Posted on 04/11/2020 5:16:21 AM PDT by marktwain
Prominent Australian gunshop in Brisbane, Queensland image courtesy Dean Weingarten
In Australia, the various governments are using the coronavirus emergency to stop sales of firearms. One of the stated purposes of those who plotted to disarm Australians was to reduce the number of Australians who had guns. That was unsuccessful. More people have guns in Australia today than before the extreme gun laws were put in place in 1997. The thinking that one purpose of gun laws is to reduce the number of people with guns continues.
During the current emergency, on 31 March, the Daily Mail quoted the national police minister. From dailymail.co.uk:
Police Minister Lisa Neville said at a press conference on Tuesday the number of people attempting to access firearms and ammunition had doubled.
The minister and the National Cabinet decided to pause the sales of firearms and ammunition for sporting or recreational purposes.
They fear an increased amount of weapons on the street would be dangerous as tensions rise and firearms may be stockpiled or accessed by criminals.
There is no suggestion the people who desired firearms were not obeying the law and following the intensely bureaucratic and slow process by which a person is grudgingly allowed to own a firearm in Australia, under tightly controlled conditions. The government simply did not like the idea that more people were acquiring firearms.
The several different Australian states each approached the situation of the coronavirus a bit differently. In Queensland, gunshops and gunsmiths were labeled “non-essential”. From health.qld.gov.au:
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Anti’s never waste a crisis
Mr. Inbetween is not amused.
“Australia: Gun Shops Closed Because of Increase in Demand”
Both of them?
No big deal, Australians can’t do much with them anyhow except be sure they are locked up and kept at least one kilometer away from the ammunition.
The clear lesson in the story, both in Australia and the US is that he time to buy arms is when you don’t think you are going to need to use them.
I am always amused by the outrage over “one gun per month” policies. Sure, I don’t like them, but if I just collect guns at the rate of one per month, in 10 years I would have 120.
If the government thinks I don’t need something, or makes it hard to get, that is a sure-fire sign that I do need it. The wise man stores thing up in times of plenty so he can have them when famine strikes.
No rights written into basic law? No rights.
Betcha they wish they had back all the guns they turned in and were destroyed, back in 1996-1997.
To eliminate the Englishman's right to arms, the elite simply stopped talking about it, and the courts refused to acknowledge it after WWI.
The Australian Constitution was written in 1900 and ratified on 1 January, 1901.
Australia is a strongly federal system. The individual states have stronger powers, in many ways, than American states.
When the Australian Constitution was written, a bill of rights was not included. Instead, the Australians relied on the traditions of the rights of Englishmen.
Consequently, individual rights to arms, to freedom of speech, to requiring warrants for search and seizure, all depend on the traditions of the courts and precedent.
Some protections are strong, some not so much.
The right to arms is almost completely gone,it lingers only in that the courts have ruled the police must follow procedures when granting firearms permits. Thus the police are not able to simply deny a permit. They are, however, granted wide latitude. If you do not have all your i's dotted and t's crossed, you very likely will not get a permit.
The requirements to prove you have a legitimate "need" for a firearm are significant, but they can be met.
Self defense is not considered a "need" to own a gun in Australia, since 1997.
Warrants to search homes seem more rigorously required than in the United States.
Coming to a state near you!
Coming to a state near you!
There is a much lower level of violence than in the United States, especially in the cities. (at least in official statistics for murder)
That would be true even with no gun laws at all.
Yes, and the gun laws have not made any real difference in Australian murder rates.
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.