Uniform National Gun Laws and the Victorian Amendments
by SSAA Research Team
Australian Shooters Journal
May 1998
About time. What a pity there was no government in Australia prepared to stand its ground on May 10th, 1996.
The recent controversial Victorian amendments to the so-called "national" gun laws, or more formally the National Firearms Agreement, have demonstrated starkly that it was a myth that any uniformity ever existed within the laws.
After the May 10th Police Ministers' conference each jurisdiction went away and cobbled together its own new gun laws. Various jurisdictions gathered samples of other jurisdictions' drafts and copied bits and pieces. Some had advisory groups comprising bureaucrats, police and firearm owners. They all determined arrangements that suited themselves yet fell within the broad ambit of the Police Ministers' Agreement.
The Firearms Acts of most jurisdictions are weighty pieces, with the attendant Regulations being even more detailed. It is hardly surprising that many differences are to be found nationally.
Under Australia's current system of government where each jurisdiction has complete autonomy to determine its firearm laws it is impossible to achieve complete uniformity. Neither, in fact, is complete uniformity even desirable or appropriate, given the vast differences across the country.
A number of jurisdictions rushed to pass ill-considered legislation. Those who did not benefit from consultation with those most affected have been the first to seek amendments. The media seem to have forgotten to mention that the Victorian amendments are the third set to go to Parliament.
This time, however, a near hysteria was whipped up by the media nationally. It has consistently misreported the nature of the proposed changes, as have the gun-prohibitionists, both arguing against any commonsense approach to gun laws.
For almost all of March, headlines around the country ran to the likes of "States backflip on gun laws", "National reform of gun laws in tatters", "Victoria forgets the lesson of Port Arthur" and "Public paying for gun-law deception".
Under a constant flow of misinformation and media portrayal of firearm abuse, it is hardly surprising that public concern was once again raised about the presence of firearms in the community.
Needless to say, the same old players came out of the woodwork.
John Crook Again
Anti-gun campaigner John
Crook, President of Gun Control Australia, stated that the Victorian Government
was "quite disgracefully spending $250,000 of taxpayers' money to deceive
the public over gun law amendments".(2)
It's all very well to gain publicity by using emotional language to make fanciful allegations but where is Mr Crook's evidence that the advertisements placed in Victorian newspapers are deceptive? They were plainly designed to inform and educate a population that has been misled by inaccurate media reports.
Mr Crook goes on: "All these proposed changes threaten community safety and make a mockery of those who died at Port Arthur". (3) Again, he provides no evidence as to how community safety will be threatened and why those who died at Port Arthur are mocked. His comments are inaccurate and emotional.
The media raged for a few weeks and the truth was hard for anyone to discern.
Victorian Police Minister Bill McGrath introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Bill into the Victorian Parliament's Lower House for its second reading on February 19th, 1998.
He noted amongst the amendment bill's objectives that it was to "improve the consistency and workability of the Act, (to) reduce unintended or unforeseen impacts where no community benefit is realised and (to) do these things whilst ensuring that Victoria's firearms laws conform to the National Firearms Agreement". (4)
It is a pity that Mr McGrath didn't listen to firearm owners in the first instance so that the "unintended and unforeseen impacts" clearly foreseen by firearm owners could have been avoided then. Mr McGrath further added: "Most of the amendments in the bill are concerned with minor technical or drafting matters; or clarifying established policy settings in the act." (5)
After all of the political and media rhetoric, what do the proposed amendments really say? The following is a brief synopsis of the main amendments and surrounding arguments.
-
28-day cooling off period not to apply to second and subsequent firearms:
The Victorian amendment seeks to reduce the 28-day waiting period, but the editorial of The Australian says the "proposed changes include abolishing the 28 day cooling-off period for existing gun owners". (6) A full 28-day waiting period for second and subsequent firearms serves no useful purpose and only causes inconvenience to legitimate firearm owners.
-
Field and Game members to be entitled to Category C firearms as are ACTA members:
Field and Game shotgun shooters conduct essentially the same activities as the Australian Clay Target Association. This is an equity and justice issue. There is no reason why the ACTA should be able to use Category C firearms when other associations cannot. Sue Williams in an amazing article wrote of politicians "tripping over each other in their haste to get more guns onto the streets." (7) As Victorian Government spokeswoman Serena Williams so rightly said, "The bottom line is it is not putting any more guns into the hands of any more people." (8)
-
Vermin control in populated areas - at the discretion of the Commissioner:
Under existing legislation, governmental authorities and their contractors are not able to use firearms within town boundaries for the purposes of vermin control. It does not mean that average citizens can use firearms within town boundaries.
How was this reported in the media? "People will be allowed to carry and use guns within town boundaries," (9) said Denis Muller in The Canberra Times. The Australian said the changes would be "allowing people to carry and use guns within town boundaries" (10), conjuring up images of the old US Wild West days where citizens carried a .45 strapped to the hip. Again, Mike Duffy of Adelaide's Sunday Mail cynically asks, "Why not allow guns to be carried in towns?" (11) The carrying of guns in towns applies only to persons licensed by the Commissioner for a specific purpose.
-
Prohibited persons to be able to apply for clearance of old offences:
Under existing legislation, it is mandatory that a person convicted of various offences be unable to hold a firearm licence for a long period. This amendment proposes an appeal mechanism so people who committed relatively minor offences can apply to be cleared after a certain time.
-
Juniors 12-18 to be able to use firearms at an approved range under strict and qualified adult supervision:
Under existing legislation, juniors aged 12-18 are unable to shoot without being permit holders. This is discriminatory, preventing juniors even under supervision from being able to see whether they may enjoy the sport without having to go to the trouble of obtaining a permit.
Sue Williams again wrote about "handing over guns to kiddies on shooting ranges" (12), painting yet another inaccurate picture. Prior to the 1996 Firearms Act, children aged 12-18 have been allowed to try out shooting in Victoria, without incident, since 1958.
-
Target shooting on private property to be allowed:
Under existing Victorian legislation, a property owner is not permitted to discharge a firearm for any purpose other than the destruction of vermin on the property for which he or she is licensed to shoot. This is a problem as the property owner is not able to practise or sight in a firearm unless on an approved range, possibly a great distance away. Firearm practice on private property is only sensible. The media have made no comment on this issue and the original May 10th Agreement is silent.
-
Pest Control on Crown Land to be an approved Genuine Reason:
Under existing legislation, pest control on Crown Land is not an approved Genuine Reason. This amendment seeks to remove some of the vagaries related to vermin control on Crown Land and clarify the permit arrangements. Pest control on Crown Land is an important element of environmental and conservation policy and ought to be encouraged in the way this amendment seeks.
-
Duration between dealers' returns:
The time specified for the regular returns of firearm dealers' receipts was seven days. This is plainly unworkable and is being amended to 28 days. The May 10th Agreement did not specify a time period and the media have not commented.
-
Firearms in the film industry:
Theatrical armourers who supply firearms to the film industry are classified as dealers, which does not properly describe their activity. Amendments are proposed to introduce a permit system to accommodate their activities more properly. The media and the May 10th Agreement have not covered this.
-
Storage for collectors:
Amendments are proposed for small firearm collections not to have to meet the rigorous storage requirements set in place for large collections. Again, the media and the May 10th Agreement have seen fit not to comment.
Clearly the media and gun-prohibitionists have focused on only those amendments where there is political and media mileage to be made.
The Federal position
The Federal Government,
along with the bureaucracy, is coming to the realisation that the infamous
half-billion-dollar "buyback" has neither lowered crime rates nor caused a
drop in homicide or suicide rates as was expected. Anyone with common sense
could have said so (and many tried) before the half-billion dollars was poured
down the drain.
Even journalists are starting to realize that it hasn't worked, with Peter Clack noting "Details of the apparent failure of gun-law reforms are still emerging," and "it seems that the guns buy-back scheme has had only a marginal effect". (13)
How will the Federal Government escape the blame when it becomes apparent that the whole thing is a farce?
Various jurisdictions have started to supposedly "water down" the "national" gun laws that never were. The Federal Government is powerless to stop them. Prime Minister Howard will huff and puff saying that the failure of the gun laws to reduce crime, homicide and suicide is the fault of the States and Territories for departing from the May 10th, 1996 Agreement. Mr Howard will protest that the national gun laws couldn't possibly work because the various jurisdictions departed from uniform implementation.
Confusion reigns within politics, bureaucracy and academia; blame starts to be apportioned. Pay no heed to the fact that having "national" laws was never necessary, rational or appropriate. Don't worry that the national agreement and confiscations never had a hope of reducing armed crime, homicide and suicide or accident rates from the outset because it involved the wrong people and the wrong issues. And don't pay any attention to the fact that the essence of the amendments made by the various jurisdictions was primarily administrative in nature and did not depart materially or from the spirit of the national agreement at all.
No, the Federal Government will not be bothered by all of this. Instead, the possibility looms large of a referendum on the issue, with all powers related to firearm regulation passing to the Commonwealth. Even NSW Police Minister Paul Whelan thinks it's a good idea saying that "....the States and Territories should lose their powers over gun laws to the Commonwealth." (14)
It is possible that the Commonwealth may push for a referendum on the matter. This would centralize more power in Canberra and relieve the jurisdictions of the headache of firearm laws. The media would almost certainly assist the Commonwealth to be successful with such a push.
Back to Victoria
Victorian Police Minister
Bill McGrath insists that the amendments "are a commonsense approach to assist
legitimate gun owners." (15) The SSAA congratulates Mr McGrath for standing resolute on this issue.
However, don't be lulled into a false sense of security. Just because firearm owners have managed to claw back a few concessions that suit the Government, only a small fraction of what has been lost has been regained. This is still the same government and these are still the same politicians who took away legitimately owned firearms and introduced a raft of red tape to make the lives of ordinary firearm owners a misery.
After the walkout from the March 20th Premiers' Conference, Prime Minister Howard churlishly threatened to raise the price of self-loading firearms (16) to make them so expensive that few could afford them. His foot stomping and blustering (apart from disguising his embarrassment over the walkout) indicates how much he personally wants the Commonwealth to control national firearm legislation.
Fortunately, Victoria stood firm. After eight hours of debate, the Victorian Amendments were passed on March 26th, 1998, 53 votes to 25. Sense prevailed.
The last word belongs to Graham Bradley, who wrote: "Victoria is not watering down John Howard's agreement but making commonsense changes that will make Victorian firearms laws more workable." (17)
1. The Canberra Times, "Victorians not lone gunmen for shooters" (sic) 14/3/98.
2. Melbourne Herald Sun, "Gun ads dubbed a disgrace", 16/3/98.
3. Ibid.
4. Victorian Government House of Assembly Hansard 19/2/98, p145.
5. Ibid.
6. The Australian, "Victoria forgets the lesson of Port Arthur", 4/3/98.
7. Sydney Sun Herald, "Guns: Lest we forget", 8/3/98.
8. Melbourne Herald Sun, "Gun ads dubbed a disgrace", 16/3/98.
9. The Canberra Times, "Victorians not lone gunmen for shooters", 14/3/98.
10. The Australian, "Victoria forgets the lesson of Port Arthur", 4/3/98.
11. Adelaide Sunday Mail, "Do not forget tragic lesson", 15/3/98.
12. Sydney Sun Herald, "Guns: Lest we forget", 8/3/98.
13. Canberra Sunday Times, "National reform of gun laws in tatters", 22/3/98.
14. Ninemsn, "Emotional anniversaries loom as gun debate flares", 17/3/98.
15. Melbourne Herald Sun, "Tragedy fires new debate", 26/3/98.
16. Melbourne Herald Sun, "Gun law threat blast", 24/3/98.
17. Melbourne Herald Sun,"Gun changes make sense", 24/3/98.
Home > Research archive > 1998 > Uniform National Gun Laws and the Victorian Amendments