Posted on 09/11/2017 1:16:03 PM PDT by marktwain
It is the first general amnesty since the implementation of the extreme restrictions placed on firearms ownership and sales in 1996. Those were put in place by a hoplophobic Prime Minister and a unified establishment media.
The media fed the wave of emotion after the Port Arthur Massacre. John Howard and Rebecca Peters (George Soros gun control lobbyist in Australia) had the plan in place, waiting for a suitable trigger.
I have been told that other than his sick fascination with firearms, John Howard was one of the best prime ministers in Australian politics. People place him with the likes of Margaret Thatcher or President Ronald Reagan.
The Shooters, Fishers, and Farmer party lobbied to bring sanity to the 2017 firearms amnesty. If the guns could be legally owned, they could be sold by a dealer or registered to a licensed firearms owner. More than 2/3 of the guns involved in the 2017 amnesty have been registered to legal owners. I stopped at Tamworth Firearms in the Australian state of New South Wales to see what was happening. There was a baker's dozen of guns waiting to be registered.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
I recall reading about how when the original mass buy back and destruction took place, all sorts of rare and unique firearms were turned in and that police officers charged with the responsibility of cutting them up and melting them down were upset in a good number of instances over the destruction of such firearms.
The government cannot buy "back" that which it did not own in the first place!
What we're really talking about here is armed robbery by government edict.
The Australians were “civilized” about the turn-in. The owners were compensated for the firearms. Many used the money to purchase new guns.
Glad you put "civilized" in quotes. There's nothing civilized about a government disarming citizens.
The owners were compensated for the firearms.
The owners were given no choice in the matter, and it was enforced (as all laws ultimately are enforced) with the threat of lethal force.
Many used the money to purchase new guns.
Just not the "prohibited" variety ...
That’s as evil and sickening as destruction of confederate monuments. Responsible politicians should be hung.
Yes, and no. A large number of the firearms handed in the late 1990s amnesty were weapons people could have continued to own if they had chosen to. Nobody knows exactly how many precisely because records were not kept in order to prevent any chance that people who were in violation of the law were not prosecuted (it was an amnesty, after all, so that needed to be guaranteed).
Certainly some weapons that were handed in were of types that would have been almost impossible for the person surrendering to own either because the level of licencing necessary is extremely difficult for the average person to reach (machine guns, for example), or because the person had a criminal record that disqualified them from owning them or similar issues - but a large proportion were weapons that could have been held on more basic licence - many firearms that required only the most basic A/B licence were handed in - in many cases by people who were licenced.
Why? A variety of reasons. I took in a number of firearms for an elderly neighbour. His health no longer allowed him to shoot and he decided he'd rather have the cash. It should be understood that selling a gun in Australia was difficult even before the post-Port Arthur period. Because background checks were required that the average person could not carry out, you couldn't just sell a gun to someone. You had to go through a dealer - and because dealers knew the seller needed their help, they generally offered very low second hand prices, unless a firearm was very unusual. The 'buyback' offered fair commercial prices for these weapons. A lot of people who had old firearms they hadn't bothered selling for the pittance the dealers would offer, took full advantage of the rare chance to get a fair price. Quite a number used the money to upgrade to better firearms - sell a bunch of old 22s, and buy something more modern.
Just not the "prohibited" variety ...
Oddly, 'prohibited' doesn't actually mean what it says. There are means by which you can get the wonderfully named "prohibited weapons permit".
Australian gun laws are pretty bad - but it would help if they were clearer in many cases.
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.