Posted on 09/08/2017 1:08:36 PM PDT by marktwain
When I arrived in Australia, one of the first stories was about how the so called “sensible gun laws” were not so “sensible” for people in rural Australia. I related the Donald Eykamp case about how interpretation of minor storage infractions lead to the confiscation of hundreds of thousands of dollars of highly collectible and historic firearms.
It appears that sort of abuse has lead to reform in the firearms law. The Eykamp case is in the process of appeal. A decision from the appeals court has been due any day for the last month.
The case has been in process since March 14, 2015. At that time, the law read that any guns found in violation of the safe storage laws had to be confiscated. Donald Eykamp paid about eighteen thousand dollars of fines, and about that much in lawyers fees.
On June 14th, 2016, the court ruled that the firearms should be turned over to a dealer, sold, and the proceeds given to Donald Eykamp.
The police appealed almost immediately, arguing that the judge did not have the authority to order the guns sold, and they must destroy the firearms. The appeal has been ongoing for more than a year.
In May, 2017, while the case was under appeal, the NSW government introduced a firearms reform bill that included a number of provisions. Several of those provisions involved reform of the enforcement of storage requirements.
The previous law required that when a person was found in violation of safe storage requirements, the firearms had to be confiscated. The reforms allowed the police to use some judgment and to levee a fine, similar to a traffic ticket, instead.
Other changes include removing the requirement for gun owners to attend court
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Naturalman1975
Ping on Australia gun article.
Try that again...
Ping on Australian gun article.
What happens when you don’t have a right that is specifically mentioned in the constitution. On our side of the Pacific, we only need to see what happens in Kalifornia to validate that observation.
I hate to think where we would be without a Bill of Rights. But notice the Tenth Amendment and the mention of enumerated powers. Slowly and in so many ways, this Amendment has been neutered, to the great shame of the Supreme Court.
The Declaration of Independence alludes to many rights, yet where they are not enumerated, the federal government acts as if they don’t exist. Yet the Tenth was written from the reverse standpoint, that the only powers that the federal government had were those that were enumerated. All other rights (open ended) were reserved to the States and to the People.
Just try to find where the government has the power to regulate the crops that a person grows on his own land for his own consumption. Yet, to the great shame of the Supreme Court, they presumed to have that exact power.
And now we have moved from freedom of speech towards being able to compel speech. That is exactly what has cost the owners of several Christian bakeries their businesses when they politely declined to create an artistic product (a wedding cake) for a ceremony they found morally objectionable.
So, even when we have it in writing, it is still a piece of paper with precious concepts that must be carefully respected and honored lest the government devises a way out of the chains it is placed in.
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.