Could a Aussie tell us how your Government confiscated your guns?

[clemsonfor]

As a local effected by the gun buy back, I will give my recollection though it is fading after 25+ years.

I have a small farm so had a Ruger 10/20 and an air rifle. After the Port arthur incident the whole licensing issue was tightened and the buy back instigated. Prior to the event each state had its own regulations. West Australia (my home) had the strictest. Each firearm is registered to a person to use. I cannot lent my rifle to another licensed person unless the particular rifle is listed on their license. It is slightly different for farmers as the farmer can let a worker use the rifle for farm purposes.

The other states had much less strict rules that allowed that a person simply got a shooters license and could hold and use what ever they wanted. This meant that no one knew what firearms where around.

After the incident, the rules were unified to those like WA with an addition that firearms needed to be stored in a safe.

At the same time there was a buyback scheme put in place, This allowed anyone to hand in any type of firearm, no questions asked. I think the amount was fixed (I think there may have been a claim for more for a more valuable firearm). There were no doors kicked in. The classes of licenses allowed different types of firearm. Automatics are forbidden. Semi automatics are permitted for primary industry purposes. If you had a semi auto and no farm, you had to hand it in.

It is still possible to get a license as long as you have somewhere that you allowed to shoot on. Firearm licenses are not issued for self defence purposes.

Weedpharma

this is scary, very scary!!!!!

 

[aczlan]

(the "government" is not confiscating guns in the US, Canada or Australia...WHERE do people come up with that stuff)

What would you call passing a law saying that you have to surrender any guns that meet certain criteria (semi-rifle, semi-auto shotgun or pump action shotgun)? Yes the government paid them something for the guns, but it wasn't voluntary.

Whatever, getting back to my query why do we (enthusiastic gun owners, me included, and the NRA) need to group the right to bear arms in the same category as the right to have 20 plus shot magazines (no way a hunter needs such, or for self defense unless you can't hit the broad side of a barn) or mandatory background checks for criminal/mental record before gun purchases at any venue, including a private sale.

Personally, I am in favor of all gun transfers going through a FFL for a background check.
On large magazines, there are several situations where they can be useful. Look at my previous posts in this thread. I have posted a half dozen reasons recently.

The 332 to 206 electoral college vote this past election, for a president whose first term was far less than a rousing success and with unemployment still high, should serve as a wake-up call to aging, caucasian (given posted pictures), suburban/rural males, that predominate on TBN, like me for instance.

Popular vote was 47.8% to 50.6%. Not as big of a gap as the electoral college result would lead you to believe.

Yeah, I know, some feel that with no 100 round magazines pretty soon "the government" will want our 22s - nope, I don't buy it.

Well, under the new bill that they are trying to pass here in NY (S202-2013) a Ruger 10/22 (such as Rugerｮ 10/22ｮ Tactical Autoloading Rifle Models would be banned if you changed the stock to one like this one. Why? It has a pistol grip, a extendable stock and a grip around the barrel. Same action, same magazines, just a different stock.

Aaron Z

 

[daugen]

Oops... Just saw you debunked it too...

I stand properly and humbly debunked.
Never been debunked before...:dance1:

 

[clemsonfor]

Could you gun advocates clarify something for me?

To my understanding, there is nowhere else in the civilized world than the US that has such lax and open-ended gun (un)regulation as "permitted" by your beloved 2nd Amendment and at the same time there is nowhere else in the civilized world than the US that has mass shootings that happen in the frequency that they do in the US?

At some point, shouldn't reason prevail over the "my stick is bigger than your stick"?

Living in Canada, I have ZERO worries about not having a gun in my house.

your population is also like 1/4 of ours and your land area is about 2x ours. I may be a bit off here? Anyway its also too cold for most of the "urbanites" to live that far north if you follow me.

gun ownership is not all about self defense, that Is a good part of it, but it also is fun and a good hobby. Shooting is very fun!!

 

[clemsonfor]

I'm pretty sure it was a fixed price per type of gun regardless of quality or how you got it. It was a 'no questions asked' scheme. So a lot of people handed in crappy old guns and were happy.

Just to clarify whats legal in Australia now...

All handguns are illegal. (Except registered competitive shooters and some jobs)

All Automatic/self loading rifles are illegal. (That pretty well rules out all the assault style weapons).

Manual reload rifles are legal. So anyone who wants a rifle for vermin, roo shooting, or personal protection etc can actually have a gun if they want one.

Australia's tougher gun laws are a very good thing in my opinion.

Very scary!!!

Also your description rules out my 22s one of my deer rifles and many guys shotguns!! Thought austrailia going to be a place to run when and if our country collapses, but I may have rethink this?

 

[RadarTech]

I stand properly and humbly debunked.
Never been debunked before...:dance1:

Careful... We will turn you into Mythbusters.... Hmmmm LOL

 

[clemsonfor]

So, the Australian government didn't "confiscate your guns". That's no surprise, nor is the unfortunately large number in the US who believe such is likely to happen here......yeah, right, and at an inconvenient time like just before the UN troops invade. Anyhow, it's highly unlikely a "guns, or no guns" question will seriously be debated before Congress in our lifetimes (yup, some have or will submit legislation on this issue, but no way it gets anywhere). The process of nullifying or changing a constitutional amendment has made the occurence rare.

Anyhow, as stated by others, guns are in the fabric of a substantial portion of our society, and that's it, period. However, folks are now in good faith debating what constitutes our 2nd amendment rights versus those of public good/safety. In the spirit of full disclosure, sitting above me on a rack right now are the rifles of my great grandfather (single shot 45-70), grandfather (30-40 lever action), and father (30-30 lever action). No way I'd part with those elements of my history, and on a broader sense, our nation's history. However, the issues as I see them are not whether we have the right to have a gun, or many guns, but (1) whether we need the right to have 100 shot magazines, and (2) loopholes in background checks prior to gun purchase. I conceive no threat to my view of guns by restriction of magazines to ? (10-20, whatever - my rifles and shotguns hold no more than 3, and pistols no more than 10). Likewise I have no issue with a background check re. a criminal record or a mental disorder for every gun purchaser - gun show, Walmart, wherever. Objecting to those measures has put a decent organization, the NRA, cross-ways to the preponderance of Americans. That is indeed unfortunate, and it may well come back to haunt that organization (of which I am a member).

There is no gunshow loophole, that is some media created thing so that those who are ill informed will get against the ones who like guns. I have been to many gunshows and my observation is that no more than 10% of sellers are private meaning that 90% of those have to do background checks. The other is no different than buying a gun outta the paper or where ever.

Yes the main purpose of a hand gun, semi or automatic rifle is to shoot people who want to shoot you. Its for protection and our forefathers here in the United States new that governments may start out for the people but end up corrupt and Mafioso. That is why the right to bear arms is in out constitution-they new governments oppress as they just came from one.

Someday-when everyone, and I mean every human being on earth decides to get along in peace an harmony then, and only then will this type of protection be obsolete-and yes I would love to see that day come in my lifetime but you know it won't.

Just because something works for a small island country like Australia with only a population of 22.6 million people doesn't mean it will work for the US with a population of 131 million.

The right to bear arms is under fire because there are those who think they are smarter than the rest of us. Taking away arms from those who are responsible law abiding citizens in no way will prevent murders. As long as guns are being manufactured anywhere in the world, it will be obtained illegally and used by those who wish to kill from the black market.

Also the US population is almost 3x that amount.

 

[TomSeller]

I agree with the post above that it is going to be financially that other countries try to topple the US. All this back and forth about guns is interesting but takes our eyes off of the real "target".

 

[k0ua]

I stand properly and humbly debunked.
Never been debunked before...:dance1:

(In a Katy Couric voice) "And how does that make you feel!"

 

[/pine]

(In a Katy Couric voice) "And how does that make you feel!"

Who's "katy couric" ?