My personal opinion, they missed the mark by basing exclusions and exemptions on a persons occupation / vocation not their mental health or risk to society.

Thoughts?

What do you mean by exclusions/exemptions ... are you talking about professional shooters and primary producers being able to purchase semi-autos and pump actions but not Joe Blogs who has passed a psychiatric test? If that is what you are saying I would argue that the current laws allow recreational users to own any firearm that you reasonably need for hunting and for most types of target shooting. The only weapons that are precluded from general use are easily concealable pistols, pistols .4 calibre and above, automatic and semi-automatics, pump actions and .5 calibre rifles.

 

IMHO there is no reason for the public to own most of these weapons types as they are designed to very efficiently kill people, which is not a legitimate purpose for firearms ownership in Australia. I don't think that passing some psych test should allow people to own these things for fun either as I don't trust such tests to catch all the fruit loops. In any case requiring regular psych tests would be an unfair imposition on all those responsible gun owners out there, as it would subject them to an extra expense and to blackballing by any psychologist who has prejudices against gun ownership. Currently all licencees have to be clear of criminal and mental/physical health checks and a legitimate reason for ownership such as hunting or target shooting, with failure to declare an issue being a criminal offence. That is a sufficient protection IMHO. 

 

IMHO the laws are fine the way they are, we haven't had any big massacres since Port Arthur when we had them on a reasonalby regular basis before then so I think that the semi-auto ban at least is working. I generally don't want to see the laws any stricter or more liberal, apart from thinking that pump action and semi automatic rimfires should be legalised, as I can't see anybody conducting a massacre with a Marlin .22 model 60  and they are good for rabbit shooting.

My personal opinion, they missed the mark by basing exclusions and exemptions on a persons occupation / vocation not their mental health or risk to society.

Thoughts?

What do you mean by exclusions/exemptions ... are you talking about professional shooters and primary producers being able to purchase semi-autos and pump actions but not Joe Blogs who has passed a psychiatric test? If that is what you are saying I would argue that the current laws allow recreational users to own any firearm that you reasonably need for hunting and for most types of target shooting. The only weapons that are precluded from general use are easily concealable pistols, pistols .4 calibre and above, automatic and semi-automatics, pump actions and .5 calibre rifles.

 

IMHO there is no reason for the public to own most of these weapons types as they are designed to very efficiently kill people, which is not a legitimate purpose for firearms ownership in Australia. I don't think that passing some psych test should allow people to own these things for fun either as I don't trust such tests to catch all the fruit loops. In any case requiring regular psych tests would be an unfair imposition on all those responsible gun owners out there, as it would subject them to an extra expense and to blackballing by any psychologist who has prejudices against gun ownership. Currently all licencees have to be clear of criminal and mental/physical health checks and a legitimate reason for ownership such as hunting or target shooting, with failure to declare an issue being a criminal offence. That is a sufficient protection IMHO. 

 

IMHO the laws are fine the way they are, we haven't had any big massacres since Port Arthur when we had them on a reasonalby regular basis before then so I think that the semi-auto ban at least is working. I generally don't want to see the laws any stricter or more liberal, apart from thinking that pump action and semi automatic rimfires should be legalised, as I can't see anybody conducting a massacre with a Marlin .22 model 60  and they are good for rabbit shooting.

It is extremely hard to procure a decent home defence pistol in Australia, and it is often considered a highly suspicious act simply to have one, I know of enough people who have high powered rifles that could inflict more carnage, from a greater range ... I personally like guns of all flavours, and am an advocate for home defence, however I KNOW that our strictest psych tests/ criminal checks are not sufficient to weed out the psychos because i know of a REAL PSYCHO who is now an AFP officer... 

So i am rather torn on hand gun ownership... 

You aren't allowed to own a firearm in Australia for home defence, it is as simple as that. Like they said on the other thread, get a dog ... or alternatively keep sharp and/or heavy objects in strategically located places. My wine rack is near enough to the door that any intruder coming into my place is going to be slowed up by a flying bottle of shiraz, after which he is going to have to contend with me hurling the kitchen knives from the block behind the counter and then the block itself. It would suck to be him.

Incidentally, I once had a "home invasion" while I was at home after a night shift. It was a stinking hot Queensland summer day and I was lying asleep on the top of my sheets butt naked, during which time the intruder broke my lock and came in and stole my wallet. I slept through the whole thing. I reckon I would have lost more except that he probably came in and saw me wallowing like a walrus on the bed and ran away in disgust. LOL!

 

My issue is that professional shooters, primary producers etc still have access to these weapons.  Under the current laws, Martin Bryant, as a primary producer (he owned a farm) could have applied for a Category C licence in Tasmania without having to have any sort of mental health assessment at all!

 

Pump action shot guns are banned, because the NT police minister at the time was concerned that ejected cases could some how strike the rotor blade when being used from a helicopter.  Pump action rifles (including .308 / 7.62mm and .223 /5.56mm) which can be cycled faster than a semi-auto, are still legal (less restricted than hand guns in fact) and selling like gang busters to anyone with the appropriate licence.

 

Lever action rifles and shotguns are also still legal.

 

Pistol calibres above .38" / 9mm are banned, unless you are involved in metal silhouette shooting, accordingly .44" Special and .40 S&W are banned yet .357 Magnum, .357 SIG (a necked down high velocity .40 S&W) and .38 Super are all legal!

 

The laws as I see it leave a lot of room for improvement and in my honest opinion shooting is a privilege, not a right, so requiring anyone who wants to shoot to regularly prove their mental stability is perfectly acceptable.  If they require to shoot as part of their lively hood the expenses of proving their sanity should be covered by their employer and / or be tax deductible / rebated. 

 

It would save a lot of lives as any gun can kill and one the trigger has been squeezed it is too late to take that one fatal shot back, people have died from flesh wounds from .22" rifles.

haha, poor guy... Australian firearms laws are more or less a joke though because i know of farmers who have Uzis and AR-15s... which semi or no semi, ten clip or no ten clip are deemed 'Assault weapons', also incidentally home invasions are the most common form of crime where i live, im not saying that they always end up like horror movies but sometimes they do... so i would break the law and wound (aim low, i know unrealistic but i handle stress well) an aggressor than risk my family.    

While true that testing wont uncover all the cranks and nut jobs it will identify a significant percentage of them and may flag them to authorities as a danger to themselves and others before they flip out and hurt someone.

 

A relative suffering from mental illness had his firearms confiscated after his condition was reported by his ex-wife, she was out of harms way but was concerned what he might do to himself.  It proved to be justified and because he wasn't able to just pull the trigger he is alive today, as are his parents he planned to take with him.  The ex was a mental health professional and that is the only reason it didn't end up as another tragic murder suicide on the 6pm news.

 

p.s. I really enjoy shooting and think about getting back into it someday but at them moment I can't justify the time or expense.  Maybe I should kill two birds with one stone, shed some kilos and get back in uniform (part time) and back to AASAM.

My personal opinion, they missed the mark by basing exclusions and exemptions on a persons occupation / vocation not their mental health or risk to society.

Thoughts?

Oh I should read these topics more carefully... I wasn't even aware it was by  profession that seems... like an unfair discrimination... but not at all surprising considering most Australians see guns as an evil... so limiting the ownership to people likely to really really need them (our military if funding permits, ha-ha... *sigh*) is typical, and funny considering a-lot of farmers and pest control persons are pretty nuts... 

(cf APMC 1, Sch 1 PW Act)

..............

1   Any machine gun, sub-machine gun or other firearm capable of propelling projectiles in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger.

2   Any self-loading rimfire rifle (including any such firearm described elsewhere in this Schedule).

3   Any self-loading centre-fire rifle (including any such firearm described elsewhere in this Schedule).

4   Any self-loading or pump action shotgun (including any such firearm described elsewhere in this Schedule).

5   Any self-loading centre-fire rifle of a kind that is designed or adapted for military purposes.

6   Any self-loading shotgun of a kind that is designed or adapted for military purposes.

7   Any firearm that substantially duplicates in appearance (regardless of calibre or manner of operation) a firearm referred to in item 1, 5 or 6.

 ------------------------------------------

Read number 7. That rules out most firearms from being owned legally really.

 

Does a Lee Enfield look "substantially" like an M1 or M14? Does a Remington 700 look substantially like one?

 

In my opinion #7 needs to go. A straight pull AR-15 is no more dangerous then any other straight pull rifle as long as it isnt a modified semi-auto AR-15 is it?

Bryant would have had a very hard time getting any sort of weapon under the current licencing arrangements, let alone a semi-auto, as he was already known to police and mental health authorities as a violent nut. The police currently do criminal history and health record checks on anybody who is buying a gun and dealers are also tightly controlled now and you can't even get a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine any more.

I also simply don't buy the notion that a psychological test is going to be of any use on anybody who hasn't already been identified as problematic through the health or the law enforcement system. What precisely is the psychologist going to ask that the person can't just lie about? If people were really worried a better way to deal with the issue would be to require people to get a couple of references from people with clean criminal records who have known them for a number of years. Somebody with mental health problems would have a very difficult time obtaining those. I'm not that worried though.