Australian Gun Control into the Future

Hi.

I'm an Australian from Perth, WA. I shoot for sport, mostly handguns. Having to deal with Australian gun control regulations has got me thinking - what more could you want?

Most of the discussion here relates to whether or not gun control is justified or not - let's put that aside for a moment and consider the ideal. If you had complete control, what regulations would you implement, if any?

[hr][/hr]

I've created a little poll which I'd be thankful if you voted in. I'd also like to hear in the comments exactly what you'd like. For instance,

• Concealed carry licenses
• Open carry licenses
• Limits on magazine size
• Limits on caliber
• Limits on barrel length (for instance, the G17a has a longer barrel to comply with Australian regulations)
• Background checks
• Age restrictions
• Storage requirements (do you like the current system of the firearm and the ammo being locked in separate safes around the property?)
• Hunting - should it be legal? What about in state forests?
• Fire rate - should full-auto weapons be allowed?
• Registration
• Strong protections for self-defense, including in the public space
• Harsh penalties for the initiation of force
• Suppressors?
• Should we have to keep weapons at the gun range, or be able to take them home?
• Concealed car storage?
• Outright prohibition of all weapons for any civilian use?
• Regulated at the state or Federal level?
• What about pepper spray, tasers, knives, etc.

So yeah, post your thoughts below

Thanks for your time.

 

For some the complete ban on civilian ownership of guns is the only answer.

 

Please note - though this thread is mostly about Australian gun control, those from other countries are more than welcome to contribute.

 

I know that some Australian politicians are calling for more gun control because of the increasing gun violence in places like Sidney. I don't know what they are proposing if anything. Do you?

 

Gun control is mostly controlled by the states over here - Sydney is in New South Wales, 4000 kilometers away from Western Australia. There have been some shootings in Sydney recently, and some trouble with bikies, but I'm not sure what they're proposing.

We're very heavily regulated. To the point where additional regulations will do pretty much nothing. By law you have to have guns locked in separate gun safes meeting the stringent specifications in the Firearm Regulations Act. Only two policies will decrease the likelihood of guns going missing/being stolen:

1. Require that guns be kept at the range. No private ownership.

2. Straight up make firearms illegal.

[hr][/hr]

I can't see a way for private ownership and storage at home to be made more stringent, at least not in a way that would make it any more difficult for a weapon to be stolen.

 

I didn't vote because "no regulations" is too vauge. I support no gun registrations. Full auto weapons are allowed for any adult or supervised minor to keep and bear.

I do support regulations that forbid violent felons, prisoners, illegal aliens and/or enemy combatants/terrorists from having guns.

 

Yeah, it's tough to create a poll that isn't too vague.

Me?

- Unrestricted responsible adult ownership.
- Minor ownership restricted to small caliber long arms.
- Minors must pass safety course to own/use firearms.
- No government records of weapons owned.
- No permits necessary to carry.
- Background checks okay if not recorded as weapon purchase.
- Convicted violent criminals relinquish all gun ownership rights.
- Convicted weapons violators (theft/misuse) relinquish gun ownership rights (severity/duration to be decided by courts).
- Appropriate harsh sentences for convicted violent weapons criminals.
- Mentally unstable (as recognized by the courts/treatment facilities) relinquish gun ownership rights.
- "Gun free zones" eliminated
- Instructor/safety classes required to be presented to each retail purchaser. (free? discounted?)

That's off the top of my head.

As you can see, poll boxes are not big enough

.

 

Honestly I'm not entirely certain how your government is set up VIS a VIS rights vs privileges.
In america I would say refer to the 2nd amendment, which is very clear, and if you want something else you'll need to alter the constitution.
I get the feeling yall don't have quite so spelled out and (supposed to be) unrestricted a right as we have here.
But certainly you have a right to self defense. Right? If so: Why not open carry or concealed with a permit process? Seems the compromise between a ban and unrestricted. (a compromise we don't have to make in america, thank god). Recent events and facts (arrests of biker gangs/other criminals who had rather sophisticated homemade firearms, the advent of 3d metal printing, and the mere fact you can make a functional AK 47 out of a shovel blade with a hammer and a drill press) will inform the reasoning person that a complete ban effectively only disarms the law abiding, and that while criminals may be effected in a minor fashion, it is not a serious hinderance (even a complete ban). It seems foolish to me to punish the law abiding in an attempt to "make them safer" when the end result is that they are not in fact safer and are in fact barred in most (or all) cases from having on hand and ready the best tool for self defense we currently have, while crimnals are still able to easily arm themselves and will carry no matter what the laws against.

 

We have a system of implied rights. There's no bill of rights, everything operates off of convention and limits on government power.

Self-defense isn't outright illegal, but it's practically very difficult. You cannot carry anything intended to be used as a weapon. No guns, no pepper spray, no tasers, no bats or knives. You're pretty much left with whatever you have around you when attacked + unarmed self-defense.

Defense of the home is practically impossible, unless you have time to go to your safe in room 1 and get your firearm, then to the safe in room 2 to get your ammunition.

Self-defense is explicitly noted as not being a sufficient reason to own or possess a firearm.

[hr][/hr]

And yes, I agree with you. The level of regulation is absolutely suffocating and reactionary. It's really one of those "then they came for me" situations. Hence why I encourage all Australians to get out and have a shoot. Even if you're a full prohibitionist, there's no harm in going to a gun range and shooting some targets - it's not going to harm anyone unless you actively decide to.

I find that when people shoot, they might not become full on gun advocates, but they at least rethink a lot of the mindless restrictions. Like the 10 round magazine limit on handguns, or the ridiculous storage requirements, or the illegality of self-defense, etc.

 

So what you mean to say is you have privileges afforded you by your government, upon sufference, and not many of those. Not rights.

You have to have a safe for ammo and a safe for guns? And you have to keep guns unloaded and in safes? You're right: Self defense is effectively impossible unless you're bruce lee.

In that case: First off you need a stated right to self defense, and by that I mean from an eventuallity, a possibility, not a surety (IE you don't have to provide court orders against your stalker/abusive spouse/what have you to get a gun you can have one just in case). With that you need the right to keep and bear arms, and you need to get rid of the BS of needing 2 safes and even of needing the safe at all. You're right: You don't have time for that.
Open or concealed carry, no limits on magazine size, accoutrements on the weapon (on noes its got a fore grip!!!! Its got an adjustable stock!!! It has a bayonet luggggg!!!!!! O the horror!) or single or select fire. No limits as to type either.

That's what you deserve anyway.

What you can get is probably: 1 safe, and a right to self defense allowing one to register, pay an onerous fine, meet onerous conditions, give up a ton of privacy and sovereignty of property (ie cops can come in to check compliance whenever) to carry under limited circumstances and even then probably only an unloaded weapon with the mag carried separately.

Sorry dude.

 

To be fair, there is no system of written higher law that's set in stone. You always have to interpret, and that interpretation is then just as based on convention as the system of implied rights. The US is the ideal example - they have a mostly strong system of explicitly mentioned rights, and the government only has powers which have been enumerated. But this runs into difficulties, to start with, even something as basic as who gets to interpret is left to implied powers. SCOTUS is never explicitly given the ability to interpret.

Secondly, those powers which were explicitly enumerated, and those rights explicitly noted - they're subject to problems concerning interpretation. Consider the 10th amendment - in its current form does it bear any resemblence to either the intent of the founders or the meaning of the sentence as written? I don't think so. Same with most other powers, just look at the interpretation of Article I, Section VIII. Horribly riddled with inconsistencies and laughable interpretations - the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, Congress' war power, etc.

[hr][/hr]

So, while I think explicitly mentioned rights and limited government powers is definitely preferable to vague implied rights and conventions - neither system is ideal. There is no ideal.

Not only that, people have attempted self-defense in the home before and have consequently been charged with manslaughter. Weapon + intent + self-defense = prison.

That will simply never happen. The conservative government enacted gun control in 1996 - the ALP sure isn't going to change the laws, and John Howard is the Liberal Party's Ronald Reagan. Not a chance in hell they'll switch directions.

Then there's the fact that most Australians do indeed support strong regulations and comprehensive prohibitions. A system of higher law is only as good as those living under it.

The right to bear arms is almost as shaky as our system without one. Just look at the 2nd amendment in practice - does New York City have the right to keep and bear arms? Chicago? Even Denver? Hell, even the most pro-gun states like Arizona have strong Federal restrictions on NFA prohibited items.

That's what you deserve anyway.

That seems reasonable, but it will never happen. Firearms for self-defense (or any weapon, mace included) is complete political taboo here. Even just among everyday people, they all want to avoid the US system at all costs.

In a million years we will never get any of the following:

• Concealed carry
• Open carry - probably a greater chance of us bringing back Roman crucifixions.
• Semi-auto rifles
• Full auto anything
• High caliber weapons
• Magazines over 10 rounds
• Hunting in state parks

It's just not possible. Not going to happen. The best we can really hope for is that they don't go for a full prohibition or a requirement that we keep guns at the range.

For this reason among many others I want to leave this country. I love Australia, and I'll always have a home here, but a lot of our laws and taxes are just completely at odds with what I value. Hence, I'd like a home away from home, maybe Switzerland or one of the more free US states. Perhaps I could spend our summer in Australia, and their summer over there.

 

All I can suggest if you WANT to live in a society that has America's horrific gun injury rate is go for it - me I have seen the reality of gunshot injuries - faces blown off patients that we emptied the blood bank in the town trying to save, people who no longer have useful limbs and on one memorable occasion a colleague who ran from the room screaming because a piece of dead brain had slid out of the patients ear and landed in her hand

You do not WANT my memories

And I do not want to have to walk down a street armed just to be on par with the others out there

 

summer is right nice around here. You may come and stay here. I have my own range. You may borrow whatever you need to hone your skills from me. Just give me the word, and I'll pick you up at the airport.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Just stating a fact dude, not pissing on your system. I don't have to live under it so I don't particularly care. Most of the inconsistencies you mention WEREN"T there until this giant (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) that had polio in the 30s shoved it down our throats. You might google "liberty of contract" and "west coast hotel v parrish" as well as "lochner v new york" to get a better idea of what happened. I could write you a treatise but its not really cogent to your OP question.

Like I said its what you deserve. Not necessarily what you'll get but what you deserve to have. It being a right in my view.
As to the restrictions from chicago etc: See Mcdonald v Chicago and DC v heller. If we had a justice department that didn't have its tongue up the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) of one of the worst presidents the nation has ever seen (yes worse than bush... barely) who doesn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the constitution, you'd see a different result. Chicago and new york's measures, post those 2 cases when they should've fixed their problem, still don't pass the tests in those 2 cases. Someone needs to take them to court... again. I don't live there and haven't been arrested for a crime of that nature, I don't have standing in court. Nor will I go get standing to help people that refuse to help themselves. Someone that lives there needs to pull their head from their ass and get it done.
NFA, etc is all unconstitutional, just like drug prohibition is. The problem is that people in power don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) and actually want the opposite result for ease of control, and the people that vote them into power are too stupid to pour (*)(*)(*)(*) out of a boot if the instructions are on the heel.

If self defense in your own home is taboo I think you should move for your own safety and peace of mind. I cannot fathom a culture that holds that defending yourself from naked aggression and violations of the law is wrong.

I work in property down here in Texas. If you're ever interested in buying or renting, or even just visiting, send me a PM. We shall smuggle you out of that beautiful home of yours thats so sadly filled now with so many poisonous monsters (and I'm talking human monsters, not platipi).

 

Because you're more dead when you're shot then when you're stabbed or beaten to death....... Cause guns are bad.. mmmmmkay?

 

No our overall murder rate is much much lower than yours - and the difference is the guns

 

This is an example of the true gun banner mentality. AUS already has quite severe gun laws with the major categories of firearms banned, and restrictions and registration for the remainder, yet it is never enough. Until there are ZERO gun crimes and accidents (and that will never happen) the gun banners will yelp for increasing gun controls until there is an outright total ban.

 

Your work experience as a medic in a war zone possibly has some bearing on your aversion to firearms. Different people react differently to their life`s experience. My father was a good example, he was a WW2 Bren Gunner, did 3 hard years in New Guinea & Coral Sea. Dad was a tough, but compassionate man, not given to fantasy, or hysteria. He blamed human nature for it`s dysfunctional acts, not the tools used commit atrocities.

 

Never been to a war zone - this is just ICU experience and when I posted on a nursing forum about it I found out how much like a war zone America is. I would have looked after only around one gunshot injury every 2 years - they had 2-3 PER DAY!!!

 

I believe you are 100% correct. They`re dreaming of an idiot`s paradise, where personal responsibility only applies to those "other people", and the world is made safe and comfortable for the dumb, lazy and timid.

 

Something to remember though is under the Australian system unless something is expressible outlawed it is legal. Now the other thing that is important is we stole the Supreme Court concept from the US - straight up cut and paste. So we do have a back up system if the government gets to big for its pants. History shows the government loses more than it win when it comes to cased based on the constitution and implied rights.

An exceptional good (though obscure) Australian film on the subject is The Castle I suspect most Americans would not get a lot of the humor, but the explanation of Australian constitutional rights is brilliant.

 

Need to look at the big picture. Just one small example from my own experience. I was a competition pistol shooter for 38 years, the new provisions requiring participation in 6 registered competitions to keep a pistol licence, drove me out of the sport. This was obviously the intention of the laws, to drive responsible gun owners out. I don`t own a hand gun now. The laws have effectively created the circumstance where black market importation of hand guns now flourishes as a viable "enterprise". Now anyone can have a new hand gun.

Life in the real world is too complex for naïve solutions. To those who live sheltered lives, who are susceptible to shallow media churnout, the world`s problems can easily be solved by simplistic solutions, without knowing, or making allowances for human nature.

 

And yet our gun death rate is still down and our accidental injury rate is almost non-existent

We have had no mass shootings for over 16 years

We do not have the gang related shootings seen in the USA

Very few domestic violence incidents escalate to family tragedies courtesy of a gun

Oh! And one of those patients was a female police officer who had been responding to a call about a crazy guy with a shot gun - he shot her in the face - she HAD been a pretty young girl about to be married,,,,,,,,

 

Calling America a war zone is a wild exageration. 2-3 shootings per day in one hospital is exceptional and could only be found in select large cities and border areas, and I suspect that rate is not constant but fluctuates based on the day and time of year. 2-3 per day is not typical of America as a whole.

For example, look at murder in California in 2012. The state had 1,547 murders (not just guns, all murder) but 54% of those murders were in 10 cities (LA, Oakland, Stockton, San Diego, San Francisco, Fresno, San Jose, San Bernardino, Bakersfield, Sacremento). Those 10 cities have a murder rate of 8.9, the rest of California has a rate of 3.2.

Exclude another 6 CA cities, and remaining area has a murder rate of 2.4.

California alone has a population about equal to Australia, but only 5% of the land area of Australia meaning the population density is 20 times AUS (higher density = higher crime rates). CA also has a severe problem with the Mexican border and has to deal with widespread drug smuggling and gangs. Yet outside of those 10 CA cities, murder rate is higher but comparable to AUS.

The US is not a war zone. Some cities like DC, Detroit, Chicago, Oakland, have areas which could be called war zones, but the nation as a whole is quite safe.

 

History also shows that a judiciary is usually a really poor limit on government power, and if they get too cumbersome there are other options - like gradually appointing more totalitarian judges, or just packing the court like FDR.

This is true of all constitutional systems - the people have to be constantly on their guard. A system of higher law is only as good as those who live under it. Convention, interpretation, and public opinion all matter.