Thread: Firearms ban in Western aussie

nah that it.....I havent thrown you under bus. quite frankly Im sick and fuckin tired of being accused of doing so..self imposed time out.

Originally Posted by Flyblown

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?

Not seeking to answer on behalf of Ross Nolan but I'll chime in nonetheless.

The higher up the structure in government organisations (e.g. NZP, NZDF) the more politically connected the roles become. Whilst it may not be the officially expressed view of NZPHQ that they want all firearms gone, their actions (past and present) and those of the politicians whose policies they implement, confirm this for the very reasons Ross Nolan mentioned. The proposed licensing fee hikes, the draconian range management legislation, the debacle with Auckland Shooting Club etc etc are all further restrictions / disincentives to firearm ownership and do absolutely zero for community safety.

Originally Posted by Flyblown

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 my experience and many others, there's nothing subjective about having firearms confiscated by the state. Effectively punished for something we didn't do. Not to mention all the bullshit prior to 2019 foisted upon E category owners by NZP about stupid shit like flash hiders , collapsible stocks and free standing pistol grips. Funny how those are now conveniently unrestricted isn't it? What was the point?

Originally Posted by Flyblown

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.

Sticking to similar democracies closer to home, i.e. Australia... who cares about the "ordinary guy's" opinion? We're not all the same, we don't all share the same shooting interests. Service rifle shooting with centrefire rifles, previously a legal pastime that required much vetting and increased cost, is now lost to me and many others as result of firearm control but I assume that didn't affect you so, likely you had no skin in the game anyway. I don't own any of these things being restricted in WA but the fact that they were previously able to be legally possessed and now all of a sudden, some bureaucrat rolls out of bed in the morning and decides that they pose a "risk" without demonstrable proof and need to be confiscated?

Please.

Originally Posted by Flyblown

We all share the same concerns about over-reach and excessive imposition of control due to ulterior motives.

No, I don't think we do.

Originally Posted by Flyblown

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?

Good question.

Pity we couldn't fast forward to 2030 then come back n see this thread...

Sent from my SM-T225 using Tapatalk

You can't use the English as a bastion of freedom either.
Our police hierarchy originally come from their model.
And I hate to say it, it seems to be influenced by the import British police that have taken residence here. They are notbour friends when it comes to firearms. It is why there isn't something like the US2ns amendment for a minimum of personal defense with a firearm.
I would suggest it comes from an old nobility thing and not letting us get above our station.
And regardless of a typical sporting firearm, they have a bunch of other restrictions over amounts of ammunition etc that is just abhorrent.
To the point much like the aussies where ether will make it sound like you have a enough to start a world war when all you have is a brick of 22fr and a case of 12g.
And charge you accordingly

Nah mate that's the media who know 4/5's of F/A about firearms or ammunition. In reality cops never visit for checks on properties I'm still waiting for my 'compulsory inspection' 18 months down the line they have no idea how many pounds of powder, number of projectiles etc I have.

Yes this whole "military vs sporting" is stupid emotive stuff however, "Service Rifle" is a style of match which can be shot with anything you choose! I would say that apart from some neutered SLRs and maybe a couple of G3's the only military rifles in use were bolt actions.

I think the truth is that there are too many are worried about being labeled or going against the crowd. You will never win a fight going in 50%, never. So how do we win? Well the upper echelons in NZ police have shown themselves to be what they are so we won't get anywhere "negotiating" with them. The only chance is to change the people in charge. The only way to do that is to vote and convince anyone and everyone you can to vote appropriately. If that requires growing a pair, so be it.

Originally Posted by Flyblown

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?

My Uncle was a cop.
My best man was a cop.
My partner was a cop.
I've been on ridealongs, drunk in station bars and hunted with cops. I luved with cops in London, and I've walked around with my eyes open all my life.

Over the 39 years I've owned firearms there has been a steady increase in the rhetoric and the actions of both the Police Association and any of the Police spokesfolk with regard to firearms that I'd wonder about your cognitive capacity if you didn't think that the body of the Police weren't anti gun.
Look at how they handle orders in council.
Look at this nonsense around ranges.
Look at how they handled the aftermath of Christchurch.
Look at what they are doing with licensing.
I am an absolute supporter of the Ryle of law, but I am very disappointed in the way the NZ Police are handling the firearms issue.

Lived, not luved
Also rule of law, not Ryle.

Duplicate post

Originally Posted by Flyblown

Bollocks.

I’ve lived there twice in the 90s and 2010s and got my licence no problem both times, well within the time period they said it would be. Zero problems.

There’s a lot misinformation as usual, regarding this latest ban. As hunters in New Zealand - and Australia - we need to look at it in context. We are talking about 248 individual rifles. Not as some outlets would have you believe, over “200 types of hunting rifle”.

Read the list again and ask yourself how many hunters there are using those chamberings to either provide meat or control the considerable ungulate pest problem in W.A. I’ve been in contact with a bunch of my mates in Oz that I’ve hunted with all over from the Top End to the Snowies, and no one has a problem with it.

Personally, I’d remove the 28 Nosler and .300 Norma Mag off the list.

The ELR target guys are unfortunate collateral in a social battle we are fighting that will rumble on for years. My advice is pick your battles carefully, to win the war.

Bollocks I say,back to you.....very difficult to compare anything back to 2010's let alone the 90's
....but hey just another chip at firearms ownership regardless.

Originally Posted by Flyblown

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.



What do you propose?

heres what I propose, I dont only want to own guns for hunting, hell i don't consider 50 bmg to be a sporting cartridge but i absolutelty believe that i should be able to own one if i wanted, it almost sounds as if you dont mind uk gun laws because you still get to own what you want to own, well guess what i don't, I want to be able to shoot long range competition I want to and do own pistols, and im sure as hell not using that for deer but guess what, i still own it. if we let them take this away what are they going to take away next? first we said ok we will register our e cat ar's then they used that register to check of everyone who was forced to comply with the confiscation then they said we will ban pump action ar's, we said ok, then they said they would ban certain pistols which they did, infact is this not proof that pnhg wants all firearms gone? that they are gradually removing the range of firearms we can own, creating difficulties for firearm clubs, introducing laws without really making it clear to everybody. they never go after the duck shooters semi auto but they will go after the minoritys ie sports shooters guns. A sports shooter would stick up in hand in protest if the government went after a hunters firearm but as long as the hunter gets to keep his 308 deer rifle most of them dont give 2 shits. gun control has sure as hell stopped me from doing what I wanted to do with a firearm and I envy you for not having the same experience

Right...

This thread has got the fudds out.

So how long till you're beloved(insert deerstalking rifle) is a "sniper rifle"?

I'll fight tooth and nail for anyone to own and use anything with the appropriate licence.

But sadly with my competition shooting those same shooters I'll defend their abilities to say shoot ducks with a m2/ a400 will happily send my Glock to the crusher.

This thread has been quite interesting to say the least and it's been good as it shows who the knee bending fudds within our ranks are.

Appeasement never works it just empowers the agressor

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

Please don't take this as a personal attack, but your first paragraph is exactly the attitude /opinion they want on our side.
It happens in all rules changes, not just firearms.
The proponents of change come in with heavy handed proposals, knowing full well they won't get them across the line. The affected parties rebel, put in submissions and generally kick up a stink.
The proponents back off to about where they expected to get to, the affected parties sit back and go wow that was close. The ones with foresight can see they got shafted.
And the proponents of change will be back for another slice.

This is basically my fear with the cost recovery proposal. They'll back off the general license holders, but leave dealers and endorsement holders to pick up the tab. It's a vastly smaller group and they can say "look, we listened and made some changes".

I think it's weird that the people who think that the UK laws aren't too bad have left the UK to come here.

Originally Posted by Rock river arms hunter

Right...

This thread has got the fudds out.

So how long till you're beloved(insert deerstalking rifle) is a "sniper rifle"?

I'll fight tooth and nail for anyone to own and use anything with the appropriate licence.

But sadly with my competition shooting those same shooters I'll defend their abilities to say shoot ducks with a m2/ a400 will happily send my Glock to the crusher.

This thread has been quite interesting to say the least and it's been good as it shows who the knee bending fudds within our ranks are.

Appeasement never works it just empowers the agressor

Haven't seen that "fudd" term on here for a while What is a Fudd? Perhaps you can name the fudds on here? Does "Fudd" mean "anyone who disagrees with me??"

A balance of views and opinions on here will be of far greater benefit to firearm owners than polarising and name calling will.

I have no wish to see your Glock go to the crusher. Opinions and approaches on how that might be avoided will vary.