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
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.
Post a Comment