Thread: Firearms ban in Western aussie

@Flyblown, they are sporting rifles.

These are not owned by people involved in the military...

They are used by private citizens for the sport of ELR shooting.

Just like the AR15s in NZ that I and others used for service rifle and 3-gun.

Originally Posted by ebf

@Flyblown, they are sporting rifles.

These are not owned by people involved in the military...

They are used by private citizens for the sport of ELR shooting.

Just like the AR15s in NZ that I and others used for service rifle and 3-gun.

And therein lies the very guts of the debate Eben.

Because it totally depends on whose definition of "military" and "sporting" carries the most weight in a negotiation.

Remember what was said, in this thread, specifically. That the rifles in the WA list are hunting rifles.

"All the calibers mentioned are sporting calibers.....hunting."

That is what I responded to. A .50 BMG is not a hunting rifle. You know that, I know that, the police know that, the SSAA know that, COLFO know that. Some will argue that it can be whatever you like, but you and I both know that would just make you look silly in your discussions with police.

Which brings me to the important point - at least you are having discussions with police! And long may that continue. The question in my mind is have you lawyered up? The funding for proper legal representation is the Achilles heel going forward - the NRA defend themselves through an army of specialist lawyers that are very hard to beat.

Those sitting on the other side of the table from you will be hoping you turn up with a ill-considered "no compromise" position, because that is always the easiest position to defeat. A "no compromise" position enables them to make you look intransigent and dangerous, and there's all sorts of ways that can be used against you. This is why so many influential figures did not adopt a non-compromise position here in NZ last time round. No compromise needs more support that you've probably got and that's a big problem.

Originally Posted by ebf

@Flyblown, they are sporting rifles.

These are not owned by people involved in the military...

They are used by private citizens for the sport of ELR shooting.

Just like the AR15s in NZ that I and others used for service rifle and 3-gun.

now speaking of shooting ones self in foot..... what pray tell me is the definition of a "service rifle" and what would be the definition of a AR15 used as a service rifle if its NOT A MILITARY RIFLE...or a rifle of military design used in a military fashion....

I hear what your saying,we should be allowed to shoot rabbits in the back paddock with a lewis gun in the perfect world,and all pighunters and shepherds should be allowed to carry a revolver..but its NOT a perfect world...and the general public were fed a load of bullshit which the majority of them swallowed down and regurgitated back up for others to swallow... we are where we are....
the argument thats certain types of firearm should be OK for all to use because a few use them in specialised means has been bandied around forever.... the reality is this..its not going to happen and the general public wont back you up on it.the governments of our time sure as hell wont.
at very best we MAY end up with limited use permitted with special licence...like a P ENDORSMENT has done for the rifles you mentioned..a purpose deemed relevant has been put forward and the tools to do it have been approved. it remain to be seen if poking holes in paper or making steel plate go BOOOOOIIING is deemed important enough to be a relevant purpose.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

now speaking of shooting ones self in foot..... what pray tell me is the definition of a "service rifle" and what would be the definition of a AR15 used as a service rifle if its NOT A MILITARY RIFLE...or a rifle of military design used in a military fashion....

I hear what your saying,we should be allowed to shoot rabbits in the back paddock with a lewis gun in the perfect world,and all pighunters and shepherds should be allowed to carry a revolver..but its NOT a perfect world...and the general public were fed a load of bullshit which the majority of them swallowed down and regurgitated back up for others to swallow... we are where we are....
the argument thats certain types of firearm should be OK for all to use because a few use them in specialised means has been bandied around forever.... the reality is this..its not going to happen and the general public wont back you up on it.the governments of our time sure as hell wont.
at very best we MAY end up with limited use permitted with special licence...like a P ENDORSMENT has done for the rifles you mentioned..a purpose deemed relevant has been put forward and the tools to do it have been approved. it remain to be seen if poking holes in paper or making steel plate go BOOOOOIIING is deemed important enough to be a relevant purpose.

The first part of your question was tightly defined in the service rifle match code Pre-2019. In layman's terms it had to be as close as possible to a standard issue infantry rifle. With regards to an AR15, in general you could not use an actual military issue one as it would fall under the category of a restricted weapon by virtue of the lower receiver and trigger group. Ironically we can still own these, but we can't compete with the semi auto versions anymore.

and for the record I HAVE ABOSOLUTELY no issue with any firearms being in hands of responsible licence holders.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

now speaking of shooting ones self in foot.....

Micky, shooting oneself in the foot is a whole lot more common on NZ police ranges and Pistol NZ ranges (as opposed to service rifle comps), yet they don't seem to be the target of the latest round of controls... go figure