http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ LAFO » Recent Posts en Sat, 19 May 2012 23:03:55 +0000 http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=90#post-325 Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:45:54 +0000 jimbob 325@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>Hi all, its been a while. New job and a move out into the bush. Just reading with interewst the "changes to the laws". I too have been hearing all sorts of stories. Some bad and some downright blood chilling. A mate of mine who is an armerour has said he has seen tyhe new laws but has not had a chance to fully check them out. All he said he saw as he flicked through them was that hi capacity mags are gone and some thing about Deac's needing 80% weld. Has anyone had a good look at them and knows whats going on. I'm gunna get on tonight and also see if I can find the new laws and see whats gone down the tubes. </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=90#post-323 Tue, 22 Nov 2011 23:43:01 +0000 Chili 323@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>I read the Debate for the Weapons Amendment Bill 2011 earlier this month. I was quite upset!<br /> After checking the latest from the National Firearms Association of Canada tonight I sent emails to the Ministry and Shadow Ministry from the links on this site.</p> <p>You may like to do something similar, so to keep you informed here is the text of my emails:</p> <p>===================================</p> <p>The State of Queensland has been short of money for some years. It would be very useful if wasteful expenditure could be stopped. Canada is now providing an example. The new Government of Canada has found a way to save a good hundred million dollars yearly. </p> <p>It is scrapping its Long Gun Registry! It has admitted to the citizenry that this registry was a waste of money. The registry has been irrelevant in making Canada a safer place, it has been irrelevant in solving crimes, but it certainly has burnt a lot of money.</p> <p>We do not have to reinvent this particular wheel - we can use it as is. Even five million Australian dollars yearly could pay for more police in Queensland and their overtime too! Here is a statement from the National Firearms Association of Canada which is to this point:</p> <p>Date: Monday, November 21, 2011<br /> Despite spending a whooping $2.7 billion on creating and running a long gun registry, Canadians still have not reaped any benefits. Even though the registry started registering long guns in 1998, it has yet to solve one single murder. Instead it has been an enormous waste of police officers' time, diverting their efforts from patrolling Canadian streets and doing traditional policing activities. As parliament debates whether to eliminate the long gun registry, safety should be the real concern.<br /> Control advocates have long claimed that registration was a safety issue, and the reasoning was straightforward: If a gun had been left at a crime scene and it was registered to the person who committed the crime, the registry would link the crime gun back to the criminal.<br /> Nice logic, but reality does not work that way. Crime guns are very rarely left at the crime scene, and when they are left at the scene criminals are not stupid enough to register their guns. Even in the few cases where crime guns are left at the scene it is usually because criminals have either been seriously injured or killed, so these crimes will be solved even without registration.<br /> The statistics speak for themselves. During the seven years from 2003 to 2009, there were 4,257 homicides, 1,314 of those were committed with firearms. Data provided this last week by the Library of Parliament reveals that in less than a third of the homicides with firearms was the weapon identified (422), and most of those -- 308 -- were not registered. Of the 114 that were registered, 52 were registered to someone other than the person accused of the homicide. In just 62 cases -- that is only 4.7 percent of all firearm homicides -- was the gun registered to the accused, some of those are obviously innocent. As most homicides are not committed with a gun in Canada, the 62 cases correspond to only about 1 percent of all homicides.<br /> To repeat, during these seven years there are only 62 cases — 9 a year — where it is conceivable that registration made a difference. But apparently, the registry was not important even in those cases. As the RCMP and the Chiefs of Police have not yet provided a single example that tracing was more than peripheral importance in solving even a single case.<br /> The problem isn't just with the long gun registry. This data covers all guns, including handguns. There is no evidence that since the handgun registry was started in 1934 that it has been important in solving a single homicide.<br /> There is no evidence that registration reduced homicides. Research published this year by McMaster University Dr. Caillin Langmann in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence confirmed what academic studies have found: "This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008." There is not a single refereed academic study by criminologists or economists that has found a significant benefit from the gun laws. A new Angus Reid poll indicates that shows that this is something that Canadians already understand, with only 13 percent believing that the registry has been successful.<br /> The problem isn’t just that the $2.7 billion spent on registration over 17 years has produced no arrests, it is that the money could have been used to put more police on the street or pay for more health care or cut taxes. A $160 million a year pays for a lot of police or doctors or teachers.<br /> Take police. Assuming each officer is paid $70,000 per year, that pays for almost 2,300 officers. Academic research by one of us indicates that adding that many street officers would reduce violent crimes in Canada by about 1,800. Registration isn’t getting Canadians any of this.<br /> The costs of running the registry aren't just the $2.7 billion, since that excludes enforcement costs and individual compliance costs. 2 million times last year the first step that police in Canada do in an investigation is to see if a person is a licensed gun owner. But with just nine possible cases a year where Canada's 6.4 million registered gun owners might be involved in a firearm homicide the return seems as close to zero as possible. It is also claimed that registration protects police officer safety, but homicides against Canadian police officers is actually up 20 percent since the long gun registry started compared to the rate during the previous decade. And more importantly the real bottom line is just one police officer has been identified as being killed by someone with a registered long gun. And it was registered to someone else, so it couldn’t have helped identify the murderer.<br /> Last Sunday, Gatineau MP Francoise Boivin on CTV's Question Period worried that scrapping the long-gun registry would be a $2 billion waste, "a $2 billion bonfire." Unfortunately, that money is already wasted. The problem is that the registry costs keep growing. It is running about $100 million a year to operate. That money hasn't been wasted yet, and scrapping the registry will let the money be spent on things that will actually do some good.</p> <p>If you have the interests of Queenslanders at heart then you would look for efficiency, economy and effectiveness in your legislation. Reading Hansard on the current debate on the Weapons Amendment Bill it is obvious that too many Members and Ministers are unaware that the Bill itself is irrelevant to Public Safety, that already the present laws of Queensland provide real penalties for committing real crimes. </p> <p>If more police presence is needed, as the Police Union asserts, then take the money from Queensland's wasteful and irrelevant long gun registration experiment the way Canada is doing. Spend the savings on deploying more of the Queensland Police!</p> <p>The FBI recently published figures which show a drop in the major crime Rate in those American States where self-protection is legal, but no such drop in those few states which have laws like Queensland. If there is genuine concern for safety of members of the public, the focus would be on letting those who can do so to protect themselves from assault instead of requiring them legally to be defenceless victims, because the police are only minutes away when seconds count, yes? </p> <p>If the Queensland Police truly had a Duty of Care to protect citizens from crime, then it would be under an obligation to pay damages to every victim of crime, as in every case of crime the Duty of Care has been breached. </p> <p>Normally I do not give free management advice but I am concerned that the rising tide of crime may wash into the lives of those dear to me, hence these comments.</p> <p>May you make good and wise decisions while you have power in our Representative [ not Direct ] Democracy!</p> <p>Best wishes for all us Queenslanders!</p> <p>=======================================================</p> <p>If more of us send emails, we may get more sense applied yet. Do what you can! </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=68#post-320 Sun, 16 Oct 2011 21:07:01 +0000 Davo 320@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>I agree with collector. I resently had a Breakin at my house, the thief took very little but had an interest in my empty rifle cases. My home was exposed until I could repair the breakin.</p> <p>I informed the local police station of the interest in the rifle cases and that I was a registered fire arm owner(LAFO), I am worried of a house invasion, can I take out my fire arms to protect my family until the repairs are completed.</p> <p>Answer: No! We will send regular patrols down your street tonight. </p> <p>Well I stayed awake that night (out the front of my house) with my 3x2. Did I see any patrols? No not even one? </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=68#post-319 Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:38:50 +0000 collector 319@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>Mark Stone...lol...well thats sounds nice in theory mate,...but in reality....PEOPLE GET CHARGED REGULARLY for defending their hoomes during an invasion. I dont know what state you live in...but that law is NEVER going to hold up in court. If you were coming through my bedroom window at 4am, (I KNOW youre not there to have a coffee or a beer)....and I jump you and we have a knuckle on....and through whatever means (smashing you on the head with a lampshade for example) to overpower you and detaini you for the cops to come...then I am going to be charged...REST ASSURED...thats the reality. The crim can have me charged for deprevation of liberty as well as common assault. I suggest you open your eyes to the REAL WORLD....and actually read what goes on in the news!<br /> Me personally??? I WILL dfend my home, its contents and of course my family from invasion by any means needed at that time and I dont care what the outcome is.<br /> When I was doing security guard work...I had a partner who lost his job because he caught a kid coming out of a factory with cash box in hand. He yelled to STOP....the offender threw an iron bar at him that missed so a wrestle ensured. The guard overpowered him, handcuffed him and delivered him to the city police station. The kids father had the guard charged with DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY....he got the sack for having a criminal charge.! THATS THE REAL WORLD! </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=90#post-311 Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:58:46 +0000 omega_rifles 311@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>Nat ...my information is that he is entirely correct.<br /> also i have been advised that the subject of detachable and non-detachable magazines is being taken up with the minister. </p> <p>They never listen ... its false hope thrown to us </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=90#post-310 Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:46:57 +0000 Nat White 310@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>my information is that he is entirely correct.<br /> also i have been advised that the subject of detachable and non-detachable magazines is being taken up with the minister. </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=90#post-307 Wed, 21 Sep 2011 21:31:25 +0000 gleeson g 307@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>re proposed changes if we sit on our arse and do not start to contact our politicians on this it will to bad so sad and to late to do anything about the changes.I would suggest strongly that clarification and opposition to these changes be commenced asap and try and stop these nanny rules.Remember when the firearm liscense was first introduced they were for life with no expiry date ( i still have mine) now look at the bullshit and charges that have been put onto legitimate firearm owners and shooters.We are not the criminals but i am certainly headed that way if this continues eg Ned Kelly.How can something or act that was carried out legally suddenly at the whim of the pollies be illegal. </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=90#post-306 Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:37:13 +0000 dhc4 306@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>It seems highly improbable that the enforcers of the new ACT would be interested in confiscation so many legitimate long arms based on a unintentional technicality. </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=90#post-305 Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:56:24 +0000 Avatar 305@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>Well as I said to him, the one in the chamber is not in the magazine. The legislation restricts the magazine capacity, not the firearm capacity. He's said that the courts might not understand the difference. I guess thats where it comes down to your lawyers ability to make them understand.</p> <p>That being said, you shouldnt have to go to court. </p> <p>One thing that did come out of my discussion with Owens, is that I had overlooked that the actual legislation amendment does not say 'detachable magazine' - it just says 'magazine', which in its strictest sense, can include fixed magazines. </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=90#post-304 Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:00:07 +0000 dhc4 304@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>I assume this is a beat up from Owen's Guns that the preposed changes to the legislation will result in the following "If we do nothing, Queensland will make law in Mid October 2011 banning centre fire rifles which have a built in magazine capacity of over 10 shots, pump actions, lever actions anything that can take 11 shots, will have to be handed in for NO compensation.That means Model 1866 (Henry) Winchester, Model 1873 Winchesters, Model 1892 Winchester’s 1873, likewise Browning, Marlin, Remington, Rossi, Puma, Colt Lighting, Chiappa, Uberti, Henry, Timberwolf, and Remington Pumps, one in the chamber puts the rifles built in magazine capacity at 11 and if you have done the right thing and registered that rifle you will have to hand it in for no compensation. " </p> <p>Is this for real???? </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=89#post-303 Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:44:55 +0000 Stone 303@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>Thats been his policy for sometime! He is probably agitating it again to keep his mug in the cameras. </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=80#post-302 Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:58:23 +0000 Chili 302@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>On 8 September 2011 the Regime recommenced its changes to the: WEAPONS AMENDMENT BILL, Second Reading, Resumed from 12 May (see p. 1465), on motion of Mr Roberts — That the bill be now read a second time.<br /> See: <a href="http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2011/2011_09_08_DAILY.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/hansard/2011/2011_09_08_DAILY.pdf</a><br /> &amp;&amp;<br /> So far the LNP speakers have been somewhat in favor of 'the bill ... which we will not be opposing.' and again: 'The amendments we are debating seek to increase penalties for the unlawful possession of certain categories of weapons, and that part is supported'<br /> Another LNP Speaker reports:<br /> 'The government’s own explanatory notes indicate that this bill was introduced into parliament without any consultation or notification to user groups. While the minister says these items are noncontentious he did not give anybody the opportunity to comment. The consultation last year was on a different bill, which is a completely different document from this one.'<br /> &amp;&amp;<br /> Like at the earlier attempt to change our laws I am deeply disturbed by the mendacious excuse that the Regime is making us safer. Home Invasions and Armed Crime keep happening, kids are so scared that they carry knives for protection from bullies and street thugs, and we can not even sue the Police for failing to protect us - as if Compensation is equal to Prevention!<br /> &amp;&amp;<br /> I have not yet found a draft of this version of the Bill now under discussion, but the URL for the debate is given - so do your research and start protecting your rights.<br /> BTW<br /> Some other speakers of our language put this into their own Basic Law: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.' </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=89#post-301 Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:26:50 +0000 Darrin 301@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>In wake of what has happened in Oslo, old mate Charlie Brown wants to make semi auto pistols illegal........ I think he needs to keep his head in Australian business and not worry about the rest of the world.<br /> <a href="http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/norway-shooting-should-force-gun-law-change-says-greens-leader-bob-brown/story-e6frfku0-1226101441515#ixzz1T5t7YQSE" rel="nofollow">http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/norway-shooting-should-force-gun-law-change-says-greens-leader-bob-brown/story-e6frfku0-1226101441515#ixzz1T5t7YQSE</a> </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=6#post-300 Sat, 16 Jul 2011 19:44:59 +0000 Chili 300@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>I found this on the NRA of USA Website and think we had all look at what Treaties the Regime in Canberra may accept and so commit our laws. As a paid-up member of SSAA, I probably would pay some more to have more effective lobbying by some group of law-abiding citizens:</p> <p>Friday, July 15, 2011<br /> NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre drew a line in sand on behalf of American gun owners at the United Nations Thursday. LaPierre spoke to the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) Preparatory Committee, the group drafting an international treaty that will supposedly control all non-nuclear arms, worldwide, including civilian firearms. He told the audience of delegates from approximately 150 UN member states that the NRA would vehemently oppose any UN treaty that in any way restricts American gun owners’ rights.<br /> LaPierre made the position of NRA and American gun owners clear. “The NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope,” he stated emphatically.<br /> LaPierre reminded the audience that under the American system a treaty must be approved by two-thirds of the United States Senate to be ratified. He also told them that there was already significant resistance in the Senate, including a letter to President Obama, now being circulated, that opposes the proposed treaty. LaPierre pointed out that it was unprecedented to have a treaty rejected before it was even presented.<br /> Executive Vice President LaPierre presented the UN group with a long list of ways the treaty would interfere with American gun owners’ rights. These include bans on certain types of arms, registration requirements, a UN demand for more domestic firearms laws, barriers to international trade in firearms and ammunition, special permits for hunters travelling to different countries and a new UN gun control bureaucracy. He said these were just a few of the objections that the NRA had to the proposed treaty. LaPierre went on to say the only way these objections could be addressed was to completely exclude civilian firearms from the treaty.<br /> The issue of including civilian firearms within an ATT is perhaps the most contentious question facing the Preparatory Committee. Earlier in the day, Canada took a position that hunting firearms should be excluded from any ATT. Mexico immediately responded that they should be included. It has been Mexico’s strident view that any UN ATT must control civilian firearms.<br /> UN officials were visibly taken aback by LaPierre’s statement, coming as it did after the earlier skirmish between Canada and Mexico. There is clear opposition in the U.S. Senate to an ATT that includes civilian firearms, especially given the two-thirds vote requirement and the already emerging opposition. At this time, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) is circulating a letter to be sent to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly stating opposition to any inclusion of civilian arms in the proposed treaty. As of today, that letter has 28 signatories, only a few short of the number needed to block the treaty (please click here to read related story). NRA worked closely with Sen. Moran in drafting his letter, and we continue to actively lobby senators to sign it.<br /> LaPierre made it clear, and anti-gun treaty advocates should now understand this simple reality: Any treaty that includes civilian firearms will not win approval by the United States Senate, and will therefore not include the United States.<br /> The UN ATT Preparatory Committee will next meet the week of February 13, 2012 and then there will be a four-week negotiating session to (theoretically) finalize the treaty in July of 2012.<br /> To keep up the pressure against an anti-gun treaty, NRA members are strongly encouraged to contact their U.S. Senators and urge them to stand by Sen. Moran, the Constitution and America's gun owners by supporting and signing his critically important letter.<br /> In addition, Sen. Tester (D-Mont.) has drafted his own letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing concerns about any treaty that infringes upon the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of American gun owners.</p> <p>Copyright 2011, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.<br /> This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.<br /> 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683<br /> Contact Us | Privacy &amp; Security Policy </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=88#post-299 Sun, 03 Jul 2011 17:08:28 +0000 Darrin 299@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://www.videobash.com/video_show/lego-sniper-rifle-10189" rel="nofollow">http://www.videobash.com/video_show/lego-sniper-rifle-10189</a> </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=87#post-298 Mon, 16 May 2011 06:41:35 +0000 trekin 298@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>just some thoughts on the subject,</p> <p>"Consistency with fundamental legislative principles<br /> The Bill has been drafted with due regard to the Fundamental Legislative Principles (FLP’s) as outlined in the Legislative Standards Act 1992 (the LSA). Section 4(2) (Meaning of fundamental legislative principles) of the LSA requires that legislation has sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals. An overarching theme of the Bill is the continued balance between the competing rights and liberties of individuals: 1) the rights and liberties of individuals to possess and use weapons; and 2) the rights and liberties of individuals to be protected from individuals who seek to misuse weapons."<br /> A good a case of arse covering as you’ll get. But what if you are in 1) above, do you not have the rights and liberties of the individuals in 2). But one can’t help but think the same objectives could have been met with amendments to other Acts, i.e. Mental Health, Police powers, whatever Acts that would make Judges meter out penalties at the maximum end of these prescribed, and not take the bleeding heart approach to sentencing.</p> <p>"Policy objectives<br /> The objective of the Bill is to amend the Weapons Act 1990 (the Act) and Regulations to give affect to key issues identified through the review of the weapons legislation. The amendments contained in the Bill include amendments which have been previously been announced by the Government."<br /> Is this the complete list of amendments, or are amendments which have been previously been announced by the Government that abortion of a Bill that they tried pushing on us LAFOs last year?</p> <p>"The Bill:<br /> • increases the penalties for behavioural offences involving weapons;"<br /> Have no problem with this, although I believe they should have amended the word Maximum to read Minimum. My belief is based on the premise that by being granted a licence, I have given an undertaking that I understand, and will abide by, the law. After all this is what defines me as a LAFO and would better uphold my rights and liberties to be protected from those individuals who seek to misuse weapons.</p> <p>"• extends the current definition of bladed weapons to accord with national standards;<br /> • regulates the possession and use of laser pointers with an output greater than 1 milliwatt;<br /> • regulates the possession and use of high capacity magazines for category B firearms;"<br /> As a LAFO, I find this amendment to be offensive on many levels. Firstly, does owning one of these rifle/magazine combinations suddenly change me from being a LAFO to an individual who seeks to misuse weapons? What data has the Minister used to justify this amendment? Where is the data that shows the use of a high capacity magazine/rifle combination in the commissioning of a crime, and the data that shows that a better outcome for the victims could have been achieved with a lower capacity magazine? It’s been six years since this resolution was passed at the APMC, why the sudden push for an amendment that can be proven by six years of non data to be a nonissue. Methinks a childish tantrum by a member of the WLB who didn’t get his own way with the last abortion they tried to pass off as amendments to the Weapons Act, perhaps. </p> <p>"• defines an approved safety training course and what the Commissioner of Police (commissioner) may consider in approving such a course for the purposes of obtaining a firearms licence;"<br /> Hopefully this will get rid of the cowboy operators out there. One only has to look at some of the forums out there, and read the questions being asked by newly licensed QLD shooters, i.e. how do I fill out a PTA?; what are the storage/transport requirements?, etc. Information I know that I am required to pass on when instructing new shooters.</p> <p>"• clarifies that a person may have physical possession of a knife in a public place, other than a school, for a genuine religious purpose;<br /> • removes licensing and registration requirements for permanently deactivated public monuments;<br /> • exempts off-duty members of the Queensland Police Service (QPS) and special constables required to possess service issued weapons and exhibits;<br /> • clarifies that incorporated shooting clubs must nominate a representative;<br /> • clarifies that range officers cannot be minors;<br /> • permits range officers from another State or Territory to officiate on ranges;<br /> • introduces additional genuine reasons for the possession of a weapon to include medieval re-enactments, paint pellet sports and for the collection, preservation and study of weapons;"<br /> Will the decreased administrative burden on authorised officers in terms of the approval process mean a decrease in the cost of licenses, PTA’s, etc, sorry forgot that ” All costs associated with the implementation of the amendments will be met through existing (QPS) budgets. There are no anticipated additional costs to the State Government.” So not only do we get further restrictions (magazine capacity), but we have to pay for privilege of being restricted.</p> <p>"• allows an exemption from a provision of the Act to be revoked if the exemption is breached;<br /> • adopts the Australian Federal Police Firearm Deactivation Standards;"<br /> What happens to the firearms that were previously certified as permanently incapable of being discharged by the QLD WLB?</p> <p>"• amends the the Weapons Categories Regulation 1997 (Categories Regulation) to better define body armour; and"<br /> If I’m reading this amendment right, than bullriders/rodeo competitors will require a weapons act licence to wear the low velocity, high impact body armour/vests they now wear for protection.</p> <p>"• amends Schedule 2 of the Weapons Regulation 1996 (Weapons Regulation) to reflect changes to government service entities and prescribed functions." </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=87#post-297 Sat, 14 May 2011 09:34:04 +0000 Avatar 297@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>My MLA *is* Neil Roberts so I get the luxury of speaking to him in person. The downside is I cant make himself ask the questions I will be asking in front of parliament so its 'on the record'.</p> <p>Oh well, see how it goes. </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=87#post-296 Fri, 13 May 2011 21:44:45 +0000 waz 296@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>I sent Neil Roberts an email(Cc'd to my local MLA) today. Just stating that he is proposing legislation just for the hell of it. And he is doing nothing for the safety of Queenslanders.</p> <p>Waz </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=87#post-295 Thu, 12 May 2011 20:26:28 +0000 Avatar 295@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>Not sure i need a fighting fund... I am seeing him tomorrow week :) </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=87#post-294 Thu, 12 May 2011 19:17:23 +0000 trekin 294@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>Now if we had that fighting fund, that I spoke about in an earlier post, we could get the Minister to justify this amendment. Using the APMC as an excuse, when it appears that he didn't even attend himself, but only send his lackies along, would seem to be a bit of a stretch given that the Minister is the elected representative in Parliament. </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=87#post-293 Thu, 12 May 2011 16:22:40 +0000 Avatar 293@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>One constructive alternative I hope LAFO can put forward is, why tie it to legal firearms? Why not tie it to ILLEGAL firearms. Ie have it worded such that possession of high cap mags and an ILLEGAL firearm is going to be an offence. </p> <p>Then the law abiding firearm owner can keep his or her mags, and the cops can still throw the book at the lawbreakers.</p> <p>The other hypocrisy I thought with this is that it would be perfectly legal for me to own 1000 AR15 30 shot mags. I dont have a Cat B firearm that takes them, but I only require *A* license to possess a magazine. Since there exists firearms that can take AR mags in Cat B, then I am compliant with the law (having a license for a category of firearm for which the magazine can be used in). </p> <p>The day I buy a 7615 though, I am suddenly a lawbreaker. Who does that protect? If you argue that crims could steal my mags for their illegal firearms well they coulda done so before i had a rifle for them, but no one cared then. I guess that brings another compromise that could be offered, along those lines: require (higher?) safe storage requirements for high cap magazines. ie: Cat D safes. </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=87#post-292 Thu, 12 May 2011 14:45:12 +0000 Avatar 292@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>Hi</p> <p>Many things I am happy with... tougher penalties for committing crimes with weapons. </p> <p>One thing (and this is well known :) ) is that I do not want restrictions on magazine capacity.</p> <p>Note:</p> <p>68CA Prohibition on possession of particular<br /> magazines—category B weapons</p> <p>Maximum of 10 shot mags for lever or pump action rifles, and 15 shot mags for other centrefires. No restriction on Cat A.</p> <p>There is no justification for this, real or even (arguably) percieved. There is no compensation in there for those that own magazines of higher capacity - which can cost hundreds each. There is no accomodation for ownership of the magazines under my collectors license, unless I own a Cat D or R (no mention of C) deactivated collectors piece for which they suit.</p> <p>So you can own a 30 shot pump action detachable mag 22magnum or 22LR (Cat A) but you cant have more than 10 in a 7615 .223. Sure, the 7615 arguably has more power, but I am pretty sure 30 .22 Mag rounds inside 100 metres would be just as deadly as 10 .223. </p> <p>Whilst most LAFOs would be prepared to roll with this one as they probably only use 10 shot mags anyway, its not the point. Its this perception that restrictions on law abiding owners somehow stops crimes. Its crap. We know and always have said crims dont care about the law. This is another restriction for the sakes of it that will do nothing for public safety or crime prevention. </p> <p>Allowing this to go through just sets (probably a better term would be 'confirms') a precedent for permitting every bleeding heart to take something away or restrict it with no real justification. And of course those groups will say "Well you dont NEED 20 shot mags" and as the time old counter to that is "when has ownership been dependant on need?".. and I think thats very important.</p> <p>I guess the other thing its not like they offered up anything FOR us. Like WA allowing Cat C shotguns to sporting shooters for some events (practical and single action), or included IPSC in allowable competitions for &gt;.38 calibre pistol, and so on.... or even something cooler like 1 (only)Cat D firearm to service rifle shooters whom meet fairly extensive pariticipation requirements and the usual Cat D safety protocols.... yeah I know a man can dream :).</p> <p>It just seems another erosion of our freedoms - I cant say rights as we need it on a bit of paper to have those, aparently. I'd argue that by default everyone has the right to anything they want, unless its legislated against (and thus taken away). Just because its not on a peice of paper ratified by a legislative body doesnt make it true.</p> <p>Anyway going to read more closely the other sections. These are my initial thoughts/reactions </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=86#post-291 Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:33:07 +0000 Avatar 291@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/slow-erosion-of-gun-laws-presages-another-tragedy-20110427-1dwmx.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/slow-erosion-of-gun-laws-presages-another-tragedy-20110427-1dwmx.html</a> </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=85#post-290 Thu, 21 Apr 2011 22:27:55 +0000 Avatar 290@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/ripleys-alien-gun-too-dangerous-to-allow-into-queensland-police-rule/story-e6frfkvr-1226040854341" rel="nofollow">http://www.news.com.au/national/ripleys-alien-gun-too-dangerous-to-allow-into-queensland-police-rule/story-e6frfkvr-1226040854341</a> </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=80#post-289 Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:14:17 +0000 Avatar 289@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>I had an appointment booked with Neil Roberts for 13 May but looks like I will be on my way back from PNG then, so teeing up something then. </p> <p>I now have a CED shot timer (as per IPSC etc). Anyone got a 7615, no restriction on their license (yet) and 2x10 and 1x20/30 rnd mag and want to participate in an experiment (at a range)? </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=80#post-288 Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:45:30 +0000 PPO 288@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>This is old news guys. The restriction on detachable magazines for lever and pump rifles has been around for about five years. As far as the Rem 7615 goes, I understand this particular rifle came in for the extra scrutiny after some infighting and one upmanship between a couple of dealers. </p> <p>And yes the legislation allows for this discretionary power by the Authorised Officers. That is why we had to fight the proposed Bill otherwise these sorts of arbitary decisions would become more and more prevalent. </p> <p>Paul </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=80#post-287 Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:40:13 +0000 waz 287@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>WRT the licence restrictions on 10+ mags on 7615s. Has a CatB firearm with a 10+ mag ever been documented being used in the commission of a crime? How many are done with 22LR bolt actions?</p> <p>From what I can see, the AO is calling the people who own these items potential criminals. To paraphrase, "In the interests of public safety, we are placing restrictions on you." I find that insulting and offensive. </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=80#post-286 Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:02:52 +0000 waz 286@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>@Trekin<br /> Section 11 of the &lt;i&gt;Weapons Act&lt;/i&gt;(1990) lists the Genuine Reasons that are accepted,</p> <ul> <li>sports or target shooting; </li> <li>recreational shooting; </li> <li>an occupational requirement, including an occupational requirement for rural purposes; </li> <li>collection by a collector of weapons; </li> <li>another reason prescribed under a regulation. </li> </ul> <p>The &lt;i&gt;Weapons Regulation&lt;/i&gt;(1996) lists 3 additional genuine reasons.</p> <ul> <li>a military re-enactment or historical demonstration; </li> <li>for a sporting organisation to possess a firearm to start sporting events; </li> <li>for a theatrical organisation to possess a firearm for a theatrical production. </li> </ul> <p>Self defense is not one of them.</p> <p>By all means contact your local member, Glen Elmes and Neil Robertson and ask them to add it to the list of genuine reasons. I bet dollars to doughnuts that Neil won't give a good reason as to why it won't be done, other than the NFA. You and I both know that the stats will show that it should be there. Police are not a protection service, they're a clean-up service. </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=80#post-285 Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:05:03 +0000 trekin 285@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>Waz<br /> "So any petition to change the Weapons Act will be met with, "Sorry, can't be done as Queensland is a signatory of the NFA.""</p> <p>Qld may be a signatory of the NFA, but they certainly haven't enacted all of the resolutions. In particular the self defence resolution, as nowhere in our current Weapons Act dose it state that self defence is not a genuine reason for a firearm. Also very few, if any, States have a 28 day waiting period on the acquisition of ALL firearms, another resolution from the NFA. </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=80#post-284 Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:52:52 +0000 trekin 284@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>"He has changed, through this restriction, the meaning of a Category B firearm. Theoretically he could rewrite the entire legislation through one long winded restriction. Just because you have the power doesnt mean you can or should use it."<br /> Yes theoretically he could, unfortunately he has the power and I'd bet the farm on fact that he does mean to use it.</p> <p>"So, as far as I am concerned, its a restriction for restrictions sakes, and it sets a precedent that could get ugly. What happens if he decides for 'public safety' it needs to be reduced to 5... (or even to 1)? The SMLE and many bolt action sporter rifles have or can come with detachable mags up to 10 rounds capacity. Where's the capacity for appeal, objection, public scruitiny of the decision? There is none!"<br /> What's worse is he could restrict your licence to a magazine capacity of five or less, but not my licence. Imagine being on the firing line in a 303 military comp. and your the only one with only 5 or less rounds. </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=80#post-283 Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:07:35 +0000 Avatar 283@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>I have an appointment for a phone meeting since I cant physically get in to see him until May.... so will let you know what comes of it!</p> <p>Leigh </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=80#post-282 Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:41:38 +0000 Avatar 282@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>He has changed, through this restriction, the meaning of a Category B firearm. Theoretically he could rewrite the entire legislation through one long winded restriction. Just because you have the power doesnt mean you can or should use it.</p> <p>Arguably, it particularly seems to single out the 7615, despite the fact almost any rifle with a detachable magazine (or indeed just a floorplate conversion) can carry a detachable magazine of more than 10 rounds. </p> <p>Since the restriction applies only to detachable magazine, why is that of a benefit to society compared to either a 15 shot tube magazine, or a fixed magazine of say 20 rounds fed by one massive stripper clip (as you can do with say the SKS and could be easily adapted into rifles such as the SMLE).</p> <p>It does nothing to help public safety - there's no proof that it does - and it unfairly discriminates against those with detachable magazines, whilst those with fixed magazines are unrestricted, despite having a large capacity magazine. </p> <p>There is no demonstrated or recorded fact that I can think of, where any crime against the public with the exception of Port Arthur (which was NOT in this state) where a detachable magazine was used and changed to continue committing a crime. </p> <p>So, as far as I am concerned, its a restriction for restrictions sakes, and it sets a precedent that could get ugly. What happens if he decides for 'public safety' it needs to be reduced to 5... (or even to 1)? The SMLE and many bolt action sporter rifles have or can come with detachable mags up to 10 rounds capacity. Where's the capacity for appeal, objection, public scruitiny of the decision? There is none! </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=80#post-281 Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:04:22 +0000 trekin 281@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>I believe the Authorised Officer is given the power under section 25 (1) (b) of the QLD Weapons Act 1996,</p> <p>25 Authorised officer may amend licence conditions<br /> (1) An authorised officer may amend the conditions of a<br /> licence—<br /> (a) on the licensee’s application; or<br /> (b) on the authorised officer’s own initiative.<br /> He hasn't banned anything, he's only taken the initiative to place a 'magazine size condition' on this LAFOs licence.<br /> Would be interested to see a QCAT ruling on this, but wouldn't hold my breath for a favourable outcome. </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=80#post-280 Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:40:31 +0000 Avatar 280@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>Neil Roberts is my local member, so I am going to make an appointment to go see him. I wanna cut this off before it gets to me. </p> <p>This looks like them using their capacity to create (aparently unlimited) restrictions to (in effect) re-write the legislation that defines the categories of firearms as passed by parliament, whom I believe is the authority on such a thing. As far as I am concerned, thats just wrong. </p> http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/topic.php?id=80#post-279 Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:24:11 +0000 trekin 279@http://lafo.com.au/bbpress/ <p>Yet...... give them an inch!!! </p>