Saturday, May 19, 2012

Australia Follows America Here As Well!

I came across this information by accident on FaceBook. There is a link to the site at the bottom of the article. 

It appears that, despite all the lies Shoebridge and his fellow blue vein trumpet players at the Greens spread, our chosen sport continues to grow at an amazing rate.

"The shooting sports is one of the safest and most popular activities in the U.S. According to a 2010 study by the National Sporting Goods Association, 44.5 million people over the age of seven regularly participate in the shooting sports (including target shooting, hunting, and muzzleloading).

This makes shooting sports more popular than the vast majority of common sports activities, including bicycle riding, bowling, jogging, fishing, basketball, soccer, and tennis. In fact, the shooting sports are twice as popular as golf (21.9 million), over three times as popular as baseball (12.5 million), and nearly 5 times as popular as football (9.3 million)."

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

The Green Insanity! Organic Farmer, Thanks To Local Council, Faces Ruin.

"In northern New South Wales, a certified organic farmer of macadamia nuts is facing ruin because of the arbitrary decisions of a local government. In New South Wales local governments have the ability to declare "local environmental plans" under the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979. These plans allow local governments to determine what can and can't happen on someone's property through a simple council decision.

This farmer's local council decided to rezone half of his property to what is known as E2. As described on the Environmental Defender’s Office website, the E2 zone is “for areas outside the national parks and nature reserves and provides the highest level of protection for high conservation value lands without actually locking them up in the public reserve system.” The EDO encourages its activists to “Look to see that council does not add any developments that would undermine the protection afforded to land zoned E2.”[2] 

This macadamia farmer’s council, dominated by Green councilors, has told him that he can’t construct buildings or fences on the part of his land that has been designated E2. He can't change the farming he currently performs. He can't change his crops. Basically he is told he can't do anything. Don't innovate, don't try to get better, just stand still, but pay your rates, public liability insurance and the bank.  

Not surprisingly, this farmer recently had a valuation performed which showed that the reclassification of his land has halved the value of his land. No compensation, no recourse whatsoever. A local council can effectively steal half of someone's asset and there doesn't appear to be anything he can do about it. Environmental fear and loathing campaigns, with prognostication of imminent demise, have clouded the self-evident loss of individual liberty and economic reality.

This is not an isolated example, 30 per cent of the Kyogle Shire is covered by an E2 designation in its draft local environment plans. "

I wonder how many Greens "Councillors" there are on Kyogle Shire Council?

Taxpayers Stuck Footing The Bill For Wind They Can’t Use or Sell

Taxpayers in Minnesota ended up paying $70 million more than they needed to for electricity in 2011 because of “green” energy mandates, according to the Minnesota Rural Electric Association (MREA).

“Taxpayers already pay a high price to subsidize wind energy through billions in federal grants, loan guarantees and tax credits that prop up the ‘windustry,’” Tom Steward writes for the Minnesota State News.
“Now the bill for state renewable energy mandates is coming due with hundreds of thousands of Minnesota electric co-op and utility customers picking up the tab,” he adds.

A $70 million dollar tab, that is.

Related: Gov’t-Subsidized Wind Farms Told NOT to Produce Energy

“It’s an enormous subsidy. You have to add wind power, whether you need it or not,” said Mark Glaess, MREA executive director. “Right now we’re paying for wind we don’t need, we can’t use and can’t sell.”

So how did this happen?

The Renewable Energy Standard (RES) passed by the 2007 Minnesota State Legislature directs electric utilities to ramp up their percentage of renewable energy sales to 25 percent by 2025. Put another way, one of every four kilowatt hours must come from renewable energy by 2025. Unlike many other states, Minnesota does not exempt co-ops and municipal utilities from complying with renewable energy standards. To meet the state’s escalating demands, rural electric co-ops and utilities locked in long-term “take or pay” contracts to purchase power from wind farms.
However, a drop in demand due to the lagging economy and competition from natural gas pushed the price of energy down significantly.

"The RES exists in a sort of price vacuum. No matter that coal-generated power costs considerably less than wind. Dozens of Minnesota co-ops are stuck with higher, pre-recession prices for surplus wind power which must be bought and distributed,” Steward writes.

“The difference between what the wind power costs and what it resells for now adds up to tens of millions of dollars a year statewide with rural residents caught in the middle,” he adds.

Which means Minnesota taxpayers are stuck paying for “green” energy regardless of whether they can sell it.

Sounds just like what our mob of "Alternate Energy" clowns want for us thanks to the Global Warming Fraud.

Monday, April 23, 2012

Friday, March 23, 2012

Lock, Stock, and Barrel Revisited, Thanks To Ron Owen from Owen Guns.

How relevant is this for our situation today.

A qoute from Malcolm Bone in a 1981 editorial in Lock, Stock, and Barrel magazine regarding Malcolms justified concerns as bureaucrats and "got at" politicians started their anti firearms campaigns.

At this particular time  annual statistics showed that over 42 % of all Australian homicides were committed with knifes and 26 % with beer bottles, firearms were less then 10 percent, the largest killer being Blunt Instruments. In one years figures two males had been beaten to death with guitars by females. 

Beer bottles somehow escaped the notice of these people who had a hidden agenda. Qoute follows:

" Suppose it could be shown that Ford cars were used 70 % of the time as a getaway vehicle after a hold up. Banning Ford cars, then would result in Holden cars being used 80% of the time. Banning Holdens in turn could result in Datsun being used 85% of the time, etc. etc. until finally Rolls Royces would be used 100% of the time and they will naturally will have to be banned, so at last there will be no more robberies because there won’t be any vehicles in which to make a getaway ! 

Can anyone remotely imagine that this pattern will be any different with regard to firearms used in robberies? Guns don’t commit robberies, people do.
It is easy and of no consequence for a criminal to break yet another law. It is already almost impossible for those who want to be law abiding , to be law abiding at all times. 

The great unheralded danger is that further laws, especially those which impose only on honest citizens can eventually bring about a general disregard for any and all laws by the public at large, in such a situation the Police could not cope.” 

 The last paragraph has a chilling ring about it!

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Latest News From The Shooters & Fishers Party On Proposed NSW Ammo Law



22 March 2012

Police bust puts final nail in Government Ammo Bill

The Government wishes to reduce incidence of drive-by shootings in Sydney – a sentiment supported by all. However the Government mistakenly believes that stricter controls on the sale of ammunition by licensed firearms dealers will somehow reduce criminals' access to ammunition.

If the Government is serious about reducing drive-by shootings and other crimes committed using firearms, it will put more resources into police investigation of illegal importation and black market trade in firearms. The breakthrough announced in the media last week, where Police arrested three men in connection with the illegal importation of up to 220 pistols from overseas demonstrates this is a more effective way of tackling gun crime:


"Police say a post office was being used by a syndicate which brought up to 220 illegal guns into the country, including some linked to recent Sydney shootings. Detectives are now scrambling to track down scores of guns they believe were sold by the ring.

The syndicate was cracked after officers investigating shootings in the city traced several illegal handguns to the same batch manufactured by Glock in Austria last year. The batch included a gun used in a shooting in January at Wiley Park.

Working alongside customs officials, they discovered the pistols were being sold to a German gun dealer then imported into Australia by criminals. Sydney police raided a dozen properties yesterday morning, including one at Sylvania Waters Post Office.

Officers say they found a parcel containing 140 Glock magazines, seven guns, ammunition and

Unfortunately nearly all of these pistols are not yet accounted for. Considerably more Police work is required to track the others down. It should also be noted that the parcel found by the Police at Sylvania Waters Post Office contained both firearms and ammunition. This welcome breakthrough by Police clearly demonstrates that licensed shooters and hunters are not the problem. Drive-by shootings are not committed by law abiding, licensed firearms users and the firearms used in crime are not registered.

Many of the firearms used in firearm related crime have never been legitimately owned and were illegally imported. If criminals can easily source illegal firearms, acquiring ammunition from illegal sources would be even more trivial. The proposed Bill, if enacted, will adversely affect lawful shooters, yet, at best, only have a negligible impact on criminal activities.

Reject the Bill, Contact Your Local Member and Ask Them to Dump It!

Ammo Bill: - Major Problems

Supply of ammunition to criminal elements:

 Current legislation already provides that ammunition can only be sold to persons authorised to possess a firearm that takes the ammunition. This is already sufficient to ensure that law abiding citizens do not supply ammunition to unauthorised persons  - a person with a category A licence (shotgun and rimfire rifle) already cannot purchase centrefire
ammunition or pistol ammunition.

Amending the Firearms Act to allow firearms dealers to sell ammunition only to those already owning a firearm that uses that ammunition, or that have a permit to acquire a firearm of that calibre will not prevent those willing to break the law from accessing ammunition.

 Just as the control of the sale of Cold and Flu tablets containing pseudoephedrine has not prevented criminals accessing (in bulk) the precursor chemicals needed to manufacture methamphetamine (speed).

 Ammunition will continue to be smuggled into the country for criminal use, or supplied by
'cleanskins' with criminal affiliations who are willing to break the law by supplying unauthorised persons.

The current form of firearms licence does not provide information on what calibres of firearm a person owns so firearms owners would be forced to carry their registration papers to the gun shop rather than keeping them safely locked at home.

 The use of ammunition by criminals in drive-by shootings is small – only a few rounds fired per incident – so the volume of ammunition supplied to criminals by way of smuggling or diversion of legal purchases would only be miniscule compared to the thousands of rounds used each year by serious target shooters.

The proposed requirement for firearms dealers to record the details of persons purchasing ammunition will have no value in solving drive-by shootings, or tracing the purchase trail for the ammunition used in drive by shootings. - commercial small arms ammunition is manufactured in batches, but any given factory may produce hundreds of thousands of identically marked cartridges in a year – even if forensic investigation were to identify the batch of ammunition used in a drive by shooting, it is unlikely to be able to be tracked
back to a particular dealer as ammunition is imported in bulk by licensed wholesalers and then on-sold to many licensed dealers.

The type of crimes that the proposed amendments supposedly target, are almost exclusively being perpetrated in the metropolitan area. Yet this proposed legislation will significantly and adversely affect legitimate and lawful shooters in country areas, hardly a fair and reasonable outcome.

The Government would do better to support the Shooters and Fishers' Crimes Amendment (Possession or Discharge of Firearms in Commission of Offences) Bill 2012 , which introduces a mandatory charge of using a firearm in the commission of an offence when a person is caught with a firearm during the commission of certain crimes.

Detrimental effects of proposed amendments to the sale of ammunition

 Firearms Dealers will be required to spend even more time completing forms, gathering information that is of no use.  

Licensed persons wishing to purchase ammunition will need to carry the registration papers for their firearms with them to the gunshop, creating an increased risk of losing those papers and having them fall into the wrong hands.

The proposed amendment only applies to the sale of ammunition through licensed firearms dealers – persons who are authorised under their firearms licence to possess ammunition will still be able to sell it to other authorised persons without the need to sight a registration paper for a firearm in the calibre concerned - this will lead to an increase in the number of sales of ammunition outside of firearms dealerships.

Club Armourers
This is a form of firearms dealer that is licensed to provide a service to club members. Club armourers often purchase ammunition in bulk for sale to club members. This amendment will significantly increase the amount of paperwork involved in their sale of ammunition - the requirement for a club armourer to specify which club firearm ammunition is to be used in is
unreasonable as some clubs have up to 20 club firearms and it may not be known which firearm will be used at the time the ammunition is purchased - only a club armourer will be able to sell the ammunition to members, whereas now a range officer often does this.

Hunters make a choice as to what calibre firearm they will use each time they go hunting, based on the size and structure of the animal they intend to hunt, in order to ensure that the animal is humanely killed

- the recommended calibre for hunting pigs differs from that for deer and differs again for rabbits - many hunters borrow a friend's or property owner's rifle if they get an opportunity to hunt an animal for which they don't own a firearm in the recommended calibre
- friends are willing to loan firearms, but ammunition is expensive and when you borrow a rifle you can expect to have to buy ammunition to use in it
- if this amendment goes through, a hunter who has borrowed a rifle will not be able to buy
ammunition to use in it from the local gun shop, and the owner will not be likely to afford to give the ammunition away.

This will lead to :

- increased sales of ammunition outside of firearms dealerships, as the owner of the rifle sells
ammunition to the person to whom they are lending their rifle
- increased purchases of rifles as hunters seek to minimise the need to borrow rifles and instead prefer to own rifles in a greater number of calibres
- increased likelihood of hunters using an inappropriate calibre and causing a longer more painful death of the animal being hunted
- increased transport of firearms by hunters who are forced to use their own firearm rather than borrow one in another calibre from the land owner.

Target Shooters:
A licensed target shooter doesn't always choose to own their own firearm – some prefer to use a club gun because they either don't want to store a firearm at home, can't afford one, or don't see the necessity to own one.

- however these target shooters still have a legal obligation to shoot at the range at least 4 times a year in order to keep their licence and in order to meet that obligation they need to purchase ammunition.
- not all clubs sell ammunition at the range, so the shooter needs to purchase ammunition prior to going to the club – this proposed Bill would prevent him doing that
- this Bill will result in more shooters having to purchase their own firearm.

A pistol shooter initially is issued with a probationary licence and during the first few months cannot purchase their own pistol – they are still required to make a minimum number of attendances at their pistol club using either club pistols, or pistols supplied by other club members.

- while the amendment provides for club armourers to supply ammunition to club members for use in club guns, it does not provide for them to provide ammunition for use in firearms borrowed from other club members.

The effect of the proposed amendments will be akin to one borrowing a diesel fuelled motor vehicle and being prohibited from purchasing diesel fuel because one isn’t the registered owner of a diesel motor vehicle.

Legal Firearms Users in Rural Areas

The number of licensed firearms dealers has diminished over the years, and a legal firearms user often has to travel a considerable distance to visit their local gun shop. This is particularly true in rural areas. It is common practice that when a licensed shooter visits a gun shop, he or she may well purchase ammunition for similarly licensed neighbours or friends, to save them making the same trip. Under this legislation husbands and wives, who often do not own the same calibre firearms, will no longer be able to purchase ammunition
for each other. Hunters travelling to hunt on remote properties will no longer be able to purchase ammunition to resupply the property owner, as is commonly done now.


Robert Borsak MLC

Shooters and Fishers Party Parliament House Sydney 2000



Sunday, March 11, 2012

Barnaby Joyce reported in The Canberra Times last week that Treasurer Wayne Swan borrowed, from international bankers, an extra 11 Billion Dollars in the last 4 weeks!

How Bob Brown is Browning All Over Us.

The Village Idiot Playing With Dynamite To Bring Australia His New Socialism.

Perhaps you actually like Bob Brown, but did you know that he holds Australia to ransom on the back of a lousy 7% of the votes required to elect one senator in NSW?
Here in broad terms is how the Green Mr Brown was elected:(Of course if you vote Green, the following will be way over your head.)
  •              Brown is a senator from Tassie
  •              Senate voting is NOT first past the post. It is "Proportional Representation"
  •              There are 12 senators from each State (and a few more from the territories)
  •              Senators are elected for 6 year terms, so 6 from each State are elected at each 3 yearly House of Reps election.
  •              A ‘quota’ of votes must be obtained to be elected. The quota depends on the number of formal votes cast in the election.

The quota varies between the States and is based on the votes within each state. For example, the populations of each State are as follows:
NSW - 7 million           Vic     - 5.3m               Qld    - 4.3m                WA    - 2.1m
SA     - 1.6m                Tas   - 0.5m     *Approximately half of those populations vote at an election.

The quota, where 6 senators are to be elected, is ONE SEVENTH of the votes.
So, the following quotas apply for the states:
NSW - 500,000           Vic     - 370,000           Qld    - 300,000           WA    - 220,000
SA     - 114,000           Tas   -    36,000

It is easier for ‘fringe element politicians’ such as Brown to be elected as senator than as a member of the House of Reps because the votes for all the wacko senate candidates who do not achieve their quotas are handed off to second preferences. *(The House of Reps requires a majority vote, not a quota.)
Usually, if a weirdo drops out, his/her preferences go to the next weirdest candidate, and thus Bob Brown gets elected in Tasmania with 36,000 votes, about 13,000 of which were actually for him.  The rest came as second preferences from such formidable organisations as ‘What Women Want Party’, ‘Liberty & Democracy Party’, ‘Senator on Line Party’ and so on.
In Queensland , a senator had to get the nod from over 300,000 voters. In NSW, to be elected, a senator required over 500,000 votes.
Remember -  Bob speaks for only 36,000 ratbags, yet he holds Australia to ransom and we are copping it.   So, what we have is Australia being held to ransom by Brown and his gang of greenies, with a fraction of the votes.
It is also interesting to note that the three smallest States, Tas, SA, and WA, each have TWO green senators, whereas the main States only have ONE each. Yes folks, we are being dictated to by a group of half-baked green clowns who represent less than 10% of voters.

Now, how do you feel?
Small wonder this country is slowly disappearing from under us.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

What 500 Biggest Pollouters?

Ladies and gentlemen, the reality is this.

The Green-Labor Government wants you to only visualise images of power stations, mines, and heavy industries, whenever you hear or think about their “carbon pricing mechanism”.

Because their choice of words is propaganda.

Perception management.

Their choice of words conjures up images of dirty, sooty, sweaty, evil “big polluters”.

The truth of the matter though, is that their scheme will not benefit the planet one iota.

It will only benefit bankers. Because that is what all carbon dioxide tax/trading schemes are designed to do.

It will not “hurt” only the relatively small number of dirty, sooty mining companies and heavy industries. The people who make stuff.

(Especially not, when we now know that the government is giving free carbon permits equal to 94.5% of average emissions for the “worst” “polluters”, like aluminium refineries.)

Instead, the government’s carbon dioxide “pricing mechanism” will really hurt the many clean, hygienic companies who make your food.

And deliver your food.

It will hurt those clean, hygienic companies who provide you with water to drink, wash in, and flush your dunny with.

It will hurt those clean, hygienic companies who provide you with hospital and health care.

It will hurt those companies that provide you and/or your children with a university education.

It will hurt those companies that provide you with public transport.

It will hurt those companies who air and sea freight in all of the crap that you buy from overseas, because successive governments have so screwed over our manufacturing industry that this nation makes next-to-nothing ourselves anymore.

It will hurt most or all of the 93 manufacturing companies still left in this country (according to the NGER Register) – many of whom are already foreign-owned.

And yes, it will hurt the companies who dig wealth out of the ground, providing employment for tens of thousands of Aussies.

And yes, it will hurt the companies who (used to) provide us with cheap, efficient, reliable electricity to keep our lights on and appliances working.

It is a brilliant plan, dear reader.

That is, it’s brilliant if your goal is to enrich international bankers and carbon derivatives speculators.

While at the same time, under-mining the heart and soul of (what’s left of) our national economy. 

No wonder broken down hack banker Malcolm Turnbull is in favour of a carbon tax!

This is the truth hiding below the surface of all the government’s lies.

You just have to take a closer look here.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Monday, February 20, 2012

Death of a Long-Gun Registry

Despite spending a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a long-gun registry, Canadians never reaped any benefits from the project. The legislation to end the program finally passed the Parliament on Wednesday. Even though the country started registering long guns in 1998, the registry never solved a 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.

Gun-control advocates have long claimed that registration is a safety issue, and their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun has been left at a crime scene and it was registered to the person who committed the crime, the registry will link the crime gun back to the criminal.

Nice logic, but reality never worked that way. Crime guns are very rarely left at the crime scene, and when they are left at the scene, they have not been registered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. Even in the few cases where registered crime guns are left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed, so these crimes would have been solved even without registration.

The statistics speak for themselves. From 2003 to 2009, there were 4,257 homicides in Canada, 1,314 of which were committed with firearms. Data provided last fall by the Library of Parliament reveals that the weapon was identified in fewer than a third of the homicides with firearms, and that about three-quarters of the identified weapons were not registered. 

Of the weapons that were registered, about half 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. As most homicides in Canada are not committed with a gun, the 62 cases correspond to only about 1 percent of all homicides.

To repeat, during these seven years, there were only 62 cases — nine a year — where it was even conceivable that registration made a difference. But apparently, the registry was not important even in those cases. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police have not yet provided a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a case.

The problem isn’t just with the long-gun registry. The data provided above cover all guns, including handguns. There is no evidence that, since the handgun registry was started in 1934, it has been important in solving a single homicide.

Looking at just long guns shows that since 1997, there have been three murders in which the gun was registered to the accused. The Canadian government doesn’t provide any information on whether those three accused individuals were convicted.

Nor is there any evidence that registration reduced homicides. Research published last year by McMaster University professor Caillin Langmann in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence confirmed what other 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 gun laws. A recent Angus Reid poll indicates that Canadians already understand this, with only 13 percent believing that the registry has been successful.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Letter to Premier O'Farrell Regarding Ammunition Control Amendment Bill

Honorable Premier,

I wish to vigorously make my opposition known to the Firearms Amendment (Ammunition Control) Bill 2012.

This Bill will do nothing to eliminate drive by shootings or control the illegal use of firearms in NSW as the perpetrators are not licensed shooters and their firearms are not registered. This legislation is squarely aimed at law abiding citizens.

Similar legislation to the Government's proposed changes to ammunition laws have already failed in South Australia.

As this Bill now stands it is simply another costly paper shuffle for gunshop owners and a further burden on the law abiding shooters of NSW.

I assist a farmer controlling feral animals, namely pigs and goats, on his property in Western NSW. My rifle is not of large enough caliber to humanely kill feral pigs so if I purchase the ammunition the farmer lends me his registered .30 caliber rifle for which I am licensed shooter.

Under the proposed legislation the farmer will also have to supply me with the ammunition but has stated he will not do this because he believes that under the Legislation it will be illegal for him to supply me, a licensed shooter, with the ammunition! What a ridiculous situation we find ourselves in. The upshot will be me shooting pigs with, as we say, not enough gun. This leads to the inhumane death of the animals involved.

I must show my Shooters License already when I wish to purchase ammunition and then I must store it in a separate safe to my firearms. I agree with this. I do not need any further legislation to do with ammunition that will not stop a criminal from illegally getting his/her hand on ammunition. He/she will get it anyway. The law means nothing to criminals, only to the law abiding. Surely you don’t target the law abiding citizen to halt criminal activity?

I am a law abiding citizen who has now undergone two police integrity searches, one for my firearms license and the previous one, a probity examination for the NSW Casino Control Authority. Neither of these searches has declared me an undesirable person!

I would like to know why the NSW Government plans to treat me as one?

It would be far more sensible for the Government to simply make it an offence to give ammunition to a person who does not hold a firearm license. As I read the present Firearms Act, it is already an offence to sell ammunition to such a person. The Government should consider moving this amendment to their legislation and increase penalties for all crimes involving the use of a firearm but please don’t continue to punish the innocent whilst the guilty escape.

With this legislation there is a brilliant chance to grasp the nettle and really do something for law and order and the people of NSW by attacking the criminals, not the law abiding. We, the citizens of NSW, did not vote the Coalition in for the purpose of grandstanding and making life harder for the law abiding.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email and please raise my concerns with the appropriate Government Minister.

Yours faithfully

Pat Cummins

Tuesday, February 14, 2012


The Shooters and Fishers Party has challenged the Coalition and Opposition to get fair dinkum in addressing Sydney's gun crime, and back its Legislation introduced into State Parliament today to make it a separate crime to use a firearm in a crime.

The Hon. Robert Borsak MLC, gave notice of the Legislation today, and says he expects support from both major parties.

"This gives them the chance to actually do something about the current gun crime in Sydney, rather than compete with each other to see who can come up with the "toughest new laws".

He said The Shooters and Fishers Party has always advocated extra penalties for those who use firearms whilst committing a crime.

"Ten years ago the coalition, in Opposition, supported our initial attempt to change the Legislation. They now have the chance to support it again, but this time make it law.

"We want the law to regard the possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime as a separate crime in itself, not an aggravating offence, as the law sees it now.

"It will be a separate, additional crime to be dealt with separately by the law both in terms of the judgement and the penalty the court might impose.

"The Bill proposes that on conviction of the separate offence of being in possession of a firearm while committing a crime, the person so convicted will be sentenced to a period of detention NOT LESS than the period of sentence for the core crime, to be served cumulatively.

"This gives the judge wide latitude in determining the total of the main sentence and the cumulative sentence, but establishes the important principle that a separate conviction has been recorded and a separate, specific sentence imposed.

"The purpose of such a penalty is to make it inadvisable for people to use a firearm when they commit a crime," he said. Mr Borsak said licensed firearm owners are fed up with having to defend themselves from ill-informed comment about who is committing these current crimes.

"The fact is, none of those committing these drive by shootings will be licensed firearm owners, nor will any of their firearms be legal.

"The Shooters and Fishers Party hopes the Coalition has the "bottle" to again back these proposed changes, because they will impact on those using firearms in crime.

"I have heard the Opposition calling for "tough action" and "tough new laws' to deal with the current situation. Well, Mr Robertson, here they are!"

"And as for the Greens, if they stay true to form, I wouldn't expect them to want to get tough on criminals, why would they change a habit of a lifetime? Mr Borsak said.


The Government's proposed changes to ammunition laws have already failed in South Australia.

It is unfortunate the NSW Government did not consult with us about their changes. We could have given valuable advice on the way forward that would not see the Government being embarrassed by sloppy legislation.

The recommendation from the Police Commissioner on the sale of ammunition will have no practical impact on gun crime. The same Legislation was adopted some time ago in South Australia and failed to do what that Government claimed to be able to do.

The Shooters and Fishers Party is ready to work with the Government in combating organised crime, but not at the expense of licensed and law abiding firearm owners.

There is a simple, practical measure that can remove any perceived vagueness in the current legislation and which gives police the powers to arrest and charge criminals, without imposing undue burden on firearms dealers and legal firearm owners.

It would be far more sensible for the Government to simply make it an offence to give ammunition to a person who does not hold a firearm licence, or to a person not licensed for that category of ammunition.

It is already an offence to sell ammunition to such a person. The Government should consider moving this amendment to their legislation, or failing that, SFP will move it in the Council.

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Media Release by Hon Rob Borsak MLC, Shooters and Fishers Party.


Gun control lobby must face facts: 

Firearm theft rate is falling 

01 February 2012 Shooters and Fishers Party MLC, the Hon. Robert Borsak said today that firearm theft is decreasing in NSW as the ownership of firearms rises, contrary to the misleading claims of the Greens and the so-called National Coalition for Gun Control.

He said that for more than 10 years, the theft rate has been declining in NSW, from a peak of 851 guns taken in 2001 to as low as 449 in 2006. "Meanwhile, ownership has continued to increase as the shooting sports become more popular among law-abiding NSW citizens, a trend that clearly demonstrates there is no correlation between the number of registered firearms in society and the rate at which they’re stolen. "In fact, based on NSW Firearm Registry figures, between 2001 and 2011, theft rates plunged from 0.137% of registered firearms to just 0.057%.

That is one of the great success stories in the fight against crime in NSW, Mr Borsak, said. He said this dramatic reduction in theft rates speaks volumes for the way in which responsible, law-abiding firearm owners have acted to secure their firearms and keep them out of criminal hands. “If we’d been able to cut the road toll by a similar proportion, we would be celebrating a major achievement.

Instead, firearm owners and society in general have been barraged with fear-mongering from the Greens and the National Coalition for Gun Control, which have both recently stated that firearm theft is increasing. "And their tactics are caught in the spotlight as final figures for 2011 are compiled, revealing what will probably be the lowest rate of theft (0.057%) ever recorded in NSW – certainly since figures have been kept.

Firearm owners in NSW are doing the right thing and have nothing to hide, which cannot be said of the people criticising them.

 “The Greens have an ideological hatred of firearms, while the National Coalition for Gun Control is a secretive entity that appears to have two members, does not accept new members, has no address and does nothing but pop out of its hole to make shrill claims and then disappear again, avoiding any questions that might expose its true colours,” he said. A summary of firearm theft figures in NSW has been compiled by the International Coalition for Women Into Shooting and Hunting (WiSH) and is available at this link:

The Hon. Robert Borsak 

Coming soon to a store near you!

Monday, January 30, 2012

Succinct Poster!

This Lobbed in my Letterbox This Morning!

When Opened Out:

It looks like a steal from this post that arrived from Ron Owen a few days ago.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Why We Are a Society of FW's

It's time again for the annual 'Stella Awards'! For those unfamiliar with these awards,
they are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued
the McDonald's in New Mexico, where she purchased coffee.  You remember, she took the lid off the coffee
and put it between her knees while she was driving.  Who would ever think one could get burned doing that,
right?  That's right; these are awards for the most outlandish lawsuits and verdicts in the U.S.
You know, the kinds of cases that make you scratch your head.  So keep your head scratcher handy. 

Here are the Stellas for the past year:


Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $80,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking
her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The store owners were understandably surprised by the verdict, considering the running toddler was her own son. 

Start scratching!


Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles, California won $74,000 plus medical expenses when his neighbour ran over his hand with a Honda Accord.  Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbour's hubcaps. 

Scratch some more... 


Terrence Dickson, of Bristol, Pennsylvania, who was leaving a house he had just burglarized by way of the garage.  Unfortunately for Dickson, the automatic garage door opener malfunctioned and he could not get the garage door to open.  Worse, he couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the garage to the house locked when Dickson pulled it shut.  Forced to sit for eight, count 'em, EIGHTdays and survive on a case of Pepsi and a large bag of dry dog food, he sued the homeowner's insurance company claiming undue mental anguish.  Amazingly, the jury said the insurance company must pay Dickson $500,000 for his anguish.  We should all have this kind of anguish.  Keep scratching.  There are more... 

Two-hand scratching after this one.  


Jerry Williams, of Little Rock, Arkansas, garnered 4th Place in the Stella's when he was awarded $14,500 plus medical expenses after being bitten on the butt by his next door neighbour's beagle - even though the beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard.  Williams did not get as much as he asked for because the jury believed the beagle might have been provoked at the time of the butt bite because Williams had climbed over the fence into the yard and repeatedly shot the dog with a pellet gun. 

Pick a new spot to scratch.  You're getting a bald spot!


Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania because a jury ordered a Philadelphia restaurant to pay her $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her tailbone. The reason the soft drink was on the floor: Ms. Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. Whatever happened to people being responsible for their own actions? 

Only two more so ease up on the scratching....


Kara Walton, of Claymont, Delaware sued the owner of a night club in a nearby city because she fell from the bathroom window to the floor, knocking out her two front teeth. Even though Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the ladies room window to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge, the jury said the night club had to pay her $12,000.... Oh yeah, plus dental expenses. Go figure. 

Ok. Here we go!!


This year's runaway First Place Stella Award winner was:  Mrs. Merv Grazinski, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, who purchased new 32-foot Winnebago motor home.  On her first trip home, from an OU football game, having driven on to the freeway, she set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go to the back of the Winnebago to make herself a sandwich.  Not surprisingly, the motor home left the freeway, crashed and overturned.  Also not surprisingly, Mrs. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not putting in the owner's manual that she couldn't actually leave the driver's seat while the cruise control was set. The Oklahoma jury awarded her, are you sitting down?
She got $1,750,000 PLUS a new motor home. Winnebago actually changed their manuals as a result of this suit, just in case Mrs. Grazinski has any relatives who might also buy a motor home.

Are we, as a society, getting more stupid....
or are more members of Parliament serving on juries these days?

LIVE well...LAUGH often...LOVE much