Posted on 04/01/2019 3:37:59 AM PDT by naturalman1975
Gun laws in Australia's biggest state could be watered down as Premier Gladys Berejiklian is forced to deal with the Shooters party and a pro-guns former senator.
The Shooters Fishers and Farmers Party, who want gun licensing laws relaxed, won three lower house seats, covering more than half of New South Wales, at the March election.
They control the western half of the state and could also have another three MPs in the upper house, giving them possibly six seats in the state Parliament.
The Shooters are also planning to run candidates at the upcoming federal election in May in areas where they have savaged the Nationals at the NSW election.
The re-elected Coalition government in NSW won't have a majority in the Legislative Council, which means it will be forced to rely on minor parties to get its legislation passed.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
New South Wales (like all Australian states except Queensland) has a bicameral Parliament - the lower house (the Legislative Assembly) is the house that decides who is in government (the party or coalition of parties who control that House hold government and their leader is the state Premier) but laws need to be passed by both the lower house and the upper house (the Legislative Council) to become law - I know that model is one Americans are well familiar with but just wanted to be clear in the implications of this. The Shooters, Fishers, and Farmers Party being part of the balance of power in the Legislative Council really does allow them the potential to make deals with the government getting what they want on their core issues in exchange for letting the government get its legislation through.
So in terms of gun rights, this is a real positive.
Gun laws are primarily state based in Australia - the federal government has influence but if a state chooses it can largely ignore what the Federal government wants on these issues.
I deeply appreciate your knowledge of all things Australian.
“the federal government has influence but if a state chooses it can largely ignore what the Federal government wants on these issues.”
It would be interesting to see the reaction from your Federal Government if some enterprising souls started manufacturing AR-15 clones in that state and sold them to law abiding citizens.
L
The Lithgow Small Arms Factory is still in operation in New South Wales. They are a law abiding company and would not violate the law - but if the law changed, they are certainly capable of manufacturing just about anything. They do make the Australian Defence Force’s F88 Austeyr, a variant of the Austrian Steyr Aug - they do high quality work.
And they are not the only manufacturer around.
I tried to emigrate to Adelaide in 1986, I thought Oz would give me more room roam.
I live in Tx now.
I travelled last year through the west and north east of NSW and found people are quite conservative a super friendly. It reminds me of the Australia I remember when we first got here in 1967. What a blessed land we live in.
room to roam
“They are a law abiding company and would not violate the law.”
So if the State Government in NSW decided to allow it they could go ahead and make some variant of the F88 available to the public? Here in the US there are dozens of competent manufacturers making some very high quality AR-15 clones. In my opinion some of them are far better than the product Colt sells the the military.
Mrs. L and I have a pair that were custom made by a local company that are simply superb. We live in Illinois, which for some reason, has a reputation as being “anti-gun”. Yet we have multiple companies turning out some of the finest firearms in the US.
Ed Brown makes some of the best 1911 pistols on the market. Rock River is a fine AR pattern rifle. Springfield Armory sells thousands of M1A rifles every year. They’re used in shooting competitions all over the country. DS Arms, located about 20 miles from our home, turns out excellent quality FN rifles.
That’s just a few of the better known names. Would that be possible in NSW if the State Government decided to allow it or do your Federal laws override the State in that instance?
Thanks in advance.
L
Yes, potentially.
The Federal government (or Commonwealth government to use the more correct term) would still be able to make importing firearms they didn't want in Australia difficult, but it would be very hard for them to find a way of preventing a company manufacturing firearms consistent with state laws in any particular state.
The current situation in Australia is that in 1996 and 2002, the state governments all agreed to follow what are referred to as the National Firearms Agreements - but these are not laws, they have actual binding effect on the states. Currently all states have state laws that put much of the NFA into effect, but they are free to amend them as they like, and they have done so - no state perfectly follows the NFA and they don't have to follow it at all.
Wow!
I will be in Australia, in NSW, in three days. Good timing to write about this.
It is a very positive development.
I have been hearing of a further crackdown because of the shooting in New Zealand.
This is the opposite.
“but these are not laws, they have actual binding effect on the states.”
Did you mean to say they have no actual binding effect? Just asking for clarification.
Thanks again.
L
“the federal government has influence but if a state chooses it can largely ignore what the Federal government wants on these issues.”
Sounds like Australian states have more freedom and autonomy than the US. Fed govt here is all powerful and almighty...thanks to Lincoln.
“Sounds like Australian states have more freedom and autonomy than the US. Fed govt here is all powerful and almighty...thanks to Lincoln.”
The Aussies here would know better, but it wouldn’t surprise me that if this ‘voluntary cooperation’ were to fail, the central government there would find a way to make their ‘agreements’ binding on the states.
It’s difficult to see how any Prime Minister, particularly a female, would allow any part of her country to do as they wish...it just never works that way, but I would love to be wrong!
Remake the SLR!
Yes, I did. Left out an important word there :)
In some ways, yes.
The six Australian colonies (which are now the six states) became mostly sovereign self governing nations in the late 19th century - this is often not appreciated even in Australia - the British government in London had realised (largely as a result of what happened in North America) that when colonies a long way away started asking for more autonomy, it was a good idea to give it to them or eventually they would break away by force. So while London retained final authority over defence and foreign affairs, on all other issues, the Australian colonies were given self government (New South Wales, Victoria, and Tasmania, became fully self governing in 1856, South Australia in 1857, Queensland in 1860, and Western Australia in 1890).
So when these Australian colonies were considering combining into a single federation in the 1890s, they were functionally (mostly-)Sovereign nations, negotiating with each other as equals. And they wanted to maintain that when they combined - so the Australian Constitution was written with the idea that all the states are also separate sovereign nations with a great deal of power independent of the overall Commonwealth government.
The Constitution gives certain powers to the Commonwealth government (and in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster, London handed the powers of defence and foreign affairs to the Commonwealth government) but leaves a great deal in the hands of the states - the Commonwealth Parliament only has the powers specifically ceded to it by the States in 1901, and while those powers were pretty broad, the States kept control of a lot as well.
I appreciate the clarification.
L
They do try on occasion - but most of the time, they fail. The Constitution is specifically written to protect the rights of the states - why?
Because it was written by the states. When Australia was considering Federation in the 1880s and 1890s (it happened on the 1st of January 1901) it was a voluntary decision by each of the state governments (at that stage still called Colonial governments) as to whether or not to join, and so they called the shots. New Zealand decided not to join at all, because it didn't get what it wanted, and Western Australia only signed on at the last minute. It was a voluntary union and that meant they got to dictate terms.
It’s difficult to see how any Prime Minister, particularly a female, would allow any part of her country to do as they wish...it just never works that way, but I would love to be wrong!
It's a normal part of how things work here - negotiations between the states and the Commonwealth government over these issues can take years or even decades.
Thanks N-man, I’m honored to have your reply and your history discussion. Hopefully these moves break the horrible gun-rights situation there and allow Australia to go back to what it was - a place where RESPONSIBLE people were allowed to defend themselves, without having to worry about an oppressive government!
BTW, your country is very high on my travel list!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.