Gun rights advocates oppose seemingly sensible new gun control regulation by deploying the slippery slope argument. For example: if we “close the gun show loophole” and force all private gun sellers to pay for an FBI background check by a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) it will lead to increasing government intervention—that will end with bans and outright confiscation. Gun control advocates scoff. They paint gun rights advocates as paranoid extremists. Not true.  To see the truth of the matter, open-minded fence straddlers need only cast their eyes Down Under. In New South Wales they’ll find “common sense” gun control gone wild. Here’s the latest development, in response to a spate of drive-by shootings [via abc.net.au] . . .

The new proposals would mean you can only buy ammunition for the gun you own. They’d also create the first drive-by shooting offence in Australia. And they would modernise existing laws, to allow people to be charged for associating with criminals over the internet.

Setting aside the inanity of restricting lawful ammo sales to combat drive-by shootings, ignoring for a moment the frightening idea of monitoring the ‘net for communication with people who may or may not be criminals, let’s keep an unremarked fact in mind:

New South Wales residents are not allowed to own guns for self-defense. Click here for the state’s definition of “Genuine Reasons” for obtaining a firearms. The State government restricts legally obtained, licensed and stored rifles to ten rounds. Shotguns can hold no more than five rounds. They restrict handguns to . . . none.

Handguns are banned. Well kinda sorta. You can only own a handgun for use in a shooting club. By a gun club member. After a lengthy probation. And only ever used to shoot at targets at a club. Not even on private property.

Surprise! Armed criminals are terrorizing each other and defenseless citizens. Drive-by shootings and armed robberies are rife. The cops, politicians and media are aghast. Something must be done! More cops! Less legal rights! Shock horror!

TOM NIGHTINGALE: The New South Wales Premier, Barry O’Farrell has been under pressure over the shootings. The crime wave began about the time his Government took office last year.

The proposed law changes come at the request of police. But the state opposition leader, John Robertson is blaming officer numbers.

JON ROBERTSON: In south-western Sydney 12 of the 15 local area commands are under-resourced, they don’t have sufficient staff to do the job they need to do on a day-to-day basis.

TOM NIGHTINGALE: The state’s police union backs up the claim too few officers are on the ground. But the union also wants harsher law changes, to put the onus on suspects to prove assets were bought without criminal money.

SCOTT WEBER: We want to focus where it hurts for them, and that’s in the hip pocket.

TOM NIGHTINGALE: Scott Weber is the president of the Police Association, and he also wants suspects to have to give an alibi at the first possible chance.

SCOTT WEBER: When we do charge them and they come to court and utilise incorrect alibis and try to manipulate the justice system, that that cannot occur, that we put legislation in place where alibis have to be raised straight away and they can’t make up one 10, 15 months down the track.

You may remember an earlier TTAG post about NSW headlined Gun Control. Police State. Connect the Dots. We weren’t kidding.

Regardless of how they’re obtained, and for all the new and modernised laws, many cases depend on witness testimonies to get a prosecution.

The New South Wales police commissioner, Andrew Scipione:

ANDREW SCIPIONE: The culture of silence is a major problem. And I’ll let communities, for themselves, think about why people, why they may remain silent. Certainly from my perspective, it says a lot. And I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions about that.

My conclusion: it won’t be long before the right to remain silent comes a cropper in The Land Down Under. [Note to Aussies: you better run, you better take cover.]

Needless to say, the 500-pound gorilla in the room—Australian citizens’ God-given right to effective self-defense—doesn’t get a look in. And New South Wales continues it descent into a lawless police state [sic]. Meanwhile, don’t think it couldn’t happen here. Not for a second.

17 Responses to NSW (AU): Restrict Ammo Sales to Stop Drive-Bys

  1. Gun control: The theory that lowering the speed limit from 35 to 30 will keep teenagers from flying through town at 85.

    • I got an idea. Maybe if we restrict the amount of gas that they can buy at any one time. That’ll work. If that doesn’t work, maybe we need to look at those “assault cars” with the roll down windows.

        • Cars are inherently dangerous. I dropped my keys once and the car just started up all by itself and drove around. That red-light camera ticket they sent me in the mail is totally not my fault.

      • I would propose regulating cars that have more than three evil features. Those features would be: (a) manual transmission, (b) tinted windows), (c) a wing / spoiler, (d) air conditioning, (e) the capacity to carry a spare tire, unless the spare tire remains in a locked trunk and the car does not have a jack, (f) a stereo system and (g) is a “black” car. These assault vehicles should be heavily regulated.

  2. Oz isn’t far behind the UK in how the government controls the people; we’ve already had our Right to remain silent removed, with hardly a whimper of dissent from politicians of ANY hue.
    Funny how it happened AFTER we were virtually disarmed……

    • That is paranoid stuff. The citizens of the UK are hardly automatons who are at the whim of the Government because they don`t have guns. If it was not for 9/11 the restrictions on right to remain silent (which I don`t agree with) would not have happened. Being disarmed occurred decades before, so hardly causation.

      • The removal of the Right to remain silent happened here in 1994 & 2000.
        Major parts of UK disarmament happened in 1987 & 1997, hardly decades earlier.
        Democracy here is a sham; merely voting for one repressive party over another.

        • I would tend to go with the Limey on this one over the Troll. His dates are closer to correct in any event…and 2000 is before 9/11.

        • On a high note at least you will have a front row seat to the live action rendition of V for Vendetta.

  3. The State government restricts legally obtained, licensed and stored rifles to ten rounds. Shotguns can hold no more than five rounds.
    So let me get this straight:
    Does the ten rifle rounds pertain to the ammo locker or the magazine clip capacity?
    Does the five shotgun rounds pertain to the magazine tube or the ammo locker?

  4. “But the union also wants harsher law changes, to put the onus on suspects to prove assets were bought without criminal money”.

    I can see this one stretching many miles.
    (sarcasm on) Better yet, it is time for all governments to outlaw paper money and coins. From now on, all citizens must use credit or debit cards to pay for purchases. Don’t worry citizens, government promises not to use your purchases to track and build up a profile on you. (sarcasm off)
    Steps by governments to merge national currencies while also moving to use plastic bank debit cards with computer chips is a trend being observed. It’s a real issue that many liberty advocates are concerned with.

  5. In response to Tom’s inquiry…

    Does the ten rifle rounds pertain to the ammo locker or the magazine clip capacity?
    Magazine, integral or detachable – maximum 10 rounds
    Bolt action only, no semi rim or CF.

    Does the five shotgun rounds pertain to the magazine tube or the ammo locker?
    Magazine tube, and when shooting clays, supposed to have a blocking limiter to allow only two rounds.

    Safe storage (long arms) is either one that is passed by a police inspection or a commercially made rifle safe and if less than 150kg must be anchored to the building with four bolts of a minimum size. Ammo must be locked away separately in locked container / case / box and not be loose stored with rifles in safe storage thingy. Even though the bolts might be elsewhere locked away.

    Remember that Australia is a nation of seven countries. It is made up of six sovereign states (NSW, VIC, QLD, SA, WA, TAS) with a seventh being possessions of the Commonwealth (ACT & NT and part of NSW as well, a corridor from Canberra to the coast at Jervis Bay).

    So, there are individual laws and regulations for each state and the territories. If you want to go around Australia and also visit Tasmania you would have to bone up on eighteen to twenty different pieces of law to be compliant. But most are similar since the previous glorious leader decided firearms was a national issue and had laws changed (rego of longarms, ‘genuine reason’ etc) a billion dollar buyback and issued all Australian households with an anti-terorist slogan fridge magnet to hide behind – just in case.

    The Australian Constitution apportions certain responsibilities to the Commonwealth, in the guise of Federal Government, with the rest being state issues. Commonwealthisation is a well worn pony in OZ, where say, firearms ownership, use and possession is a states matter, the import and export is Feral, oops, Federal. Yet they wish to control all, so they dish out funding to the states for initiatives (buy back, build a rego database in MS Access etc) by which harmonisation (barf) is the panacea on offer to the masses.

    Then there is this type of reporting where the truth is victim as the reporting of data is made furry around the edges by the inherent bias of the journalist…

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-do-we-need-any-more-semiautomatic-pistols-in-australia-20120417-1x5jh.html

    who has a Churchill Scholarship to boot for anti studies. Go gettum Sam.

    Why, well have a look here to see where a wack of [y]our taxpayer dosh is going…

    http://www.un.org/disarmament/

    And because of this…

    http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/transfers/transparency/un_register

    then the report card that shows “it has failed to fulfill most of its other original aspirations and goals”

    http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=cab359a3-9328-19cc-a1d2-8023e646b22c&lng=en&id=10477

    And while it was failing, the national / regional action is this…

    http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/A/9/D/%7BA9DED054-2E5C-4829-B52B-C2A70CD712CC%7Dtandi104-cscap.pdf

    better still go to the web site and put CSCAP into the search engine…

    http://www.aic.gov.au

    even, better, better still why not look at what actually drives the paranoia at the international level…

    http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/keith32.pdf

    Hope this helps.

    H

    (whose parents were so poor, couldn’t afford the rest of the letters to make his name)

  6. Here is my rule, will not travel to any county, state or country that forbids or limits it’s citizens right to arm themselves with fire arms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *