We recently posted the below letter on our page, sharing from Ozzie reviews. The letter details how NAB is closing the bank account of Smiffy’s Guns and Ammo, with no real reason given.
This post reached many of our followers and reports of similar actions occurring elsewhere streamed in. One of these affected businesses was willing to talk to us – JRB Precision, a bullet manufacturer based in Brisbane.
They sent us the below letter and email from NAB, confirming straight from the horse’s mouth that NAB is closing the accounts of businesses involved in the Firearms Industry.
It should go without saying that this is extraordinarily concerning for us as well as mirroring a similar move, that was later retracted from BoQ last year. Whilst BoQ saw the light and reversed course, NAB is yet to do so.
We are massively concerned about this because as anyone who has ever run a business would appreciate that it is simply not possible, or indeed legal to run a business without access to a bank account at the very least.
The NAB letter claims that this move is due to a ‘risk appetite’ change from them, when it comes to the financial security and of a business we struggle to understand how a firearms industry business could possibly be any more risky for the bank than any other business. Indeed with the highly regulated services that are on offer in this industry we imagine the rate of fraud that causes loss to banks is substantially lower in this industry then in any other comparable industry.
Given how quickly BoQ capitulated on this issue and the overly vague language being used in the communications from NAB, we can only presume that these moves are instead coming down to the political viewpoints of some back office bank manager. We would encourage shareholders in these institutions to ask at the next AGM why NAB is turning away profitable customers based on what appears to be some managers’ personal sensitivity.
Naturally we though we would ask the man himself, so this morning we emailed and snail mailed NAB’s CEO Ross McEwan on the matter. We will let you know if we receive a response.
If the prospects of politically motivated de-platforming in the banking sector frighten you as much as it does us, we would ask that you contact your local Federal member and ask why this sort of discrimination is even legal, let alone still being tolerated.
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.
Yesterday the major parties both united to reject the proposed inquiry into self-defence that was being proposed by SFFP MP Jeff Bourman. Why was this inquiry rejected? After all it’s just about having a discussion on self-defence. Much like the recent banking inquiry, one must consider that when politicians screech loudly about how much a public inquiry isn’t necessary, the opposite is more likely the case.
Recent incidents in Victoria and more broadly in Australia have highlighted the often uncertain legal situations relating to self defence. Regretfully these situations can result in a loss of life or serious injury, both to those attacked and to those who have initiated the attack. These incidents often result in people facing serious criminal charges over the appropriateness of their response to a sudden and violent attack. 1234
We believe that the safety of all parties could be improved through allowing members of the public to possess non lethal items for the purpose of self defence. Specifically, items like pepper spray would allow situations to be effectively defused by members of the community and also present no lasting harm to those they are used against. We believe that allowing possession of these items would go a long way to preventing more lethal items being used in an improvised fashion, as is currently the case.
We now see many cases where intruders have been killed with knives or bare hands, when the homeowner left facing serious criminal charges in situation where the use of pepper spray would likely have resolved the attack without long lasting injury to either party. However, these less than lethal tools are not lawfully available to the public in any State or Territory bar Western Australia. 5678
Tragically though we also see far too many incidents where people are horrifically murdered in public, without any lawful means to defend themselves. A maniac intent on killing has no qualms about illicitly carrying a knife in public, but those whom these laws are meant to protect instead find themselves stripped of any protection.91011
We are simply asking the major parties, how could they possibly reject the concept of having a discussion about self defence? We suspect we already know the answer: they are afraid of the outcome.