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.