Skip to comments.Illegal Guns Down Under, a Chilling Lesson for the U.S.A.
Posted on 11/29/2013 7:38:09 PM PST by marktwain
Until 1996, the federal government had little role in firearms law. Following the Port Arthur massacre, the Howard Government (19962007), with strong media and public support, introduced uniform gun laws with the cooperation of all the states, brought about through threats to Commonwealth funding arrangements (bold added). The then Prime Minister John Howard frequently referred to the USA to explain his opposition to civilian firearms ownership and use in Australia, stating that he did not want Australia to go "down the American path". In one interview on Sydney radio station 2GB he said, "We will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns... ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia."It is notable that the Federal Government used financial extortion to obtain the cooperation of the states. It is remarkably similar to what we have seen in the United States. Australia should serve as an object lesson to Americans. Their media and government so despised guns in private hands that they were quite willing to use "all means" to bring about the nationalization of the gun laws Australia now suffers under. The vast majority of Australians live in coastal cities and know only what they are told by the media about guns.
“Somebody has put them to the Police I would imagine in exchange for leniency on a larger crime!”
If they were storing guns for neighbors, then it is likely that quite a few knew that they had unregistered guns. The more people that know, the more likely that someone is to talk.
“The more people that know, the more likely that someone is to talk.”
That’s why in today’s era of un-American lunacy I don’t think it’s a good idea to tell anyone what kinds of guns we have, this includes relatives, neighbors and friends. Keep a couple out in plain view for hunting or self defense, hide the rest. A common storage point such as a gun safe makes it easier to find all in one cache.
I am I paranoid? Yes.
Registration is about shifting burden of proof, just as any admition to authority ends up being used against the admiter. Before they had to prove you had guns in order to ask you anything. It is why NSA type spying is also illegal. Because it shifts the burden of proving good motive.
Liberals play that game by saying guns are evil.
Oh. And let us not forget that before government can confiscate those guns, most might end up being sold to criminals on the black market and reported stolen.
I am sorry, but between surrendering guns to a criminal inquisitive government shifting burden of job proof on the citizen and selling them to criminals, most people cannot be blamed for selling them thus.
This is why gun control backfires.
From the article, it sounds like someone ratted them out that the guns were being “modified” against the laws, and that all would be checked against crimes in a database somehow. $5 says they’ll try to pin some crime(s) on those 3 guys, for either having modified weapons, or some other crimes. You can bet that they’ll be made an example of, for public consumption.
BATF getting wood looking at the size of the Aussies Table.
I have a gun safe, but only a fraction of my guns are stored within it for that very reason.
Well, I understand Australian gun laws. I just disagree with them. Since I don’t have to live there and conform to their laws, I can label those laws for what they are: oppressive.
Anyhow, if these Australian citizens break their country’s laws, they will have to pay the price when caught. I know gun-grabbers are doing everything they can to bring these type of gun-control laws here, but I am thankful that they have largely failed in their attempts to do so.
A likely story I would say but yes the more people know the less likely anything can be kept a secret.
There is no guarantee of the right to hold weapons in our constitution as there is in yours. So if “The People” i.e. the voting joe schmoe thinks it is reasonable and they are happy that each gun held should be registered then I see that as the height of Democracy - I know plenty of gun owners and they do not find it burdensome.
The only part of the Law I find draconian is the right of the Police to come and see how your guns are stored without warrant - I don’t think owning a weapon should give them that right - I have a knife block that I store my kitchen knives in and they can’t come in and check that - I think that part of the law should be challenged.
It is not so hard to sell a gun off either - a form and some ID to show how and to whom it was disposed - I have to do the same when I sell my car.
Alright I oversimplified it takes 28 days to transfer one as a check of license is needed.
The rule of thumb is that a K9 unit coming to sniff around have their dogs muzzled while the owner’s dogs can freely eat their food. Thus this places a controled jurisdiction of the police and the owner has his rights and properties respected.
Sadly nowadays they have the guns and we have to make precautions or have no gun when they come knocking. Under the Queen’s colony the enlisted like life given her protecting the business is understandable. Such quartering would be acceptable. However if independent or settling independently, new jurisdictions should be respected. This was not applied in places like Rhodesia and the rule on the British was delegated to alienating powers that turned it into Zimbabwe. The guard was changed.
Places like Australia need not go from one master under the Queen to another under the guise of strange legislations denying the right of self settlement or divorce from said links and services to said powers. When England surrendered Honk Kong to mainland China, a sort of domino precedent effect was established. How can there be free trade without recognition of sovereignty? The isolationists are those importing isolationists, not those protecting themselves from outfits like Islam or the communists who refuse to reciprocate the right and recognition to unique sovereignty.
You are correct - our personal property rights have definatley been impinged upon under this law. The every man’s castle concept (i.e. the right to defend oneself and property) which has seemed to make a comeback here over the last decade or so has not been taken into account under this law. It needs to be challenged but doing so through the High Court is a long and expensive exercise. While the gun lobby sought to have all of the legislation thrown out they should have concentrated on the parts that were unconstitutional.