The Liberal Party in the Australian state of Tasmania is planning to reform some of the state’s extreme firearms laws. The modest changes include doubling the term of Class A and B licenses terms from five to ten years and increasing the license term for class C firearms from one to two years.

Class A licenses cover airguns, .22 rimfire, and break-open shotguns. Class B licenses are most single-shot, double, and manually operated center-fire rifles. Class C license holders can have semi-automatic rifles that hold no more than 10 rounds, and pump-action shotguns. The proposed reforms would allow Class C licenses to have silencers or suppressors.

From abc.net.au:

The Liberals have promised changes to gun laws if elected which would allow greater to access to Category C firearms — such as self-loading rifles, pump-action shotguns — for farm workers and sporting shooters.

Licence holders in category C would also be allowed gun silencers.

The proposed changes would also:
Extend gun licence duration for Category A and B firearms from five years to 10 years; or in the case of Category C, from one year to two years

Relax penalties for minor gun storage law breaches

The proposal was sent to a firearms consultation group, including farmers and sporting shooters, about three weeks ago, but was not released publicly.

The Liberals’ Rene Hidding wrote to firearms owners telling them the party also planned to establish a Tasmanian Firearms Owners Council.

The party released the changes several hours after media coverage, saying the policy was aimed at “helping agricultural producers, particularly farmers to protect crops”.

The reaction in the Australian national media to the prospect of even slightly relaxing Tasmania’s gun control laws has been spectacular. The media paraded survivors from the Port Arthur massacre, that happened 20+ years ago, across the screen numerous times.

Australia’s primary anti-gun group was given plenty of air time. I recall seeing one person from an Australian shooting association, and perhaps one spokesman from a farmers group. The bias down here in favor of anti-gun views was is every bit as evident as we see in the United States.

I recall one argument that no Australian state could be allowed to reform its gun controls because the laws gave the rest of the world “hope”.  I estimate the anti-gun time compared to time given to those for reforming the law was easily 10 to 1.

The reforms in question are so mild and commonsense it’s hard to argue with them. Unless you’re an ordained hoplophobe. But Tasmania wouldn’t be the first. Queensland has already lengthened the term of their class C license from 1 to 3 years and has had no problems. New Zealand sells suppressors or silencers over the counter to anyone with cash.

The relaxation of penalties for minor gun storage breaches is a direct response to the extreme harshness of the current law. In New South Wales, the police destroy hundreds of thousands of dollars of valuable collector guns “because the law requires it.”

One collector lost over a hundred thousand dollars of super-grade pre-64 Winchester model 70s topped with expensive European scopes. A Supreme Court judge said that the penalties are harsh and are meant to be so.

The reforms will be put to a vote Tasmania. For some perspective, Tasmania is an island separated from the continent of Australia by the Bass Strait, about 150 miles of ocean. It’s about the size of West Virginia, with 518,000 residents.

Before the 1996 gun grab, Tasmania had the most moderate firearms laws in all Australia and has felt the harsh penalties more than any other Australian state.

The Labor Party (which championed the gun confiscation) were in power in Tasmania for 16 years before the Liberals took power. The Australian Liberal Party is closer to American conservatives in policies. The Liberal party in Tasmania has been in the majority for the last four years and is the odds-on favorite to maintain power.

Australia has fairly complicated voting system with multiple parties. Voting is mandatory, with a fine of about $20 for failure to cast a ballot.

©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Gun Watch

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

17 COMMENTS

  2. No Right to Keep and Bear Arms, no right to self-defense, and apparently no right to freely speak out on any subject – clicked on the article to share with our friends Down Under how great our freedoms are here in the US, but there were no comments allowed…
    🤠

  3. Ah, the rest of the world, where “liberal” is closer to its actual meaning of supporting liberty and the rights of the people (not “liberally” applying gubmint “solutions” like Dems the US)…

  5. CLASS D (Non-licensed, non-law-abiding individuals) – Don’t give a fV<k, and could not be reached for comment.

  7. They doubled licences from 5 to 10 years in my state (Queensland) years back to save on police time. Never made the news.

    The more recent consultation committee was made up of four police officers. Three Tasmanian and one federal. They always agreed with the government.

    Tasmania used to have company making full auto for military with semi auto version for general sale. Federal government bought them out and shut the business. More wasted tax dollars.
    Plus some very skilled people out of work.

    Tasmania has very complicated ballot system not used any state or pretty much anywhere in the world. Once your in power it is very hard to be kicked out.

    Writing this from Vietnam so I may not be up to date on all the home news.

  8. This is a place where the anti-gun groups are available on every editor’s speed-dial for a scripted sound-bite, but the media and anti-gun groups are in morbid fear of the power of the “gun lobby”. This explains the constant demonization in the media.

    It is ironic because the gun owners also want laws that actually work and are not punitive. We have been collectively punished since Port Arthur.

  11. ☞ We have been collectively punished since Port Arthur ☜

    Port Arthur was a psy-op: either a false flag or an out-and-out hoax;
    “stage magic”/sleight-of-hand: easy to detect once you know what to look for 😏
    the fellow convicted of it, Martin Bryant, had no significant involvement what-so-ever;
    as such: the current Australian gun laws are totally bogus;
    they are, also, ILLEGAL under a n° of provisions: Common Law, Bill of Rights 1689 and Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914;
    they could be successfully challenged in the High Court of Australia and over-turned;
    how-ever: it would take a lot of money and a lot of determination;

  12. OK;
    you are perfectly entitled to your own opinion on this matter;
    i fully respect that;
    how-ever: you need to carefully examine the evidence and, maybe, also, do some “brushing up” on how the Australian legal system works;
    the primary problem is that there was no Coronial Inquest as required by both Tasmanian state and Commonwealth law;
    following on from that: there was a ‘sham’ trial with all sorts of questions hanging over it including an invalid “guilty plea” given under extreme duress;
    just those two facts alone have caused many, many people to question the official account of Port Arthur;
    perhaps you need to read Keith Allen Noble’s book before you go any further?

    • I agree that the government of Australia did not follow the proper procedures in the Port Arthur case. They very likely acted illegally. That does not mean the event was a false flag or a hoax.

      It likely means the facts were not conducive to them passing the legislative agenda they wanted passed. I have no doubt of that. With the media on their side, completely, they did not need much of a cover-up.

      I would love to have them held to account, but by who, and how?

      In this case George Soros dollars purchased the legislation he wanted put in place. Rebecca Peters was his agent in Australia. All the weaknesses in the Australian legal system lined up just right, and he was able to knock all the dominoes over.

  13. under the Common Law/Westminster-type legal system, a Coronial Inquest is required, by law, in the case of all un-natural deaths;
    in such circumstances, the Coronial Inquest takes the place of a committal hearing which is the equivalent of “an indictment hearing” under (most) US law;
    the concept of a Coronial Inquest goes back to the Middle Ages and, even, to the Magna Charta;
    its primary purpose is to determine:
    i/who died;
    ii/how they died;
    iii/who or what was/is culpable;

    if death(s) were caused by a deceased perp’, then, that is, usually, the end of the matter;
    if death(s) were caused by a perp’ who is still alive, then, that perp is, usually, ‘committed’ for trial by the Coroner (most usually a senior magistrate or acting senior magistrate) …. the trial usually goes to the Supreme Court of the state-in-question…..
    this is what should have occurred in the case of Port Arthur;
    also: a Coronial Inquest is required for extra-judicial reasons also such as Life Insurance pay-outs;
    many LI companies actually require a Coroner’s finding to determine the cause-of-death b’fr a pay-out is approved…

    a Coroner has wide, discretionary powers to pursue, pretty much, any line of inquiry that s(he) feels the need to;
    a trial judge, OTOH, is some-what more limited in his/her discretion regarding the evidence;

    in conclusion: unless and until a CI is held, no-one can say, positively, that any-one had died……

    just on that alone, it should be obvious why TPTB stepped in and stymied the Coronial Inquest;

Comments are closed.