Owen Guns
Bulletin July Edition No 181, 2021
Last month I relayed to you Tony Perrett’s Question on Notice No. 478
Asked on 22 April 2021 he wasn’t happy with the response he received so he has
put forward another one.
Question on Notice No. 849 Asked on 17 June 2021 MR A PERRETT ASKED
MINISTER FOR POLICE AND CORRECTIVE SERVICES AND MINISTER FOR FIRE AND EMERGENCY
SERVICES (HON M RYAN)- QUESTION: With reference to guidelines by the Weapons
Licensing Branch for firearm licences and answer to Question on Notice No. 478
of 2021- Will the Minister (a) release the medical advice identifying medical
conditions which should be reportable, (b) advise when cancer was removed as a
reportable medical condition and (c) list by year from 2015 to 2020 the number
of (i) notifications to change of status due to a reportable medical condition
and (ii) reports made within the prescribed 14-day period?
ANSWER: I am advised by the Queensland Police Service (QPS) that
each application, or review of an existing weapons licence holder, is
considered carefully and individually. The Weapons Act 1990 (the Act) requires
that a decision maker must consider all the factors relevant to the person
being assessed. As each weapons licence holder’s circumstances are considered
carefully and individually, I am advised that it is not possible to
exhaustively list all the examples which may be reportable conditions under the
Act as such examples will be individual to the particular circumstances. I am
advised that a weapons licence holder is required under the Act to report any
change in their personal circumstances to police. Accordingly, the licence
holder should always discuss any changed circumstances with Weapons Licensing
and, if necessary, Weapons Licensing will seek further advice from the person’s
doctor or other medical professional. I am further advised, the list
of conditions on the application form for a weapons licence is intended to
ensure that an applicant can consider and declare any potentially relevant
condition. The list is not intended to be exhaustive. I am advised that as
applicants are assessed and reviewed on a case-by-case basis, QPS would need to
review each individual weapons licence holder’s file to collate the data
requested by the Member and further, that the QPS considers the Member’s
request to be an unjustifiable use of police resources.
Apart from dodging the questions like they are hot balls of lava
being tossed like volleyballs at him he also states there is no list of medical
conditions “it is not possible to exhaustively list all the examples which may
be reportable conditions under the Act”. So should we be telling weapons when
we get gout? Or migraine? Or kidney stones? Hon M Ryan can’t tell us. He then
goes on to say “Accordingly, the licence holder should always discuss any
changed circumstances with Weapons Licensing” I am taking this to mean they
want to hear about my sore neck and bladder infections otherwise they will take
my licence for “withholding” information. Because as he said “if
necessary, Weapons Licensing will seek further advice from the person’s doctor
or other medical professional.” I know they don’t care about our human rights
but I just wanted to see what constitutes doctors breaking their
confidentiality agreement. Guidelines for Doctors on Disclosing Medical Records
to Third Parties 2010 states the following…… The AMA believes that any
initiatives by third parties, including Government, to compel doctors to
disclose patients’ medical records must overwhelmingly be proven to serve the
public interest. The public benefit of such disclosure must outweigh the risk
that patients may not seek medical attention or may modify the personal
information they disclose to their doctor because of fears their privacy will
be breached.
‘The conversation could change your life when you lose your
guns’
The public benefit must outweigh the risk that patients may not seek
medical attention. If your livelihood depends on you having firearms I
know that you will think twice about seeking medical help right now. Then the
public benefit must be pretty big? What is that public benefit though, licensed
shooters are not posing as any threat to the community. If anything we have to
be perfect or we lose our licences but they continue to treat us as a threat
and as criminals.
Lastly he states “QPS considers the Member’s request to be an
unjustifiable use of police resources.” The real unjustifiable use of police
resources is trawling through licensed shooters health records every time they
approve a PTA or renew a license.
The Amnesty Joke
A Permanent Firearms Amnesty has been declared and it’s a bit of a joke.
Speaking from experience Amnesty or no Amnesty people have been able to hand in
firearms to be registered without issue. The legislation however stops it being
an Amnesty like it has been previously.
Weapons Act 1900 Section 168B – Amnesty for firearms and prescribed things in
particular circumstances
(2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply if the person— (a) takes the firearm or
prescribed thing to an approved licensed dealer under subsection (1)(a)(i); and
(b)does not provide the approved licensed dealer with the particulars as
required under section 73(a). (3) Section 73 does not apply to the approved
licensed dealer. (4) The approved licensed dealer must surrender the firearm or
prescribed thing to a police officer. Maximum penalty—10 penalty units.
If they don’t want to leave their details, then WE (at the gun shop)
have to take them to the Police Station where they will be destroyed. In
previous amnesty’s we as an approved dealer have been able to take firearms off
people without recording their details and then proceed with them how we see
fit (parts, saleable or scrap). The Joke is that our local police station has
been telling people they don’t want to do the paperwork so take it to the gun
shop. Then the citizen takes firearm to us, tells us they don’t want their
details recorded and then we have to take it to the police station, where the
police do the paperwork and destroy it anyway. So what is it all about? Why
have a ‘non-amnesty’? I can think of a couple of reasons 1. It’s good for P.R,
more and more people are becoming ‘antigun’ and it makes them feel like the
Australian Government is keeping them safe and is on their side eg. “Federal
government launches permanent gun amnesty to improve community safety”. 2.
Little old ladies think it’s finally safe to hand over the air rifle that has
been sitting in the shed rusting for the past 25 years. But it always has been
safe. Also every article I have read on the topic regurgitates the same quotes
and is meant to deliver the same message…
Assistant Minister for Community Safety Jason Wood said “An
unwanted firearm can also be deadly. If not properly stored, there is always a
risk that it could harm you or your loved ones.”
Diana Forrester, chair of Crime Stoppers Australia said “Sadly it is
the minority who use firearms to threaten and injure others, and it is
important to limit the opportunity for these criminals to access and use
firearms.”
So what I take from this is that unwanted firearms can jump out and
hurt you or your loved ones. An inanimate object can basically come to life and
harm people. Now I know this guy meant they could be stolen and fall into a
criminals hands but so can registered firearms. Then we have the chair of Crime
Stoppers saying that it is sad that it is the minority who use firearms for
evil. Does she want it to be the majority? These quotes can be found in
several articles about the amnesty and no one is actually thinking about what
they are saying especially the people making these remarks.
TNT/Fed Ex taking a hit at firearms
The firearms industry is taking another hit in Australia with TNT (a
FedEx owned company) refusing to deal with firearms in any capacity. An article
written by SIFA Shooting Industry Foundation Australia has outlined exactly
what is going on.
TNT has been the main provider of freight services to the Australian
firearms industry for decades and in return they have been loyally supported
with some industry accounts dating back 30+ years. Despite this, the Australian
firearms industry is again finding itself in a battle for essential business
services, as FedEx (who recently purchased TNT) have advised the entire
Australian firearms industry, that from the 9th of August they will cease to
provide crucial freight services, giving just weeks for an industry wide solution
to be found and prevent the industry from grinding to a halt. What is more
confusing for Australia’s major firearm industry stakeholders, is that it was
only in March this year that SIFA members were assured that long-term accounts
were NOT under threat and that FedEx / TNT would continue to provide them with
freight solutions. Yet only 3 months later, Matt Daniels Managing Director –
Sales for FedEx / TNT has advised Australian firearms businesses in a simple
form letter, that “As we progress with FedEx-TNT integration, we are continuing
to align TNT operations and transportation policies to FedEx Express. Effective
from 9 August 2021, we will cease the transportation of firearms, weaponry and
ammunition in both our Domestic and International networks”.
The reasons provided for the decision have also been called into
question, as publicly available policy from the parent company FedEx Express USA appears
to be at odds with Mr Daniels statement. In fact, FedEx Express USA will ship
firearms and ammunition and does not appear to have any intentions of stopping.
Expressly the FedEx policy states:
FedEx Express will transport and deliver firearms as defined by the
United States Gun Control Act of 1968, between areas served in the U.S., but
only between:
1. Licensed importers; licensed manufacturers; licensed dealers; licensed
collectors; law enforcement agencies of the U.S. or any department or agency thereof;
and law enforcement agencies of any state or any department, agency or
political subdivisions thereof.
So once again it appears that the Australian firearms industry is
subject to cancel culture! First it was the banks cancelling accounts and eftpos
services, then it was insurance companies refusing to insure firearms
businesses, now it is Australia’s largest and most secure provider of
nationwide freight solutions. This decision by FedEx / TNT could not come at a
worse time and will have a disastrous economic impact on the entire Australian
firearms industry, including many family retail businesses who are still
battling challenging trading conditions and are more reliant than ever on
freight services due to the effects of COVID-19. Ultimately the downturn this
decision will cause will cost Australian jobs at a time when they are needed
the most. The Australian firearms industry also plays a key role in supplying
the law enforcement and defence sectors with various products and solutions. As
foreign owned FedEx / TNT have made this decision without ANY industry
consultation and will be leaving the industry without an integrated national
supply chain, this has opened up potential ramifications in the supply of
products essential for Australia’s security and public safety. As a highly
regulated industry, estimated in 2018 to contribute $2.4 Billion and 19,000
jobs to the Australian economy, this decision has left many questions
unanswered. The most obvious being; how can a foreign owned company be permitted
to set up and become the major industry player, and then cancel essential
business services to an entire industry that services key government defence
and law enforcement contracts that are crucial to Australia’s sovereignty,
safety and security? This decision should rightfully incense all Australian
industries, businesses, and the general public as it is clear that a foreign
owned company can quite easily bring an entire Australian industry to a halt
with next to no notice, and no Government oversight.
There is bound to be repercussions the Defence Force won’t just
accept it. Its pure and simple discrimination and people will catch on. If they
are prepared to lose millions in business it provides an opening for another
company to step up and take the money.
Covid Fines and Power Trippers
Unless you have been living under a rock Covid 19 has been consuming our news,
politicians, health professionals and Australia as a whole. Some places are
back to wearing masks, some are in quarantine and everywhere you go you have to
sign in with a smart phone. So with all this brings new laws and new penalties
which people are getting stung with left, right and centre. We as a small
business retailer are having to do the Police’s job by making sure people sign
in to the ‘QR Code’. Any business not complying with the public health
direction could be liable to a fine of $13,345, with the owner facing up to six
months in jail. “Unfortunately, we know when we ask our retail workers to
enforce or to ask people to engage in these new protocols, it leads to customer
abuse and customer violence,” Ms Lamb said. She said making the app compulsory
had introduced a range of new teething issues for retailers and customers. So
they know that we will have some troubles implementing these laws but the
threat of getting fined will make us conform.
Residents in NSW heeding advice to get vaccinated as quickly as possible have
been left stunned after returning to their cars to find hefty parking fines at
the state’s mass vaccine hub in Sydney. Across the road from the centre on
Figtree Drive in Homebush, parked cars were each slapped with a $270 parking
ticket. The people claimed there was no signage outlining where they should
park.
Their seems to be some police that either don’t know the new laws on
Covid or just make it up as they go along. I almost don’t blame them I tried to
find some clear information on the offences, breaches, fines I came up with no
clear guidelines. I would like to know what risk I’m taking when I walk into a
public setting. Avi Yemini from Rebel News Fight the Fines has a website that
demonstrates how indistinguishable the right from the wrong is. He has roughly
50 videos or cases of people who have been found guilty without clear cause.
.
The ‘so called’ offenses these people commit are so subjective and
the fines are so exuberant it makes you not want to leave your house. One
instance a couple are stepping out of the shopping complex and remove their
masks, the cop runs over and starts the procedure for fining them for not
wearing a mask. They keep saying it will be on the shopping centre’s cameras
that they only removed their masks upon exiting the centre. The police officer
then says they can contest the fine if they feel need be but obviously that
will cost more than double the fines. So the website ‘fight the fines’ is
asking for donations to help people who are being bullied by the police to
contest the fines. Avi Yemini advises people that whenever you have interaction
with a police officer that you record the conversation to help the world
understand what happened. Not a bad idea. Definitely worth checking out his
website.
