedge Tailed Eagles and lamb losses a month ago:

“We need to either issue farmers with permits to control them, or the community compensates farmers for their (lamb) losses,” Mr Vallance said. “Farmers are keen to preserve wildlife, but when they come into excess it really does change things.”

We’ve since had plenty of farmers contact us disgusted with Vallance’s comments and he in no way represents the shooting community nor the farming community. This isn’t a surprise really, the VFF is mainly a hive for recycled Nationals’ hacks and does what they’re told.

Would Vallance feel the same way if hunters and pest controllers suddenly turned around and told them they weren’t going to help out farmers with pest control anymore?

Furthermore, just because you’re a farmer doesn’t mean you are an expert about firearms. Sure, there are many farmers out there that know a lot about guns and more to power to them, however many farmers know just enough to get the job done as they simply don’t have time to concentrate on firearms matters.

Leonard Vallance might want to think about sticking a suppressor in his mouth because I surely don’t want to hear any more of the bullshit that comes out of it.

Watch your language: How politicians and the media warp Australians’ perception of firearms

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.

“Port Arthur!”

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.

“Semi-automatics!”

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.

“Firearm Buyback!”

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.

Note to the media: Brett is smart.

Be Like Brett.

Firearm Prohibition Orders only work 2% of the time

Victorian Labor were congratulating themselves in the Banana Republic over apparently defeating gun crime once and for all Tuesday night:

“A Victoria government bill cracking down on gun crime has passed the state’s Legislative Council with minor amendments.

Under the laws, police will be able to impose a firearm prohibition order on someone as young as 14, banning them from acquiring or carrying a gun and meaning they can be searched without a warrant.

The orders would target those with a history of crime, criminal association or who posed a risk to public safety. The Andrews Labor government bill passed the Legislative Council on Tuesday night with an amendment to allow shooters to sell firearms online without a dealer.

The amendment was brought on by the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party and the bill needs to return to the lower house for final approval. Premier Daniel Andrews earlier labelled the legislation a “game changer” for police and said it should pass without amendment.

The government also accused the coalition of stalling the bill but this was labelled a “desperate lie” by opposition leader Matthew Guy. “We will move some amendments but if they do not get up we will vote for it,” he said earlier on Tuesday.

One of the proposed changes was to reduce the time frame of an order from 10 to five years for adults. Mr Guy said the government had the opportunity to pass the legislation at the end of last year but didn’t.

Police Minister Lisa Neville disagreed, and said she wanted “to give the opposition every opportunity for this to be a bipartisan supported piece of legislation”. Police had been consulted over some minor changes that “they could live with” but the opposition rejected it, she also said.”

Yeh, nah.

Great work by Jeff Bourman to add the amendment to get dealer-less online firearm advertising running in Victoria. Apart from the pensioners’ discounts and a cap on prices for junior licences, the rest of the bill is, quite frankly, a turd sandwich.

As stated before, Firearm Prohibition Orders are a slippery slope and the idea of banning criminals from owning illegal firearms is an oxymoron – you have to actually catch them first. Not taking away from the good work by Victoria Police on locating the stolen firearms from O’Reilly’s, but note also how they accomplished that with good Police work and not more laws.

FPO’s are also completely useless in stopping firearm crime and very low return on investment as the NSW example shows. The NSW Ombudsman’s 2016 report is mandatory reading:

Now add to that an already over stretched Police force and the weakest judicial system in the country and you see just how ‘effective’ this will be.

Daniel Andrews and Lisa Neville haven’t wasted any time congratulating themselves about how banning crooks from owning something that is easily obtainable illegally anyway, is an apparent stroke of legislative genius. We look forward to the excuses given when the crime continues.

Waste of time and money. Game changer indeed.

Victoria Police: semi-auto rifles for us, but not for you

Victoria Police being Victoria Police again:

The Victorian government has rejected a recommendation to consider giving recreational hunters access to semi-automatic firearms.

A report following the inquiry into the control of invasive animals earlier this year handed down a series of recommendations, including that the government and Victoria Police consult about the possibility of legalising category C and D firearms for hunting, including semi‑automatic rifles and shotguns and pump‑action shotguns.

It was part of an examination of how to deal with control of pest such as deer in areas including the Alpine National Park.The government response tabled in Parliament supported most of the recommendations, either in full or in principle, but not a relaxing of weapons laws.

“The Victorian government does not support recreational hunters having access to category C and D firearms. This is in line with the National Firearms Agreement,” the report stated.

It also rejected a recommendation to consider allowing hunters to use silencers on their guns.

“Victoria Police does not support the use of noise suppressors (silencers) by recreational hunters unless genuine need and reason can be demonstrated by an applicant – in general terms, a recreational hunter would not meet the requirements,” the report stated.

Well, those were our recommendations to the Inquiry:

“In its submission to the Committee, Firearms Owners United explained how these firearm restrictions reduced the capacity of recreational hunters to undertake effective invasive animal control: The current Victorian Firearms Act makes things incredibly difficult for hunters and firearm licence holders in order to carry out effective culling of invasive species and implement hunting methods. For instance, the current restrictions on semi‑automatic centrefire rifles, which are freely available to firearm licence holders in New Zealand, reduce the effectiveness of hunters in their ability to cull large numbers of invasive species. This is also the same with the absurd state of affairs of pump action shotguns being in a higher category than pump action rifles…”

Kudos to Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party MLC Jeff Bourman who went on to 3AW to defend this position:

No surprise from the Alannah and Madeline Foundation affiliated 3AW crowd. The Facebook comments section produced the usual number of outraged boomers, fudds and armchair experts.

As you can also see another knockdown, well-articulated “argument” from VicPol on suppressors, basically “because we said so.” Why does a recreational hunter not satisfy the absolutely rubbish genuine reason criteria for a suppressor, yet a professional does?

This rejection of the terms of the Inquiry is nothing short of hypocritical from Victoria Police who, along with their NSW counterparts, have been tauting how “awesome” their new rifles are and can’t wait to parade them on New Year’s Eve, right next to the bollards.

There was no indication of who exactly made the decision regarding Cat C and D but that’s not surprising considering Victoria Police and Police Minister Lisa Neville’s recent conduct regarding the latest firearm proposals. And as for the line about “in line with the National Firearms Agreement”, it’s a non-legally binding agreement and the states are free to ignore it. It’s therefore not an argument.

Semi-autos for us, but not for you. Hunting humans with semi-autos is ok, hunting invasive species with them is forbidden? Got it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with hunting deer with a Modern Sporting Rifle, particularly when they offer the added advantage of quick, humane follow up shots and allow more animals to be taken at one time. In fact, they are a very popular and capable platform for hunting deer in the United States:

The AR-15 is one of the most popular rifle platforms of all time. It only stands to reason that its popularity would bleed over into the hunting world. It has, in a big way. According to a recent study by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, 27 percent of hunters surveyed have used a modern sporting rifle (MSR) in pursuit of game. Of those, 48 percent report having used a MSR within the past five years, illustrating a growth in the use of the platform among those hunters surveyed. Of those answering yes to the use of an MSR for hunting, nearly 60 percent state they have used that platform to hunt large game.

They are also extremely commonplace over the ditch in New Zealand on the lowest category of licence, suppressor included, and in many European countries. There is no reason why they should be restricted for hunting in Australia. If you don’t want to hunt deer or other animals with one, that’s your choice, but you have no business telling other LAFO’s they can’t or shouldn’t.

Australia’s invasive species problem is out of control, so much so that it is one of the main contributing factors that has led to Australia being recently deemed the 2nd worst country in the world for biodiversity loss.

It seems diversity matters in Victoria, just not biodiversity.

The current requirements for Category C and D firearms in Australia are nothing short of ridiculous and are designed to be deliberately onerous. The #1 side effect of this authoritarian bureaucracy being the continued decimation of our native wildlife and the continued toll on our primary producers and farmers at the hands of invasive species.

If Victoria Police are going to discriminate on the basis of “recreational vs professional”, then surely their paltry two pistol shoots a year vs a Category H licence holder’s minimum 10 shoots, qualifies as “recreational.”

 

Disgrace: Victorian pensioner found guilty for defending herself with firearm, Victoria Police destroy gun

David Dunstan all over again:

“A RURAL pensioner has been left frustrated and angry after pleading guilty to firearm offences in the Wodonga Magistrates’ Court last week.

Sixty-nine-year-old Margot Marshall was charged with assault with a weapon, carrying a firearm in an unsafe manner and failing to comply with her gun licence conditions after she grabbed her single-barrel shotgun to face three people she feared were intruders who had driven on to her property at Wooragee, in North East Victoria, late on Saturday April 15.

The court case has thrown a spotlight on the rights of rural landowners when trespassers enter their property. It follows an incident in the Riverina in September when Bungowannah farmer David Dunstan had his guns seized and his firearms licence reviewed after he found a man armed with a knife and a long piece of wood at his back door at 3.30am on September 14.

Fearing for his family’s safety, Mr Dunstan grabbed an unloaded .22 rifle, but did not point it at the intruder. He was subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing and his firearms were returned after six weeks.

Victorian MP and member of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party Jeff Bourman warned a spike in crime could see more rural landholders run foul of firearms law. “The issue will keep popping up as crime becomes a problem and people get scared,” he said. Mr Bourman said in Victoria, unlike NSW, a gun could be used in self-defence if it could be proven appropriate and justifiable.

“The police want you to call 000 if you feel threatened, but that is not always an option,” Mr Bourman said. “In the end it’s up to the courts to determine under what circumstances you can and can’t use a firearm to defend yourself.”

Ms Marshall was alone and asleep on her 8.9ha property at about 9.30pm when she ­noticed a car come up her 500m driveway towards her house. “I thought that was odd. I’ve been on this property for five years and no one has ever driven up the driveway at night as there are two signs at my front gate warning that it is private property and to keep out,” Ms Marshall said. “They turned off their lights and parked in front of the shed.”

Ms Marshall said she noticed two or three people sitting inside the car. One of them got out and started walking towards the fence. Ms Marshall said she retrieved her gun from her safe, walked outside with it and told the people to leave. Police said the three people were lost and had ended up at Ms Marshall’s property after their GPS mistakenly took them there. They were seeking directions when they entered the property.

Two of them said Ms Marshall had pointed the shotgun at the woman who had got out of the car. That woman feared she would be shot, they said. Despite pleading guilty to the charges, Ms Marshall said she felt justified to grab her gun. She denied pointing the gun at the woman, claiming she had held it in her right arm below her hip. It was also unloaded, she said.

Ms Marshall, whose ill husband was away in care on the night of the indecent, initially intended to fight the charges, with her legal representative arguing that the “keep out” and “private property” signs meant she was within her rights. However, when the magistrate offered a 12-month good behaviour bond with no fine if she pleaded guilty, Ms Marshall changed her plea. Ms Marshall’s shotgun was seized and will be destroyed.

“I was worried about how I would pay any fine and it was two witnesses against my word,” Ms Marshall said. “I am very sorry I pleaded guilty, I would have liked to pursue the case for other people who find themselves alone and isolated and in that situation.”

Victoria Police would not comment on Ms Marshall’s case, but in a statement said: “Victoria Police asks that members of the public consider their own safety and that of others before taking matters into their own hands.

“We  urge members of the public to ring 000 for a police response in the first instance.”

Whatever, Victoria Police. Should the three people macheted in Melbourne the last two days have rung you guys and waited to turn up while they were being hacked? This woman was alone at night on a rural property and she is expected to wait hours for you to turn up? If this group of people had malevolent intentions she may not have even reached her phone.

Mrs Marshall’s response appeared reasonable in the circumstances. Did she know the intention of these people? Given all the rural firearm thefts Police have been going on about, how did she not know they were there to steal a firearm?

We’re surprised Loony Lisa Neville hasn’t given her a $50,000 fine as well.

If Mrs Marshall’s account is correct then on the basis of the information this is exactly a mirror image of David Dunstan case on the other side of the border. An elderly woman alone on a rural private property finds strangers trespassing late at night, grabs an unloaded firearm and does not point it at the offenders asking them to leave. The end result? No-one was harmed but the victim is punished.

Sure, she pleaded guilty but her alternative under Victoria’s pathetic justice system was to waste thousands fighting it out in court or possibly perish at the hands of three people if they were ill-intentioned. The act of her showing these people she had a firearm without pointing it is no different than a Policeman having his firearm in a holster – it’s just a subtle reminder there is a tool there. Maybe if she was able to carry a holstered pistol, this could have been different.

However, how is this different to the Dunstan case?

It’s this kind of disgraceful anti-victim, anti self-defence, anti-firearm culture within both the Australian justice system and Police culture that just drives a further wedge between the public and government. Victoria Police could have potentially exercised their discretion and not charged her, or warned her. Sure, there is an argument the other way too but on the basis of the information it would seem a far more reasonable approach.

I guess the bright side is Mrs Marshall may qualify for free footy tickets from Daniel Andrews.

Scant compensation for having your lawfully owned firearm used to defend your life and your property, being destroyed.

Fake News: Victorian Greens claim you can buy a firearm legally without a licence

Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party of Victoria MLC Jeff Bourman introduced a bill into Victorian Parliament this week to allow the advertisement of individual online firearm sales, bringing Victoria into line with the rest of the country.

Unfortunately for those in attendance at the upper house debate, the Greens opened their mouths via Sue Pennicuik:


No, that is not the case at all. You need a valid firearms licence to purchase any firearm legally in Victoria. Sure, you can fill out the paperwork for a Permit To Acquire when you apply for your first licence at the same time but you’ll find that there’s a little something on top of that application:

Good luck picking that firearm up from a dealer without a licence.

Sue got salty when we confronted her about this on Twitter:

Let’s take a look at the Victoria Police website shall we?

 

So as you can see, more of a case that Sue only read the part that suited her and her corrupt party’s agenda. If Sue can provide evidence of a PTA being approved without a valid firearms licence then we’ll stand corrected.

We’ll wait.

The rest of Sue’s litany was just the usual Greens’ emotive rhetoric and even David Shoebridge got a mention – what better way to bolster your credibility on this issue.

Further, these comments point out the total uselessness of the PTA system. A PTA is essentially another licence you must apply for after you’ve already been granted a licence to own firearms. Essentially it is a licence within a licence – completely and utterly useless authoritarian bureaucracy for no proven benefit and a lazy cash grab to boot.

A licence within a licence? Reminds me of a movie with Leonardo Di Caprio.

This is nothing really surprising from the Victorian Greens, with their former leader and anti-hunting hypocrite Greg Barber recently resigning so he could “go do some fishing.” It’s not hunting when it’s fishing according to the Greens.

And it’s just the usual authoritarian hysterics from a fake environmental party that had nothing to say about the ongoing invasive species disaster unfolding in this country, after Australia was found to have the 2nd worst biodiversity loss in the world last week. Further restrictive gun laws and hunting laws that the Greens continually call for just throw kerosene on that massive dumpster fire.

The Greens ‘care’ about diversity – just not diversity of Australia’s native wildlife.

A better solution to this mess would be to dump PTA’s completely and move to ten year licences, as is the case in New Zealand where they also don’t waste their time on pointless bureaucracy with firearm registration. The Northern Territory also recently introduced ten year licences, there is no reason Victoria can’t do the same when it already does this with motor vehicle licences.

The bill has proceeded to the lower house for debate.

Australian Gun Owner trolls National Firearm Amnesty by surrendering Nerf Gun

It didn’t even take 10 minutes.

On the first day of the National Firearm Amnesty, a Queensland gun owner has surrendered a Nerf Gun:

What is interesting is that names and details are being taken (although it is standard procedure to do so when handing in surrendered property to Police). What will be done with the data of those who have surrendered firearms remains unclear given it is supposed to be a “no questions asked”amnesty. However, it has been stated publicly that no prosecutions will take place.

On the Nerf gun surrender, the surrendee told FOU: “I didn’t do this to cause a media shitstorm, I did this to quietly protest, what I believe to be, poorly written and fundamentally unfair firearms laws. I also did it to show that I can own Nerf but I cannot own Airsoft in Australia.

We 100% agree. Although Australia did ban Nerf Rival blasters because of Helen Lovejoy, while you can still buy others. Go figure. Australia is also one of only three countries that bans Airsoft.

We don’t know what’s more amusing, the gentleman who did this or Queensland Police for actually accepting it. Fair play to the Queensland Police Service member who did receipt it, if he did so out of the spirit of it.

The National Firearm Amnesty has been hailed a waste of time and “window dressing” by firearm owners and politicians Senator David Leyonhjelm and Jeff Bourman. Although announced last year, this follows on from many recent notable incidents of the use of illegal firearms such as the shooting of Brett Forte and the Brighton Shooting and previous incidents such as the Lindt Café Siege and Curtis Cheng.

This is also one day removed from Justice Minister Michael Keenan giving a press conference with the latest ACIC report and virtually admitting that authorities are losing the war on illegal drug importation. But somehow, they’re ‘winning’ the same war on illegally imported firearms.

In honour of this gentleman’s efforts, a $50 voucher to spend at his favourite gun store is coming his way.