(Australia) Confusion Over New Handgun Crackdown

[Drizzt]

The Age (Melbourne)

March 3, 2003 Monday

SECTION: News; Pg. 3

LENGTH: 862 words

HEADLINE: Confusion Over New Handgun Crackdown

BYLINE: Phillip Hudson

BODY:
Owners say strict rules on firearms could cripple Australia's shooting sports. Phillip Hudson reports from Canberra.

Three months after Prime Minister John Howard and Premier Steve Bracks triumphantly declared they had struck a deal to deliver tough new national handgun laws, both governments remain unable to say exactly what types of guns - or how many - will be banned on July 1.

There is still no price list for the proposed gun buyback, and sporting shooters claim that technical details of the agreement have caused the delay.

They fear the final rules now being negotiated are far tougher than expected, will stop Australia hosting world championship shooting events, and will put at risk the competitiveness of Australian shooters on the world stage.

They say this breaks a promise by Mr Howard last year that he would make sure that "participation in legitimate sporting events is not compromised".

Federal Justice Minister Chris Ellison told The Age the Government was reviewing its position. At the same time, at least five Victorian gun dealers face ruin because the long wait for details of the ban has effectively frozen gun sales. They have set up a fighting fund to lobby the Government for compensation.

"There is an enormous amount of confusion," the chairman of the Combined Firearms Council of Victoria, Sebastian Ziccone, said. "In Victoria, there would be between 6000 and 7000 gun owners who have been left in the dark for too long.

"They don't know if their particular gun or shooting discipline is in or out. The Prime Minister and Premier said they'd fixed it, but they haven't and we are very concerned."

Victoria last week became the first state to introduce legislation into Parliament to enforce the ban, but MPs are being asked to approve it without the details, which will be added later as regulations.

The agreement, signed by Mr Howard and all state and territory governments on December 6, allows only legitimate sporting shooters to own guns to a maximum calibre of .38, with a limit of 10 shots and a minimum barrel length of 120mm for semi-automatics.

Single-shot guns and revolvers can have a barrel length as short as 100mm, and a special class of target shooters will be able to own guns up to .45 calibre. This special category is now the key sticking point.

The Federal Government has estimated 500 types of guns will be removed from the community. But it is unable to put an exact cost on the buyback or produce a final list of guns to be banned.

This is because it has not won approval from all governments for events that will be permitted to use handguns with a calibre greater than .38. Those involved in the talks say the Government has adopted a very narrow definition.

They believe it would stop Australia hosting many key world championship events because international competitors could not bring their guns into the country. Australian shooters would also have a severe disadvantage on the world stage.

Sources said the exemption allowing guns up to .45 calibre was only granted for two less-popular shooting events - the metallic silhouette (shooting at a 25 kilogram metal target over a distance of 200 metres) and single action shooting (old-style traditional revolvers that only come in the bigger calibres).

Mr Ziccone said the Government did not want to grant it for two of the most popular disciplines - the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) and NRA action match. Both involve skilled target shooting against the clock.

"The vast majority of people who compete in these competitions use a calibre greater than .38. They use .40 or .45 and internationally, to be competitive, you have to use the higher calibre,"Mr Ziccone said.

"These are the fastest growing pistol competitions in Australia. They're the ones people are attracted to because they are exciting."

Senator Ellison was recently forced to provide a temporary reprieve to the rule that makes it illegal for overseas shooters to bring competition guns of high calibres into Australia, after lobbying from the Sporting Shooters Advisory Council. This has saved four international events being held before July 1, including a big IPSC event in Sydney over Easter.

But Gary Fleetwood, a spokesman for the Sporting Shooters Association and a member of the Government's Sporting Shooters Advisory Council, said Australia could not host international events or compete overseas if the restriction applied after July 1.

THE HANDGUN RULES

* Only legitimate sporting shooters, police, military and security workers allowed to own guns

* Sporting shooters allowed to own only semi-automatics to maximum calibre of .38, with 10-shot limit and minimum 120mm barrel length

* Government to allow a special category of target shooters to own guns up to .45 calibre Types of guns likely to be banned include:

* Short-barrel Smith & Wesson .357 magnum

* Beretta .32 semi-automatic Tomcat pocket pistol

* Colt 380 Mustang semi-automaticThose not likely to be banned include:

* Long-barrel Smith & Wesson .357 magnum.

* Beretta .22 semi-automatic Model 89 target pistol

* Colt 9mm government model semi-automatic

 

[sw442642]

The RKBA isn't about sport. When the Australian and British gun owners started using a sport metaphor as a justification for gun ownership, they were doomed.

I have little sympathy for them. In fact, they are cut from the same cloth as skeet shooters and hunters who won't support a citizen who has an AR-15. Similar to the Cowboy action bozo who doesn't carry a gun for protection.

Sports shooting is irrelevant to the RKBA rationale. It is like bowling or owning a back hoe. We regulate construction equipment because it is dangerous. You have no fundamental right to ride down the street on your back hoe without some training. It is too dangerous.

If guns were merely used for sport, then there are too dangerous to own without strict control. So, tough kangaroos, Aussies - you picked the wrong path.

I'd bet the "sports" shooters wouldn't support a CCW bill there, for the most part. Horrors!!

 

[Deadman]

Whats so confusing about the government (any government) imposing more restrictive firearms laws?

Gun control = people control.

 

[Airwolf]

I know that the UK has (had) an RKBA provision but since "rights" are granted by the state it's been pretty well pushed off the books.

Is the situation Down Under the same. Was there ever an RKBA provision in your "Founding Documents"?

 

[Bruce in West Oz]

Airwolf

When our constitution was being drafted, the question of RKBA did in fact arise -- partially because our constitution was modelled on yours.

However, it was rejected because the authors could not envisage a situation where firearms ownership would ever be anything other than a right. Under common law, Australians had a right to own a firearm. As far as they were concerned, that was it.

sw442642
"We" (shooters) didn't use sports shooting as a justification for firearms ownership -- it was forced on us by the government. "You want a gun? Good -- you can only have one for sports shooting -- end of story."

CCW? Not a chance in hell. If every gunowner in Australia voted FOR it, that's still only 10% of the population.

Oh, by the way, most of these laws have been in existence for more than 70 years, with one or two exceptions. Every single American shooting incident/massacre/tragedy makes headline news here. Even our Prime Minister -- George Bush's greatest fan -- has said the only thing he doesn't like about America is its gun laws. His avowed aim is to "crush the gun culture" in Australia, to "stop us going down the American path". (Yes, they are actual quotes.)

But I wouldn't feel too smug, if I were you -- no matter what your 2nd Amendment says, it is only a matter of time -- perhaps a handful of years -- before American gunowners are put under increasing restrictions -- have a look at California or Illinois. Enjoy your handguns while you can, because they will be the first target.

Bruce

 

[Lord Grey Boots]

As seen in Canada, none of the shooting sports will be on the "legitimate shooting sports" list.

I foretell that there will be an endless delay in defining which are the "legitimate sports", and since none are defined, handgunners will find their guns banned...

 

[JoshM]

Bruce

We" (shooters) didn't use sports shooting as a justification for firearms ownership -- it was forced on us by the government. "You want a gun? Good -- you can only have one for sports shooting -- end of story."

That's the reason gunowners in both Australia and the UK are so politically impotent. Letting the government frame the debate is a recipe for losing.

But I wouldn't feel too smug, if I were you -- no matter what your 2nd Amendment says, it is only a matter of time -- perhaps a handful of years -- before American gunowners are put under increasing restrictions -- have a look at California or Illinois. Enjoy your handguns while you can, because they will be the first target.

Considering that the NRA has a totally different playbook and is far more confrontational then the SSAA, Shooters Party, or HVAFO I would disagree. The "Return Fire" section of "Guns Australia" magazine, often has, "We don't want to be like the NRA" and "There's no reason a recreational shooter needs an AK, SKK, or SKS assault rifle in Australia" type comments. While this is a very small sample, I have never seen similar comments in "American Handgunner" or "Guns & Ammo".

 

[MitchSchaft]

I'll have to agree with sw442642's comments.

 

[fallingblock]

Without a written "Bill of Rights"...

with a Second Amendment-like article, Australia was vulnerable from the start. They followed the "common law" path of their British colonial antecedent (pity about that 'peaceful' transfer of sovereignity-it confused us).

One thing is sure...the conciliatory approach of the Australian shooting organisations has proven to be a dismal failure. With the likes of John Howard, though, we'd need a lot more political clout to worry him in any significant way...he is a misguided hoplophobe of the first order...reason will not shift his policy on guns.

Bruce, you are underestimating the power of the Bill of Rights and the much larger and more confrontational firearms community in the U.S.....five, maybe six states have laws approaching ours here in Oz, that has been the strategy of the anti's there, to focus on key states where they have a chance of success, but that means 45 states are either holding the line or clawing back some rights, thanks in no small part to the fortuitous change of Whitehouse occupants and the mood change following 9/11. The gunowners in the U.S. are putting up a far more effective defence of their rights than we ever have here.

Short assessment: The people Australia has lost the right to be armed...through indifference and a weak system of rights retention...plus a vast majority of urbal dwellers who depend on the leftist media to think for them.

 

[hipower22]

JoshM

The "Return Fire" section of "Guns Australia" magazine, often has, "We don't want to be like the NRA" and "There's no reason a recreational shooter needs an AK, SKK, or SKS assault rifle in Australia" type comments.

I wouldn't be too smug in the land of the long white cloud. You don't even have a written constitution or the equivalent of a senate. Your parliament is unicameral; the government can do just about what it likes.

As for the supposed quote from "Guns Australia", I have never seen anything like that there.


sw442642

Don't visit the sins of the fathers on the sons. I had nothing to do with the gun laws in Australia. I've been fighting them since the 1970's, but the crucial laws which began the rot were framed in the 1930's. I will continue to fight them till the day I die. I don't want or need your sympathy.

 

[Bruce in West Oz]

Bruce, you are underestimating the power of the Bill of Rights and the much larger and more confrontational firearms community in the U.S.....

With respect, no, I am not underestimating anything. I have been to America on numerous occasions; I have American relatives. I know the strength of support for the 2nd Amendment. I also know, no matter which way it is cut, that gunowners are a minority -- a minority that's going to increase as students graduate from govt anti-gun indoctrination centres -- sorry, schools.

I agree totally that the NRA and GOA and JPFO (?) are far more proactive than any organisation here in Australia. But while they may be a thousandfold more effective than our groups, they are fighting a rearguard action. If I had any money , I'd bet that the next decade will see ever-increasing restrictions on
firearms in the US in general, and on handguns in particular.

Josh

That's the reason gunowners in both Australia and the UK are so politically impotent. Letting the government frame the debate is a recipe for losing.

Well, this happened some 70 - 80 years ago, and (b) with the Westminster system there is no "debate" -- parliament is supreme.

The "Return Fire" section of "Guns Australia" magazine, often has, "We don't want to be like the NRA" and "There's no reason a recreational shooter needs an AK, SKK, or SKS assault rifle in Australia" type comments. While this is a very small sample, I have never seen similar comments in "American Handgunner" or "Guns & Ammo".

1. I have read letters denigrating "evil black guns" in G&A. (Admiitedly, it was a few years back now!)
2. In Australia, the most popular rimfire by a country mile was the Ruger 10/22. The most popular centrefire, based on numbers imported and sold, was --- the SKS. I'd suggest whoever wrote the letter you read had his head firmly inserted in ... the sand.
3. SSAA is affiliated with the NRA, and has been for years.

Bruce

 

[JoshM]

Hi power 22

I wouldn't be too smug in the land of the long white cloud. You don't even have a written constitution or the equivalent of a senate. Your parliament is unicameral; the government can do just about what it likes.

I understand the failures of New Zealand's modified Westminister system, but New Zealand gun owners were still able to torpedo further gun control/registration plans simply by overt political pressure. Anyway I like our unicameral system, one set of politicians is enough.

As for the supposed quote from "Guns Australia", I have never seen anything like that there.

"Realism In Gun Debate", Morris David, Guns Australia January 1997, Bostock Ian [ed], Yaffa Publishing Group: Sydney, p 24.

The primary reason I stopped buying "Guns Australia" was the bickering in the "Return Fire" section.

Bruce

In Australia, the most popular rimfire by a country mile was the Ruger 10/22. The most popular centrefire, based on numbers imported and sold, was --- the SKS. I'd suggest whoever wrote the letter you read had his head firmly inserted in ... the sand.

Ruger 10/22 and SKS are extremely popular in NZ [I have both]. I've met a few of these idiot gun owners myself. Poining out the recent experiences in the UK or OZ though, is an effective way in shutting them up.

 

[hipower22]

JoshM

You are absolutely right, one set of politicians is more than enough.


My old kelpie/heeler cross dog was smarter than most politicians.

 

[fallingblock]

My point about the Second Amendment...

Bruce, was that it is indeed a part of the "Bill of Rights"
This enumeration of "unalienable" rights is a very significant
foundation of the judicial structure in the U.S.
One is able to argue from the perspective of an 'unalienable' right based on this codification...not subject to the democratic process or even to arguments of social utility. We lack any such framework here in Australia.

I'm glad to hear you've visited the U.S. on many occasions and have relatives there. I was born there and spent the first forty years of my life travelling around different states. It is a very much more diverse and of course, a much larger population than Australia's. The urban/rural divide in core beliefs and values is very similar, with the fortunate circumstance that the U.S. has more small cities and towns to balance the urban votes. A significantly larger percentage of the people have or are familiar with firearms and the 'loathing' idea of guns is not (except for the U.S. media) as advanced as in our Australian population. You are absolutely correct about the 'anti-gun indoctrination centres/public schools, but many systems are resisting the P.C. message to a degree. My grandson, for example, attends a Christian school in Indiana and they have a riflery program which he is eager to join as soon as he is eight.

The U.S. pro-firearms folks may be engaged in fighting a 'rear guard' action, but they have a lot more left to guard than we do and they are making gains on the state level in many states.