Posted on 08/03/2015 3:16:10 PM PDT by marktwain
Australia’s descent into full blown fascism just accelerated again. The Adler lever-action ban in Australia just got serious as Prime Minister Tony Abbott has now decided to personally intervene and ban the firearms completely pending completion of a review of the NFA. Australian Customs and Border Protection have been ordered to detain all shipments of the Adler until the review is complete. Amidst the backlash from firearms owners and running out of concocted reasons and emotive rhetoric based arguments as to why law-abiding firearms owners are responsible for the actions of criminals, and that 128-year-old technology has now suddenly become a national security threat, Justice Minister Michael Keenan stressed “that the decision to suspend imports was not about targeting law-abiding gun owners but reflected the heightened terrorist threat in Australia.” . . .
So there you have it, the terrorism and national security card has been played. Those pesky facts about the 1996 NFA never actually working sure are hard to deal with, aren’t they, Mr. Keenan?
There was absolutely no surprise that this was announced at 11pm on a Saturday night in Australia when most are not paying attention, because open and transparent government right?
(Excerpt) Read more at thetruthaboutguns.com ...
Crime is low in Australia, but the government and media expected gun ownership to go down and die out, not continue to rise, with the draconian controls.
So now a new round of propaganda is being prepared.
Terminators on motorcycles like to use lever action shotguns.
Historically, Aussies were subjects, not citizens. It does make a difference.
Pulling a stunt like that could get him “removed” permanently here in the U.S.
Winchester asked John Browning to design a lever action shotgun. He told them that a pump was a better idea but went ahead and invented the model 1887 since that was what they wanted.
Pump shotguns are “restricted” in Australia. They are treated much like full autos.
The Australian regulations are really nasty. Guns are not allowed to be used for self defense. They must be locked up all the time.
A mandatory 30 day wait to get a new gun, even if you have several already. Air guns are treated the same as centerfire rifles.
It was horrible law, and now they want to make it worse. They are never satisfied. In the UK, they are working hard on outlawing anything with a point or an edge.
Serious proposals have been put forth to outlaw kitchen knives that have a point.
That Adler lever shotgun looks nifty. Bet there’s a ready market for it here.
Definition of British-style parliamentary government: “Dictatorship interrupted by elections”.
Oh well, just put another shrimp on the barbie, mate.
;^)
I had no idea they were that strict.
I recall them banning semi automatics after a massacre in Tasmania.
Now it seems they have gone practically insane with gun controls.
Disarming thier people so the muzzies can have an easier time of it
The laws are incredibly strict.
I looked at going hunting their. It is very difficult to bring a rifle or shotgun to go hunting. You have to apply to the police to import it. You have to have a letter from your police chief saying that you are a suitable person to own it. All this has to be done 30 days before you arrive.
Most that go hunting in Australia use the outfitters guns.
Outfitters, who are very expensive, can clear a lot of hurdles for you. Still, they recommend that you do not arrive with guns at certain airports, such as Sidney, if I recall correctly, because your chance of being held up by the police, because you are bringing in a hunting gun, is very high.
Maybe I am exaggerating from memory. I think there are some Australian Freepers who could give us the story.
Another thing, you can own pistols, after lots of paperwork, but all you can do with them is keep them locked up between the times you take them to a sanctioned range and back.
The sad part is that Tony Abbott is from Australia’s conservative party. RINOs come in all flavours.
I've never tried to bring firearms into Australia as a non-citizen, but the rules for citizens and non-citizens are somewhat different - and honestly, I don't have a problem with the idea that non-citizens have less rights than citizens in a country.
Having said that, it is certainly complicated to import any firearm into Australia, so what you describe in terms of trying to bring a gun into the country doesn't surprise me. If somebody wants to hunt here they are probably going to find it a lot easier to use locally available firearms, as you say, because I doubt the paperwork is worth it to bring a gun in temporarily even if it would be regarded as worthwhile to do so permanently. And tourists do come here to hunt under those terms.
Another thing, you can own pistols, after lots of paperwork, but all you can do with them is keep them locked up between the times you take them to a sanctioned range and back.
Not quite. When you get a handgun licence, you need to provide a reason you want one. The easiest and most straightforward reason is 'member of a target shooting club'. If you give that as your reason, then, strictly speaking, yes, you should only be carrying the firearm for that purpose, which means to and from the club. A lot of people choose to get their handguns in that way for convenience, but it's not the only way of doing it. And, not that many people, bother - long arms are pretty common. Hand guns are pretty rare.
It isn't easy to carry a handgun in Australia, but it's nowhere near as hard as some people try to claim it is. A lot of it does come down to the letter of the law, versus the way the laws are actually enforced. Commonsense is meant to be applied, and most of the time it is.
That's really a false equivalence. Australia does not have any provisions in our Constitution guaranteeing the right to bear arms, and only a very limited common law right in that regard. For this reason, unlike the situation in the US, gun ownership is not really seen as a fundamental right in Australia, and certainly not as a constitutional right. For that reason, it's not tied up or particularly linked to conservative politics. Tony Abbott is, generally, a strong defender of Australian's common law rights, but this isn't one of them.
As Prime Minister, his duty is also to uphold the law as it is currently written, and this decision is based on those current laws. He wouldn't be able to ignore them even if he disagreed with them - I've no idea if he does, but just because he's made this decision does not mean he wanted to.
What's going on with this current decision is hard to work out to be honest. I'm surprised that Abbott has intervened in this way, as I expect the current government (assuming it gets a second term in office) is likely to relax Australia's gun laws rather than tighten them (although as many gun laws are state laws, not federal, their ability to do so is limited). I'm wondering if he has had specific advice that these weapons were being imported by those who we have perfectly valid reasons for being worried about, given the references to terrorism. It may also be about domestic political capital, but that gets into some very complex areas.
Not true. Semi automatics did become subject to new licencing laws, requiring more than a basic gun licence, but they were not banned.
Now it seems they have gone practically insane with gun controls.
Actually, in general, gun laws are being relaxed over time - not back to the level they were prior to 1996, not yet, at least, but in general they are getting less restrictive, not more.
It depends on the magazine capacity (and it differs from state to state as well). Less than five rounds, it's treated on the same level as a semi-auto (Category C licence), more than that, it's a Category D weapon, which is basically the same as a full auto. An 'ordinary person' can generally get a C licence. Getting a D licence is extremely difficult.
The Australian regulations are really nasty. Guns are not allowed to be used for self defense.
That's not quite true. A person may use a reasonable level of force to defend themselves or another person. If they have a reason to fear that they are in serious danger of death or serious injury, then any level of force is reasonable, and if they have a gun available, they certainly can use it in self defence.
The idea that you can't use a firearm for self defence is based on a misunderstanding of the rules that exist when you are required to provide a reason you want to own a firearm. If you put 'self defence' on that form, you'll be denied.
They must be locked up all the time.
Or under active control and in use. Exactly what that means is ambiguous - I suspect, deliberately so.
A mandatory 30 day wait to get a new gun, even if you have several already. Air guns are treated the same as centerfire rifles.
More or less true - technically they are different - air guns are category A, a basic rifle is category B - but as the lowest level of licence currently offered is an A/B licence, it winds up like that. But the alternative would be for an 'A category' licence to be introduced and that could be a bad thing for gun owners, because it could turn the B licence into a higher level licence, and make that harder to get.
It was horrible law, and now they want to make it worse.
In general, they are actually slowly being made better. The laws are getting less restrictive over time. It's a slow process, but there is progress.
“In general, they are actually slowly being made better. The laws are getting less restrictive over time. It’s a slow process, but there is progress.”
Glad to hear it. I hope that this lever action shotgun nonsense is derailed.
I have heard that there is a movement to put all pump-action rifles, lever action rifles and shotguns, and straight pull bolt actions in the same category as semi-autos.
Perhaps you can comment on that.
That pretty much says it all.
Also, how is someone supposed to use a gun for self defense if there are requirements that they be locked up at all times? Do they have to concoct lies in order to protect themselves? "I just happened to take my gun out of its locked safe, in preparation to go to the target shooting range, when, lo and behold, there was a criminal invading my home who I luckily was able to shoot in self defense. Not that that's a valid reason to possess a gun in Australia, of course."
My God! The intellectual somersaults required to justify basic human rights in collectivist authoritarian regimes are truly breathtaking.
The bottom line is, Australian subjects, like those of the rest of Europe, are utterly vulnerable to the whims of their rulers, whose governments apparently grant "privileges" rather than recognizing fundamental "rights".
Ultimately, it's a recipe for the creation of a police state, where peaceable citizens are subject to arbitrary prison terms for possessing rudimentary firearms which feature technology well over a century old.
Such phony notions of Freedom are essentially alien to Americans. It sure is nice to live in a country where rights are real, at least on paper.
Europe doesn't even have the paper anymore; and their governments' modern interpretation of human rights under the common law has become an absolute joke.
The submissiveness of the European mind is truly a thing to behold.
America, and Americans, remain exceptional, and we should be proud of that, rather than apologizing for it...
Perhaps you can comment on that.
There is such a movement, but I'd be very surprised if it succeeds. There are people who want to increase restrictions, but that proposal has been floating around since at least 2008.
It's more likely more guns will be moved from Category C to Category B, than the other way around - in other words, the laws will be relaxed rather than tightened.
For that to happen though, we need to avoid turning this into a hot button issue. That's when we get overreactions and the anti-gun lobby wins. Keep things calm and balanced, and we tend to get things rolled back.
It all comes down to politics.
Well, they don't have to be locked up at all times - that's an exaggeration, although it's closer to being true than I like. But the test that's applied is the reasonable person test.
If you shoot somebody who has broken into your house in the middle of the night, the police are unlikely to charge you unless you did something like shoot the person in the back. Because you can easily argue you felt under genuine threat.
The problem is this wrong idea that people don't have the right to defend themselves has actually caused people to get themselves into legal trouble. Because they did not understand the law and believed they had done something illegal, they've said things that have incriminated themselves. Under questioning, they've agreed they weren't legally justified because they did not realise they were.
If I ever shoot somebody in self defence, what I will say to the police is simple. "I was in fear of my life." That's what I need to say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.