Previous Post
Next Post

NRA-ILA press release:

Fairfax, VA – -( On July 1, Australia begins National Firearms Amnesty 2017, the country’s fourth federal firearms buyback (more accurately termed turn-in) or amnesty program since 1987.

According to the Australian government, officials hope to capture some of the country’s estimated 260,000 unregistered firearms. The Australian government has also cited the threat of terrorism, and in particular the December 2014 siege on the Lindt Café in Sydney, as justification for the new turn-in. The amnesty period runs to September 30.

Unlike the confiscatory scheme that followed Australia’s 1996 National Firearms Agreement, which banned most ownership of semi-automatic and pump action rifles and shotguns, the 2017 amnesty is not coupled to any new restrictions on the types of firearms an individual may own.

Further, under the current amnesty, firearm owners will not receive any compensation for the firearms they relinquish. To participate in the amnesty, gun owners will have to bring their unregistered firearms to a drop-off point designated by state and territorial authorities.

In an improvement over the 1997 confiscatory turn-in, gun owners in many cases will be able to choose the final disposition of their unregistered firearms. An individual that has an irrational animus towards guns can choose to have their former firearm destroyed. Those turning in firearms eligible to enter the lawful stream of commerce may also be able to sell the firearm to a licensed dealer.

Firearms license holders who turn over a firearm they are eligible to own will be allowed to register and retain possession of their gun. Of course, given Australian history, some gun owners might prove justifiably reluctant to make the government aware of their unregistered arms, lest they be targeted in some future confiscation effort.

[Click here to learn more about the details of Australia’s National Firearms Amnesty, including the specific rules for each state and territory.]

In the U.S., researchers and gun rights advocates have long agreed that turn-ins are ineffective policy.

This fact is not lost on all Australian politicians. Liberal Democrat Senator from New South Wales David Leyonjelm, recently said of the 2017 amnesty, “It’s purely for appearance purposes. It won’t do anything to address guns on the street, they’ll end up with grandma’s rusty old shotgun or rifle. Which was never going to be used in crime in the first place.”

However, that the current amnesty provides an avenue for some unwanted and illegally held firearms to re-enter the lawful stream of commerce is a minor beacon of common sense in Australia’s otherwise misguided gun policy.

The Australian government did not come to this sensible policy on its own. According to a report from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia lobbied the government for this measure.

Of course, this minor concession to reason has been attacked by Australia’s anti-gun community. In a radio interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Gun Control Australia Vice-President Roland Browne lamented that some illegally held firearms might find their way into the hands of licensed gun owners.

The gun control lobby representative told the interviewer, “This amnesty started off as a public safety measure. In fact, in reality, it is appearing now to be a profit-making venture for firearms dealers.”

According to Browne, the ability to move illegally held firearms into the hands of law-abiding gun owners undermines “the integrity of the registration system,” and he would rather “take these guns out of circulation.”

Australia’s experience with gun control continues to provide important lessons for American gun owners. In the end, the gun control movement is not about getting guns out of “the wrong hands,” or banning certain types of firearms.

Despite repeated national turn-ins, gun registration, background checks, gun owner licensing, a ban on semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns, and the abolition of gun ownership for the purpose of self-defense, groups like Gun Control Australia continue to target Australia’s law-abiding gun owners.

Gun Control Australia’s response to the 2017 National Firearms Amnesty further proves that as long as there remain firearms in the hands of private citizens, gun control advocates will continue to work towards their goal of total civilian disarmament.


Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit:

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “Given the heightened risk of terrorism, citizens are urged to turn in their arms.” Yessiree, Bob, that is some colossally special Oz logic, right there.

  2. Hey Robert, what happened to the Second Amendment Coalition?

    What happened to it?

    I remember a few writers for the site are members, are their any plans, goals, meeting dates?

    I have notice a lack of news about it.

  3. More “smoke and mirrors” to appear to be doing something about the risk of terrorism (albeit a statistically VERY small risk).

  4. As the technology for 3d print becomes more advanced, all this ‘gun control’ thing is about as useful as trying to ban the fountain pen because “sinners will scribe blasphemy!”

  5. I feel a rift of pain in the force. As if a million guns were unjustly accused and mutilated for no valid purpose.

    In a civilized nation such a travesty would not be tolerated.

    • Australia (despite similar geographic features) doesn’t have a Mos Eisley spaceport to remind its peaceful SUBJECTS that scum and villainy are always looking for an avenue to make good people defenseless.

      • That part of the world does have a Mos Eisley. It’s called Bangkok (actually all of Thailand) and much of the scum and villainy that goes there (though not all) comes from OZ 🙂

        • I was told over four decades ago that the American military ruined Thailand. I responded that it was the Thai lust for the dollar that ruined the place, if it was ruined.

          Marlboro, do you speak it.

  6. Hey Australia, the rest of the world will give you “gun amnesty” too. Just kidding, no we won’t.

    Don’t let your stupid neighbors who needed a job (your “government”, not your “betters” because you are governed by people and ALL PEOPLE CAN ONLY = A VALUE OF 1 [if you find anyone who thinks they rate higher than go to war with them immediately because that mf is trying to oppress you]).

    Borrow Trump’s acronym and



    KEEP YOUR GUNS FOR THE END OF AUSTRALIA. No one can tell you when it’s coming, and the gun-grabbing aholes will have NO SAY IN WHAT COMES NEXT once it does.

    • What are you going to do if China gets uppity? Beg the US for arms for civil defense? Like your parent country did when the Germans became unpleasant? If you do, I’ll send you the press clippings from all your gun “buy backs”, and tell you to F yourself.

  7. I don’t think anybody in Australia gives a rat’s ass what anybody here thinks.

  8. The big difference with this “surrender” compared to 21 years back is they are not offering any money for firearms or parts. I heard of people who were making “gun” parts as fast as they could to hand into fairly untrained bureaucrats back then.

    I’m sure if you still have a auto or semi auto somewhere it’s going to stay there.

    Just more smoke and mirrors as Southern said.

  9. To be 100% accurate this amnesty isn’t a buyback. There is no compensation for handing any firearms in.

    The only two buybacks were 1996 for semi-auto and pump action shotguns, and 2002 for semi-auto handguns that didn’t fit the new calibre and size restrictions.

  10. Just a minor correction (and further example of irrationality in Aus gun laws) the 96 confiscation took semis and pump action shotguns. We still have pump action rifles. All be it with mag restrictions!

  11. Why would a gun grabber want to keep old guns from licensed owners. Old guns are old and do not have large cap mags, thereby limiting their power to hurt. It seems to me that they should want gun owners to own limited weapons.

  12. I don’t want that to happen in the USA, but what the Australians do is their own business, not the NRA’s. The NRA leadership needs to get its own shit together and stop driving away every pro-Second Amendment liberal and moderate with their extremist rhetoric.

  13. Because everyone knows that when someone intends to inflict violence upon you or your family all you need to do is tell the bad guys that you did the right thing and turned all your guns in so you’re a good citizen and bad things never happen to good citizens. Easy peasy…right?

    There are a whole lot more people in England these days wishing they had the ability to protect themselves from terrorists but then that’s always the case when reality comes knocking on your front door. Australia is also dealing with a big increase in terrorist activity with the same problem. Their government has disarmed them, supposedly to protect them from themselves (if you can follow that logic) and as history has proven in every natural disaster or terror attack, the police and/or military can’t protect them. What happens? Well, reality comes knocking and good people die unnecessarily.

    I hope a disaster or terror attack of that magnitude never happens in these disarmed countries because a lot of innocent but naive people are going to die. Unfortunately, bad things are going to keep happening and are going to get much worse before they get better. If self preservation and protecting your family isn’t a good enough reason to demand your government return your right to arm yourself what is? When chaos happens good luck calling the police to protect you instead of all the “important’ people. Of course if they do happen to respond to your call for help, let’s hope THEY are armed. Terrorists don’t carry batons and whistles.

Comments are closed.