Thread: Firearms ban in Western aussie

Originally Posted by Finnwolf

Sadly the Government argues using ‘may’ ‘possible’ and ‘might’ in their argument, just look at the WA authorities justification for banning those calibers.

So we ought to keep asking for specifics and for their evidence based argument's that support their policies. In the absence or if they are flawed we go onto the front foot.

I realise this meme is based on the American experience, but the theme travels very well.

https://ifunny.co/picture/illustrate...able-gLRiaCHM8


My grandfather had a pistol in the 20's, and used it for pig hunting - as did a lot of others. The pistols were lost because the Govt feared they would be used as assassination tools in a Communist uprising. Not an entirely unreasonable fear given what was going on in Russia at the time, but nevertheless they went, we had no revolution, and they stayed gone.

Now, after the loss of lifetime licenses, semi auto centrefires, 15 shot magazines in .22 rifles, we should compromise - what do we get in return? By now, if you can't see that sections of the Govt - and especially PNHQ want all guns gone, you are deluded. Bit by bit the common persons ability to own guns will all be eroded unless it is stopped by us.

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 Ross Nolan

Now, after the loss of lifetime licenses, semi auto centrefires, 15 shot magazines in .22 rifles, we should compromise - what do we get in return? By now, if you can't see that sections of the Govt - and especially PNHQ want all guns gone, you are deluded. Bit by bit the common persons ability to own guns will all be eroded unless it is stopped by us.

It would be interesting to see an evidence based case for the “PNHQ want all guns gone” part.

I really need to see this evidence. This belief that the police want all firearms gone is at the core of much of what is stated as supposed fact on social media, yet to my eyes and ears there is a wholesale lack demonstrable evidence that supports this belief. In the absence of any demonstrable evidence, then is that statement not the delusion?

To that end, is it not a situation where fear has overtaken objectivity? That’s what @Tahr was saying above. Subjectivity laced with emotion. Whenever I chat face-to-face with someone who has these fears about police motives and I ask this same question, I never get a straight answer on the evidence part. It just comes across as fear.

In most similar democracies, e.g. UK, gun control has stopped at what the ordinary guy would regard as the typical sporting rifle. It’s been that way for many years now. Gun control as I experienced it did not in any way shape or form stop me from hunting, be it deerstalking, rough shooting with 12ga or rimfire small game shooting.

We all share the same concerns about over-reach and excessive imposition of control due to ulterior motives. If the police motive truly is the removal of all firearms from society, and there is irrefutable evidence that supports this view, then how do you propose we go about stopping it? Because this is the next part of the face-to-face conversation I have with people who are worried about this. They all say the same thing… unless we stop it. But how?

The how part never gets a straight answer.

What do you propose?

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.

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

so it is in all intents and purposes the same as one..and being used in same manner as one..so..if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its probably not a saber tooth tiger.....
it is what it is.
pretending its not does no body any good.

if you wearing hightopped high heeled leather boots,a wide brimmed stetson hat,set of chaps wearing leather belt with low slung holsters holding 6 shot revolvers you arent playing a game of soccer..your acting out being cowboy gunslinger...ITS NO DIFERENT.
you wouldnt then turn around and be able to say..they arent..western/cowboy type guns now could you????
again in perfect world we should be able to use what we want..but world isnt perfect.

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

Except of course an AR15 is NOT a military rifle where as anything based of a Lee Enfield, P14/17, multiple Mausers, Remington 700 are.
Brno .223 where used by the Police does that make them a military rifle as well?

I have no problem using any semiautomatic firearm for shooting targets and gongs.

It's no different from shooting clay targets with a Benelli M2 or Remington 1187. Both of which have been used by militaries.

Originally Posted by PeteD

Except of course an AR15 is NOT a military rifle where as anything based of a Lee Enfield, P14/17, multiple Mausers, Remington 700 are.
Brno .223 where used by the Police does that make them a military rifle as well?

Pete, I have it on good authority that in the initial police discussions after CHC that their proposals to ban "high capacity" magazines included 10 round mags. Until someone of slightly more sane mind pointed out to the "policy experts" that they would be banning every single Lee Enfield in New Zealand....

People need to be extremely careful about talk of banning anything that has association with a military type rifle as this would include many rifles and shotguns currently on the market.
As far as banning military cartridges we need to remember that this not the first time Australia has done this. Hence why we have the .25/303 etc.
France also went down this road and rifles such as the .222 ruger mini 14 was made to get around it.

The calibers that Australia is talking of banning may have some vague relationship with some military calibers but so what. Even the Police admit they have never had an incident where these calibers were used in a crime against
Police.

Originally Posted by PeteD

Except of course an AR15 is NOT a military rifle where as anything based of a Lee Enfield, P14/17, multiple Mausers, Remington 700 are.
Brno .223 where used by the Police does that make them a military rifle as well?

I have no problem using any semiautomatic firearm for shooting targets and gongs.

It's no different from shooting clay targets with a Benelli M2 or Remington 1187. Both of which have been used by militaries.

ar15...M16 ford lazer...mazda 323
I have no problem with either..but the reality is,the government and general public now do.
my point is AGAIN if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..its a fuckin duck.

and many military actions have been undertaken with SxS shotgun,.22lr single shot bolt actions,break opens of all discriptions and muzzle loaders...they were used in military actions VS firearm MADE for military action and you are of course correct the SMLE and 98 mauser were too. if you drive a unimog good on you,but dont try and call it a civilian shopping basket.
the remington 700 and indeed the winchester model 70 have bboth seen quite a lot of military action too..BUT thats a civilian firearm adapted to milatary use,the opposite to an AR15 which for all intents and purposes is was and will always be a military firearm adopted to civilian use.
if yo ureally want to nit pick the 10/22 is direct decendant of the springfield 30/06 30/03 and the M1 carbine as were the mini 14s the ruger ranch rifles the deerfields..they are all decendants of the springfield.
but they are not in fireing line YET.... the 10/22 has been deemed to have a purpose that is good enough to keep them around, the mini14 is still around on P endorsement.....
Im not dumb..I do realise the firearms were all origonally made for military usage..you could argue the same with bow and arrow. both have taken parallel pathways and both have diverged into different streams heading roughly parallel target,hunting and warfare....and both also have crossover/blending.

Originally Posted by PeteD

People need to be extremely careful about talk of banning anything that has association with a military type rifle as this would include many rifles and shotguns currently on the market.
As far as banning military cartridges we need to remember that this not the first time Australia has done this. Hence why we have the .25/303 etc.
France also went down this road and rifles such as the .222 ruger mini 14 was made to get around it.

The calibers that Australia is talking of banning may have some vague relationship with some military calibers but so what. Even the Police admit they have never had an incident where these calibers were used in a crime against
Police.

agree and you are correct. we also saw lots of..imported to get around it,of grey area things.... and the people doing said importing and selling were put up on pedistal as some sort of demigods doing all shooting community a huge favour....... you know it, I know it,they know it,the police and government know it...some of us however believe they should be shot with ball of thier own shit and not allowed to own anything more than a water pistol..... hi capacity magazines that were made for said AR15 just for one tiny EG.... the varmet shotguns for another.

As I posted previously this is about perception of threat. The aussie rozzers have more fear of the public than even ours.
Their risk assessments have identified that these firearms are going to be used for a mass execution event. Based on power range etc.
Also as posted earlier the Canadians have just sglhitcanned a ban on weapons with a power raging over over 10k joules.
This sort of ban includes dangerous game rifles, doubles, single shots etc.
Nothing to do with reality other than fear by the authorities.
If anyone can say that someone will use 475double rifle for an armour piercing use against police they are being a walker.
The fact is they drum up enough fearfrom the publicly to think that is a reality.
The good thing is the Canadian population has the magical mix of needing firearms for food/defence way more than us with amassively bigger population (with a good jolt of US fervor), and have managed to get it shut down.
We need to be a bit more vocal

So rather than throwing sports shooters under the bus and labeling AR15s as being based on a military rifle (which it was not, the AR15/10 was around long before the M16) why not support all forms of shooting dports.
Even today there was a news article calling on DOC to do more than using hunters for deer control and take more action. There was a not so discrete reference to ignore pressure groups such as NZDA and rid the country of hoofed pests.
I will fight tooth and nail to defend hunters rights as this sort of action by DOC will impact but I expect support from hunters for those who restrict thier shooting to a range.