Compromising On Gun Control. The Cake Story.

Why We Won't Compromise - The Cake Story

Maybe I'm the last one to know this story. My shooting buddy, Dan, couldn't believe I had never seen it. But, it's the perfect explanation to use when someone asks "Why won't you gun people at least compromise a little?"

When we originally posted this article, I said I didn’t know who had written it. Now I do. Credit goes to the Law Dog Files.  My apology to The Law Dog Files for not knowing, and my thanks for their contribution. You can see more at The Law Dog Files.

The Cake
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment.

Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one-eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise". ~ Tom

Tom Gresham
Author, outdoorsman, gun rights activist, and firearms enthusiast for more than five decades, Tom Gresham hosts Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, the first nationally-syndicated radio show about guns and the shooting sports, and is also the producer and co-host of the Guns & Gear, GunVenture and First Person Defender television series.

https://nationalshooting.org.au/blog/f/no-compromise-the-pro-gun-article-that-takes-the-cake

https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/?m=1

Petition To Have Muzzle Loading Pistols Removed From an H class licence ...

"To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales in Parliament assembled".

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

Parliament House
6 Macquarie Street,
Sydney, NSW 2000.

assembly@parliament.nsw.gov.au

The Petition of Keith H. Burgess.
President of the New England Colonial Living History Group.

Brings to the attention of the House the matter of firearms licensing in relation to muzzle-loading pistols (percussion locks excluded).

At this present time, working replica (replicas of original 17th and 18th century antique muzzle-loading pistols) muzzle-loading pistols of the lock types matchlock, wheellock, tinderlock, doglock, snaphance and flintlock can only be owned by a person possessing a category H gun licence, and these pistols can only be legally fired on a registered gun range. Antique muzzle-loading pistols of the same type may be owned, but not used/fired without the owner possessing an H class licence. This requirement excludes the use of these antiques & antique replicas for Living History and Historical Re-enactment purposes. It also excludes the use of these antique replicas for use as a back-up safety for muzzle-loader hunters hunting on private property who are hunting with single shot muzzle-loading rifles or smoothbores.

Historical Re-enactment groups and Living History organisations have re-enactment rules which preclude the use of live ammunition and preclude the use of a ramrod during any and all re-enactment displays. There is also a permit requirement; this permit is for historical re-enactment organisations wishing to conduct an historical re-enactment event involving the possession and use of firearms by participants. Clause 61 - Firearms Regulation 2006.

Replicas of muzzle-loading pistols of the lock types mentioned are single shot (though some flintlocks can have two barrels), slow to load and require a good deal of knowledge and training to ensure the workability of this type of gun. Ignition even when used by a competent person can not be guaranteed. Therefore these muzzle-loading guns are not suitable for criminal use.

We fully understand the purpose of the H class licence requirements, but these primitive muzzle-loading pistols are not the same as modern breech-loaders, revolvers or semi-automatics. If a criminal wishes to use a concealable gun to commit a crime, they can simply cut down a modern breech-loading rifle or shotgun.

At present anyone can purchase an antique muzzle-loading pistol without the need to apply for a permit to purchase, a licence or registration. However, they cannot be legally fired/used unless the owner posesses an H class licence. These replica muzzle-loading pistols are no different from the antiques, their workings, capabilities & disabilities are exactly the same.

The undersigned petitioners therefore ask the Legislative Assembly to change the licensing requirement for these replica antique & antique muzzle-loading pistols (percussion locks excluded) from the present category H class licence to the category B class licence. Alternately we respectfully request that these muzzle-loading pistols be placed on a new less restrictive class of firearms licence , allowing these guns to be used with no more restrictions than are presently placed on muzzle-loading long arms.

Sincerely,

Keith H. Burgess.

Petition Here:
https://www.change.org/p/to-the-honourable-the-speaker-and-members-of-the-legislative-assembly-of-new-south-wales-in-parliam-muzzle-loading-pistols-to-be-placed-on-a-less-restrictive-licence/share_for_starters?just_created=true

Reclassification Of Firearms In Australia!

One of our legal minds has been looking at the ‘appearance’ provisions of the Victorian Firearms Act 1996.

The offending provisions are found in sections 3A and 3B of the Act which give the Chief Commissioner broad powers to either temporarily or permanently recategorise Cat A or B firearms on the basis of appearance. 

In fact, if you read what he has to say carefully, you’ll see it’s worse than that. The Chief Commissioner can recategorise firearms for reasons which go beyond appearance – or for no reason at all.

In his words, sections 3A and 3B are ‘really good examples’ of delegated legislative authority gone wrong, and their continued operation presents issues surrounding natural justice and procedural fairness for licence holders.  Here are some key points regarding their operation:

Section 3A

Section 3A provides the Chief Commissioner the power to temporarily declare a firearm to be Category D or E for a period not exceeding 12 months. There is no necessary link to a firearm’s appearance, operation or other characteristics.

The only criteria for a temporary declaration is that it be validly declared by the Chief Commissioner in an instrument.  The Act provides no clarification of what type of ‘instrument’ is required or its form; however, in practice the declarations have been published in the Victorian Government Gazette in a specific format.

The Chief Commissioner does not need the Minister’s express approval to exercise this power; however, it must be exercised in ‘consultation’ with the Minister.

The Chief Commissioner has a positive obligation to publish the declaration ‘as soon as practicable after the declaration is made’; however, the declaration is in effect immediately—prior to publication, and prior to the public being able to see how the law has changed.

Section 3A(3) states the declaration remains in place unless revoked by the Chief Commissioner or their expiration at 12 months. Neither in the Act nor in the second reading speech for the Firearms Amendment Act 2007 (VIC) (which inserted s 3A) is the process for parliamentary scrutiny of a declaration under s 3A outlined. The takeaway is the Chief Commissioner’s power is not expressly limited by either the Act or the Minister and it should be.

Section 3A(6) gives the Chief Commissioner powers to use his declaration to override regulations made by the Minister under the powers conferred at s 191 of the Act. This is remarkable because it means an unelected statutory officer has the power to override a Minister accountable to the Victorian Parliament, even if the Minister drafted regulations permitting a specific type of firearm affected by the Chief Commissioner’s declaration. This is an area that could be explored and challenged.

The defence provided by s 3A(7) is a defence rather than a bar on prosecution. In practical terms this means police may (unwisely) charge a person with an offence and use the process as punishment.

Finally, the administrative review options available to affected shooters are very narrow. The Chief Commissioner’s decision would be difficult to challenge in a merits based review as his power is broad and can be arbitrarily exercised against any type of firearm without the requirement for further justification. As long as the procedure is followed there is little that can be viably challenged in either a tribunal or court.

Section 3B
Section 3B is a good example of where the police have pursued a long term goal in terms of restricting access to firearms for Victorian shooters.

Section 3A was inserted into the Act in 2007, only for Victoria Police to seek out permanent powers with s 3B in 2008. Section 3B differs from s 3A in its permanency, technicality, and the legal restrictions placed on the Chief Commissioner when making a declaration.

Section 3B gives the Chief Commissioner the power to permanently recategorise firearms if he is ‘satisfied’ it is ‘designed or adapted for military purposes, or substantially duplicates a firearm of that type in design, function and appearance’.

‘Satisfied’ opens the Chief Commissioner’s decision up to review in a way s 3A lacks. It gives him a positive duty to consider information and his decision. ‘Designed or adapted for military purposes’ is the key term and it has not yet been satisfactorily clarified by a court. The latter terms ‘substantially duplicates’ and ‘design, function and appearance’ hinge on the earlier ‘military purposes’ definition.

Section 3B(1) is really an just an appearance based law that has technical issues from a drafting perspective but gives the police the powers they want—to permanently recategorise any firearm they do not want Victorian shooters to access.

In terms of its operation, the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic) is structured on the objective criteria of a firearm’s characteristics based on its calibre, cyclical operation, or ammunition capacity. A firearm is categorised based on whether it is rimfire or centrefire, bolt action or semi-automatic, or holds a particular number of rounds, etc. This is the basis for ‘categories’ of firearms and the licences that permit shooters to hold and use such firearms.

Section 3B(1), however, provides the Chief Commissioner the power to alter the law via delegated legislative authority using the ‘military purposes’ basis and a declaration. This ‘military purposes’ basis is at face value objective: an exhaustive list of firearms ‘military firearms’ could theoretically be produced. However, the terms ‘designed or adapted for military purposes’, ‘substantially duplicates’ and ‘design, function and appearance’ create a subjective test based on whether the Chief Commissioner is ‘satisfied’ a firearm can fall into this category. There is no necessary link to its calibre, cyclical operation or even appearance.

The Chief Commissioner has a duty to choose which category ‘most closely resembles’ the applicable firearm when recategorising through declarations. This does not mean the category need be appropriate, only the closest.

Section 3B does not have the same issue with ex post facto laws as s 3A. A declaration only comes into effect the day it is published or at a latter point listed in the declaration. This removes some of the compliance difficulties for those holding the applicable firearm.

Appealing a decision to reclassify

The criteria listed above provide an affected shooter the ability to challenge the Chief Commissioner’s decision and declaration under s 3B through administrative review in a way that s 3A lacks. The exercise of power under s 3B is vulnerable if the Chief Commissioner doesn’t arrive at a decision with a process and records of that process. In light of the recent examples of Victoria Police’s response to requests for information surrounding their decisions (including the ongoing CFCV VCAT proceedings), an affected party could face a substantial challenge in obtaining the relevant documents.

If an affected party challenged a declaration under s 3B and sought specific guidance from a court or tribunal on the interpretation of ‘designed or adapted for military purposes’, ‘substantially duplicates’ and ‘design, function and appearance’, the Chief Commissioner’s powers would probably be narrowed, but not to the extent it would deprived him of broad power to recategorise firearms under s 3B.

The Chief Commissioner would almost certainly retain the power to recategorise both milsurp rifles (including antique examples) and the range of new sporting rifles produced with picatinny rails, pistol grips or other features disliked by some.

A law which is bad in principle

Licencing laws based on subjective criteria are bad in principle and worse in operation. They lack the certainty required for shooters to know the boundaries of the law lay, and in this example provide Victoria Police with inappropriate powers.

Section 3B is so broad in its application it may permanently capture almost any firearm available in Victoria. From fighter pilots using shotguns to shoot clays to understand leading targets, to bolt action 22s being used by others for survival training, the Chief Commissioner can call upon obscure examples of military use to enliven his power.

To date the Chief Commissioner has refrained from recategorising, for example, Snider-Enfield .577 rifles as Category E firearms; however, this only indicates that Victoria Police have focussed on the appearance of firearms as justification for use of these powers.

They should be repealed

For Victorian shooters if the issues regarding the operation of sections 3A and 3B are narrowed, it’s about two things.

First, s 3A gives the Chief Commissioner power that in practice can be exercised arbitrarily and with little opportunity for legal review or democratic scrutiny.

Section 3A should be repealed outright.

Secondly, s 3B is centred on the Chief Commissioner’s use of an unreasonably broad criteria that is subjectively interpreted and applied. Unlike the Firearms Act 1996, this power stands in contrast to the objective criteria of categorising a firearm’s characteristics based on its calibre, cyclical operation, or ammunition capacity.

It too should be repealed.

If a power is necessary to recategorise particular firearms then it should only be conferred upon the Minister and subject to parliamentary scrutiny or disallowance.

Most Victorian shooters will agree that appearance or other subjective criteria should not be used to de facto ban firearms that are otherwise identical to those available under Category A and Category B.

http://www.firearmscouncil.org.au/index.php/2017/09/12/the-legal-view-of-our-appearance-laws/?platform=hootsuite

More Firearms Restrictions! Further Licensing Issues – Police Policy

Property Letters

We are encountering issues regarding property letter sizes.  Specifically, a change in policy within Police Licensing Services (PLS) on what are adequate property sizes for certain calibre firearms.  A client recently had a firearms license application refused for a shotgun on 6 acres.

The PLS maintain they have a duty of care and responsibility to ensure license applicants have access to a property to safely shoot a firearm on.  Property size has a large part to do with this.  They do this by applying arbitrary rules, that do not exist in legislation, to decide whether or not a certain license application should be granted.  PLS will not officially release these figures.  Subsequently, acceptable property sizes change periodically without consultation with the industry or even a warning.

These changes make it particularly hard for firearm dealers to advise clients on suitable firearms for their requirements.  While a certain caliber would be needed to humanely kill certain pests or to engage in a certain style of recreational shooting, there is no certainty that PLS will approve that caliber.  This results in license applications being refused, when similar applications were granted only weeks prior.  Firearm Dealers and license applicants lose money and considerable time is needlessly wasted.  The Police Licensing Services claim to assess applications individually and consider other factors – we do not accept this.  Our experience is that little other than property size is considered by assessors in the application process.  License applicants are usually forced to ‘fight’ to get applications approved, often explaining relatively simple realities of pest eradication to assessors with seemingly little training.

History of Application Requirements

Prior to firearm licensing being centralized in 2009, firearm applications for shotguns and .22 long rifle chambered firearms would be approved on 5 acres regularly, and rightly so.  When used sensibly it is entirely possible to maintain the safety requirements that the Firearms Act of Western Australia contains.

This is because, prior to 2009, the topography of the property was considered by the local police who were in charge of processing the license.  When judging whether a certain calibre is safe to use on a certain property, topography is more important than size.

Topography is difficult for central licensing to judge without inspection.

As such, topography has taken a back seat and now land size is the primary attribute judged.  Land size is supplied to Police Licensing Services on a firearm license application.

Just because topography is more difficult to judge than size does not mean it is any less important than when firearm licensing was done at a local Police level.

Police Licensing Services have decided to increase these property size requirements.  This isn’t in response to any particular event; no one has accidently been killed and no property has been damaged.  There are no new threats.  There has been no introduction of new technology.  Ammunition isn’t more powerful than it used to be, nor has there been a reduction in international standard regarding sizing or area.

What has changed?

We have been able to gauge required acreage from refused applications and from what little information we can garner from Police Firearms Licensing.  The required property size to license a shotgun is now double that of what it used to be.  The required acreage for a 22 magnum has gone from 25 acres to 100 acres and a 22 long rifle from 5 acres to 25 acres.  Each of these changes represents a large increase on what was previously acceptable.

These requirements do not take into consideration the many other issues regarding safe firearm use.  Rather, they are just the application of a policy that considers the most important factor the one that is easiest to obtain.  A major factor, commonly ignored, is the requirement for firearm license holders to ensure vermin is dispatched humanely.  Placing onerous property size restrictions on license applications means that license holders are required to attempt to destroy vermin with firearms that are underpowered – they are forced to destroy vermin inhumanely.

Politics and the Law Reform Commission Review

On 18 November 2015, the Hon. Rick Mazza asked several questions regarding property letters and Police Licensing Services’ policy.  The response he received from the Attorney General, the Hon. Michael Mischin, representing the Police Minister in the Upper House, contained only two pieces of useful information.  Firstly, an allegation that firearm license applicants were modifying the property letter template provided on the Police website to read ‘Owner/Manager’.  This is untrue. I still possess the original document from PLS (listing the author of the document as being an employee of Police Licensing Services) which has the wording “Owner/Manager”.  Second, there was an assurance that “No changes to policy will be made until the finalisation of the Law Reform Commission review.”.  The Hon. Michael Mischin has either been poorly briefed or deliberately deceitful.

The review was only out a few weeks and the Police decided the change their internal policy regarding property sizes.   It is reasonable to assume that the recommendations contained within the Law Reform Commission Review would be considered before making any policy changes.

The Law Reform Commission states;

“The Commission does not wish to overemphasize the relevance of the size of the land; there are other equally important factors such as the necessity of a certain calibre firearm to humanely kill certain size vermin”

Recommendation 56 .3 of the Law Reform Review, regarding property letters, states;

“The size of the property should not carry greater weight than any other consideration when determining the reasonable justification for a particular firearm”

If the Police have read the Law Reform Commission review, not only have they entirely disregarded this entire section, but gone further to enforce even stricter conditions than already exist.  Under the latest changes, if a license holder has a property smaller than 25 acres, they are required to destroy rabbits using one of two methods;

 chasing vermin with shotguns and attempting to shoot them from a moving vehicle – a practice condemned in the National Firearms Safety Code, or

 attempt to destroy them with an air rifle.

There is an argument that some powerful air rifles are adequate to destroy rabbits.  These air rifles fire relatively heavy projectiles – some almost as heavy as a 22 long rifle projectile, at speeds well over the speed of sound.  There is no safety benefit in forcing property owners to use an air rifle which rivals a 22 long rifle in power whilst not allowing them to simply use a 22 long rifle chambered firearm.

Under the new property requirements, any orchardist with a property size smaller than 10 acres is forced to either inhumanely destroy kangaroos, face financial ruin, or falsify their firearm application by stating they want to shoot on another property.  How is this in the public interest?

How the Requirements are Calculated

It is no coincidence that the Police Licensing Services have arrived at nice round figures such as 10 acres, 25 acres, 100 acres, 500 acres, 1000acres and 2000 acres for certain calibres.  Considering the danger area of certain cartridges, angles of error that are likely to occur, likelihood of ricochet and ricochet angles, templating areas for certain calibres and other factors, it would be impossible to arrive at these figures with any formulated approach.  The Police are basing their policy on arbitrary figures they have invented with no empirical base or scientific backing.  This is further reinforced by the fact that they will not release the methodology by which they have arrived at these figures.

These restrictions do nothing to protect the interests of small property or recreational shooters.  Nor do they increase public safety. The PLS priority is one of self-interest, dissolving themselves of blame in the event someone breaks the law.  This attitude dominates all other factors of licensing.

In enforcing such strict conditions of licensing, PLS reveal their mistrust for firearm license holders.  Other examples of PLS mistrust include;

The restriction of licensing firearms the Police deem ‘Category D in appearance’ (Reg. 26B) because they assume their owners will go armed in public to scare people.

The restrictions placed upon firearms chambered for the 338 Lapua cartridge, as the assumption was their owners would try and shoot people from long distances.

The restrictions placed upon air rifles with barrel shrouds, as their noise suppressing nature would somehow transform their owners into assassins.

Police mistrust for courier companies transporting firearms, resulting in no firearms being able to be transported around Western Australia without PLS approval.

License holders being required to license every spare barrel for their firearms, the assumption being that license holders would shoot someone and the projectiles needed to be tracked back to them and their barrel.

The restriction on the sale of firearm parts, because you are assumed to be using those parts to piece together an unlicensed firearm.

Requirements to license objects that do not fall under the description of a firearm as if they were a firearm, such as bolt guns. People cannot be trusted with them.

Laws governing the importation and licensing of firearms in other states are ignored. Interstate licenses are not recognized in Western Australia because the Western Australia PLS do not trust anyone, including other licensing authorities.

Western Australia Police Licensing Services must be enforcing such hard conditions because they have serious doubt whether firearm license holders have the required skill, knowledge or experience to be trusted to not break the law.  These points can be mitigated with training, yet bizarrely, PLS oppose practical firearms training.

The PLS submission to the law reform commission reads;

“Comprehensive training for a person who wants to join a club is a practical idea, but should not hinder the primary producer and/or the license holder who wants to recreational hunt and shoot.  By enforcing training provided by an approved club or organization would add costs to the applicant for a recreational hunting license and could force quasi membership.”

The PLS make these assertions, but give no explanation as to why club members are deemed able to absorb the additional costs and other firearm license applicants, such recreational shooters and primary producers, cannot.   The PLS seem concerned with the economic cost to the firearm applicant, yet WA licensing fees are many times higher than any other licensing authority in the country.  Meeting safety requirements should never an economic consideration – regardless of whether it is a driver’s license, forklift ticket or skipper (boat) ticket.  If someone wants a certain license, they will meet the fiscal requirements.  Additional cost of safety training is unlikely to ever be so high as to deter anyone from applying for a firearm license.

To surmise

The Police oppose safety training because they don’t want the extra work of certifying training programs and organisations.  They are not interested in public safety or animal welfare, they are only interested in keeping their work load low protecting themselves from criticism and litigation.

Zaine Beaton

Manager

Beaton Firearms

 http://www.beatonfirearms.com.au/post_blog/further-licensing-issues-police-policy/

Thoughts For The Week By Ron Owen of Owen Guns Australia.

Thoughts For The Week.
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

Last year, I mentioned that Almanacs were traditionally obtained for a New Year and predicted future annual events, foretelling tides, by the movement of the moon and stars, they also used the stars prophesying peoples horoscopes. In centuries gone by they were written by Old Moore, or Poor Richard, Pseudonym for Benjamin Franklin and some were ascribed to Father Time himself.  I’m not that old, but I did foretell in the 1980’s the coming tyranny of obscene gun laws and won the reputation as the Doomsayer of the firearm industry, until in 1996 it unfortunately all came true. For the preceding 16 years I wrote articles in Lock, Stock and Barrel warning, alerting, organising, trying to mobilise opposition to the forays from UN Civilian Disarmament, Academics such as Prof Paul Wilson (creep)and Rebecca Peters (creep ) and the media all funded by Sorus’ foundations. So for less than a penny here is Ron Owen’s Almanac for 2017.

Economic

Well first the bad news, as the new President Trump does the correct thing for America and tear’s up the international trade agreements, the USA economy and markets will gain considerably and as he spends more on defence, again their economy will grow, so to will the US dollar but in doing so will force the Australian dollar down.  Australia needs to follow suit to boost our economy.  Our pudding headed bunch of internationalist leaders, still think that a low Australian dollar is good for our economy, and will keep importing cheap labour from abroad and buying all manufactured goods off shore, which in turn drives our dollar down further and our international debt  grows immensely, again sending our credit rating and dollar into the deep south. As we import all our shooting equipment and accessories which have to be paid in foreign exchange rates, prices will continue to increase. Only when our dopy leaders read a history book and see how our leaders of a 100 years ago such as Henry Parkes and Good Iron Mac, (William McMillen) established a workable solution to further our economy without interfering in the exchange rate will they understand.  COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT   “Exclusive power over customs, excise, and bounties. Sub Section 90. On the imposition of uniform duties of customs the power of the Parliament to impose duties of customs and of excise, and to grant bounties on the production or export of goods, shall become exclusive.”

This economic philosophy was carried through by PM Andrew Fisher (Member for Gympie) and King Of Mally MP who founded the Commonwealth Bank Act of 1912 this made the Commonwealth Bank a bank of credit issue. This was very successful as it saved the Federal government from borrowing from the international owned banks and paying all revenue off the interest bill which is the way it works today. The Commonwealth Bank was gutted by the Bruce Page government in the early 1920s and we have been fleeced by the Big banks ever since. They even own the Commonwealth Bank now. Still the Australian governments of the 1920s till the 1960s built Australia’s industry and standard of living to be one of the highest in the world by imposing tariffs on imports and paying the revenue from that to exporters. That took the foreign exchange problem out of the equation. Our exporters could afford to supply the best prices in the world, and the high tariffs protected home industry and encouraged companies such as Ford, General Motors, General Electric, Lysaght, and Kraft to locate in Australia and export to Asia from here. Until, that is regained our economy will continue to slide into a third world quarry.

Defence, Non Existent.

Most of us who are reading and thinking people, are aware that our northern neighbours are countries that need our natural resources, yet do not need our small western population. Our defence forces are weak, almost non-existent, even though our dopy politicians throw billions of our taxpayer dollars into importing high price defence equipment which is sometimes obsolete by the time we get it. Common-sense should tell us that countries that spend big on defence research and development are going to make sure that their country has the latest and greatest and overseas sales to places like Australia are to keep the productions and factories running with second rate products. If Australia experiences a problem, because we have no quantity of ships or planes our small continent would be isolated and we could not get replacements, ammunition, or spare parts to continue. At any time the tiny island of Singapore could invade us and hold us, they might be the best option as they would be less likely to eliminates us all, as some of our other Northern neighbours would surely do.

Australia sleeps again, and again it will be left up to the little guys to save us from the mistakes of our sleeping leaders.

Our Industry.
This year again, there will be an increasing amount of Australians (more and more ladies) will buy hunting rifles, shotguns and target rifle without mentioning the real reason for their new interest in the sport of shooting, survival and defending their families. They will all enjoy our shooting sports, but all will want to keep their firearms close by. This phenomena has to be encouraged, without exposing the reason as again these new shooters increase our numbers. When they appreciate the impositions we live under, this will bring even more power to our cause, not only in our voting power but in forming networks to shape the future. We will have to sustain some small losses to win a victory, but this year as international troubles increase so to will our numbers increase, we are in the third final stage of our campaign to win back our rights. In 2016 the worm turned in the world, populations have discovered that the mainstream media has been lying to them for years, internet media now has greater credibility than mainstream, internet media is quicker and has the eyes on the spot, the mainstream takes the government, or Sorus funded approach and then quickly has to correct and make excuses. This will continue as the establishment has had the media power for so long that they have not yet accepted the plain fact that its credibility is blown. We have seen its destructive effects on One Nation, on the firearm industry, on Brexit and the latest example on Trump. It’s not working and this coming year the success of the past will form the foundation of the future. Youtube, Wikki leaks, Facebook Twitter will be our victory battle ground.

Protest Against G Soros intervention in Macedonia.

The Worm Has Turned.
The whole western world is currently in peaceful revolt.  2017 will be the end of one world and the birth of another, last year was the year for the awakening of the people, this year will see the return of nation states. Since our enemies have only one advantage, mainstream media power and their shortcomings are numbered and we have only one disadvantage no mainstream media outlets and our only advantage is power in numbers, in the past this has resulted in putting the Anti Gun people in a dominating position, now we know that the battle ground has to be fought with the internet media tools, or we will always be in this inferior position of Subjugation (Slavery by another name).  We have to be involved, ‘If we do nothing, we may well lose everything.’

On the world front after President Trump tears up the Trade agreements which have betrayed the western world since they were duped into the Lima Agreement. The UN having lost Israel and hopefully soon the USA, (Please read my recent article on the United Nations http://www.foaa.com.au/general/ ) then followed by Australia and every other free thinking western nation. Even though China has claimed an area as large as the Japanese Empire’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere of 1938 we can only hope that it does not have Japans willingness to shed millions of lives to enforce it. The boundary encompasses all of the major shipping lanes in the Asia Pacific and its southern border takes in the offshore oil reserves of Brunei. If President Trump really wants to clip China’s feathers and defend the interests of the Philippines that might be why he is so obvious in holding out the olive branch to Mr Putin as even Trump would not want to go to war with both of them at once. Of course we in Australia might serve as a large US non floating aircraft carrier like in WWII, but as our reduced capacity to defend ourselves makes us in-effectual, we may end up being the meat in the sandwich. Either the Chinese, or the Americans will drive their tanks here, or make it their battleground as no country would want to have it out in their own country. If we have a problem with China, besides having no Australian factories making toilet paper, which is another reason why Bibles would sell at a premium, China makes our army uniforms and our vehicles would come to a standstill with no car parts. ADI (Australia Defence Industries, owned by ‘Thales’ a French company) annual ammunition production would be shot away on the first day.  Current US army figures assess 300,000 rounds of .223 ammunition for each enemy killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Even four government factories in the USA could not cope and the US Army had to order from IMI Israeli Military Industries. The message there is to keep a good stock of ammunition, and always have the means of reloading at hand. As one of Australia’s 2 million firearm owners you are the ‘Citizen Army’ Australia’s only deterrent and real hope.

Queensland.
On the State and National front its not as gloomy, due to 22 % of voters at last years Federal Election voting against the Major Parties, the Orange By Election when the Shooters Party took a Blue Ribbon seat off the National Party, Brexit Results, Trump Results have caused large cracks to appear in the hearts of the major parties. Nationals senators Bridget McKenzie and John Williams voted with Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm in an attempt to overturn the Turnbull government’s import ban on the Adler lever action shotgun.  Cabinet ministers Fiona Nash, Matt Canavan and Nigel Scullion abstained from the vote, along with backbencher Barry O’Sullivan.

Labour Police Minister Bill Byrne was sacked because he lost the first parliamentary vote on more restrictive changes to the Weapons Act Regulations. This was ground breaking as for twenty years Nationals and Liberals have voted with Labour to pile on further impositions on law abiding firearm owners.  With the Katter Party’s two votes, Labour lost the resolution, the first time in living memory that a Queensland government lost. At the COAG meeting the National Firearm Agreement decided to re-categorise Lever Action shotguns from Category A to Category B for five shots and to category C for seven shots.  I believe that this regulation change to the Weapons Regulations (Categories) which will come up early in 2017 will also fail. If LNP with Katter’s Party, and the One Nation member vote against it, (which Katter’s party have announced and LNP seem to agree) then Labour will lose another resolution in the house and to support the COAG and the National Firearm Agreement (which is supposed to be uniform in every state, or fails) the Labour Premier Palaszczuk will have to go to the Governor and call an election. This alone should ensure that the LNP opposes the Lever Action re categorisation, but if its does not and instead it votes with Labour on this subject, then the firearm owners, incensed by this repeated betrayal will walk away in droves from the LNP into the welcoming arms of One Nation. Shooters are fully aware that if it is allowed to stand, that without any justification the government can change the category of lever action rifles from Category A to category C then there is no bottom, no promise after struggling to get a licence, struggling to get a Permit To Acquire, having to suffer every indignant imposition and that’s not enough to be left alone, is the straw that will break the camel back.

At present Labour could not win a chook raffle, but at the coming Queensland election, One Nation or a coalition of One Nation and LNP and Katter party will govern this state. Labour will shortly make and offer to the Shooting Associations a proposal to try and get them to support the Category change on the hope that this will smooth the LNP to vote with them. The deal will be that everyone with a registered 5 shot lever action shotgun will be awarded a new licence which will include a Category ‘B’ and everyone with a 7 shot lever action will be given a licence which will include a “C” so all will be able to keep them.  Unfortunately they will be unable to sell them, or dispose of them and will not be able to pass them on to their family even when they die.  Only a dealer will be able to acquire them, but would be unable to resell them, making them worthless.  That has always been referred to as a Grandfather Act and leaves the law abiding shooter with property that he can shoot but has lost all its value. All this is an unwanted precedent which they can repeat whenever the urge suits COAG or any of its member states so it must be opposed.

So too is his Un-informed Gun Laws. Its take 20 year but I hope he still lives to see them thrown out.

My best prophecy for 2017 is that One Nation will take out that line in its current policy,  “Current gun laws are adequate and should remain unchanged.”
If it does not it will not get very far as it traditionally relies on shooters to man booths and hand out for them on election day. This will force the LNP in Queensland and the Nationals in NSW and Victoria to change its firearm policy and begin the walk back to freedom. Still a long way off, but due to our increased number of voters and internet media, the ‘Writing is truly on the Wall’ we are ‘defiantly’ in phase three.

To give an example of how to get involved please write to your local papers, letter to the editor, ask candidate either individually or separately  ‘how they will represent the law abiding firearm owners’, ask them in person or on face-book, or email or snail mail. If the 10,000 shooters who received this email all contacted one candidate and just told them that ‘without some evidence of them supporting shooters, they and their families will not vote for them’, that would be enough to change the direction of the politicians. Trouble is, just a few of us have to carry the burden and work harder for those who do nothing, but there again when we win, even though we might never murmur a word we know that the glory belongs to those who worked for it.

Please don’t take this final third stage of our prolonged war, too lightly as this part might be the hardest part, as when we get them all elected and in power, we then have to ensure that they carry out the instructions of those whom they represent and not betray us like the Liberal and National Party did in 1996. Remember Lots of Little Victories lead to Giant Victories.

——————-

There is no Spring without Winter, without Mistakes there is no Learning. There is no Life without Death, without Doubts there is no Faith. There is no Peace without War, without Fear there is no Courage. For without Mistakes, Doubts and Fears there are no pathways to Wisdom.

Ron Owen.
owenguns@spiderweb.com.au

Stop the vilification and hate speech by Gun Control Australia. Please Sign This Petition.

https://www.change.org/p/australian-human-rights-commission-stop-the-vilification-and-hate-speech-by-gun-control-australia?recruiter=29128190&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink