John Maxwell says gun law reform in the ACT, unlike NSW, has been more considered
Given the anti-gun hysteria following the Bondi terror attack and progressive leanings of the ACT, it was perhaps too much to expect the ACT Government would reconsider its proposed new gun laws. Following the December 15 atrocity, the NSW Government speedily legislated for caps on numbers of guns a licensed shooter may own, as the ACT followed with similar though not identical measures.
They stuck with five-year firearms licence terms, whereas NSW plans to require renewal every two years. The ACT is also introducing Firearms Prohibition Orders which have existed in NSW since 1973, allowing police to bar a person from owning firearms or associating with anyone who does. This is primarily aimed at criminals and bikie gang members. Like NSW, the ACT proposes restrictions on straight-pull and button-release rifles, while possession of digital plans for 3D-printed guns will also be banned.
Unlike NSW with its rushed response, the ACT Labor Government, after introducing the legislation, sent the Bills off to a committee for more detailed consideration, inviting public submissions and hearing evidence from a range of impacted parties. These included SSAA National CEO Tom Kenyon, SSAA (ACT), National Rifle Association of Australia, Biathlon Australia, ACT Government, ACT Policing, farmers and the ACT Human Rights Commission. And of course there were anti-gun groups. Fronting up either in-person or online were Gun Control Australia, Australia Institute and the Alannah & Madeline Foundation.
The committee received 88 submissions along with a pro-shooter petition containing 1108 signatures. The committee released its report at the end of May, finding proposed numerical caps (five guns with exemptions allowing up to 10) should be supported and the legislation should be passed. It’s now up to the ACT Government to decide how to proceed, though it goes without saying this was not the outcome ACT shooters would’ve preferred.
In justifying that conclusion the committee noted “. . . the National Cabinet agreed to undertake reforms to limit the number of firearms held by any one person. The committee accepts the broad argument that fewer firearms in circulation will lead to less firearm-related harm.” In other words we’re doing it because the Commonwealth said so (and they’re paying half).
The second point reflects the views of anti-gun groups and totally ignores the reality that gun violence began declining before Port Arthur, and has continued to fall despite the rising number of guns held by licensed shooters. Yet this was scarcely a triumph for anti-gun forces, with a significant number of caveats and recommendations which took on board evidence to the inquiry from shooters and shooter organisations.
Recommendation 1 says: “. . . the ACT Government include provisions in the Firearms (Public Safety) Amendment Bill 2026, that establish a criteria-based approval framework for the Firearms Registrar to apply clear guidelines on what factors should be considered when exercising discretion to grant exemption to individuals seeking to possess additional firearms beyond the proposed numerical caps.”
Rather than imposing rigid caps, that opens the way for the ACT Firearms Registry to approve more guns for those who can make a suitable case. That could be a competitive shooter, farmer, hunter or pest controller. Though the legislation might set a cap of 10, more could be permitted by way of accompanying regulations.
For those unfamiliar with legislative processes, regulations are subordinate laws which set the fine detail of actual legislation. For example, regulations can say a particular offence will incur a $1000 fine. If that was included in actual legislation, any increase would require the law to be repealed, amended then passed by parliament all over again.
It seems the ACT Government always envisaged the regulations would deliver a more flexible approach, allowing the ACT Firearms Registry registrar “to respond flexibly to legitimate needs, while also ensuring an overall reduction in firearms in the community”. ACT Policing noted while exemptions would be considered on a case-by-case basis, it was not expecting a significant number.
In evidence, anti-gun groups again cited the case of the suburban Sydney shooter with more than 300 guns. The ACT committee said 300 firearms, even for a collector, was well beyond community expectations of what was reasonable. “However, there are many cases of legitimate need where 10 firearms may not be sufficient. While exemptions can be obtained, the evidence from the community shows there’s considerable uncertainty as to how these exemptions will operate in practice,” it said.
The committee recommended a criteria-based approval framework for the Firearms Registrar, to apply clear guidelines on what factors should be considered when exercising discretion to grant exemption to individuals seeking to possess additional firearms beyond proposed caps. In its conclusion the committee, comprising chair Chiaka Barry (Liberal), deputy chair Taimus Werner-Gibbings (Labor) and ACT Greens leader Shane Rattenbury, did chip the ACT Government for not adequately consulting affected parties before it rushed to legislate.
That might have avoided some of the unintended consequences, they said. One is the impact on participants in biathlon, an international sporting competition involving cross-country skiing and target shooting using specialised straight-pull .22 rifles. The re-categorisation of straight-pull firearms from A to C effectively bars junior shooters from participating.
In evidence to the inquiry, both sides acknowledged the risk of firearms theft, ACT Policing saying there were 10 incidents between July 2025 and March 2026. Anti-gun witnesses said the best way to reduce theft was to reduce the number of guns in the community. Shooter representatives said rather than caps, storage requirements could be tightened and limited police resources better directed towards more compliance checks. As well as caps, the committee recommended the government develop and introduce legislation to strengthen firearm storage, compliance and licence pre-approval requirements.
In evidence, anti-gun group representatives pushed some familiar themes. Here’s Australia Institute researcher Skye Predavec. “Limiting the number of firearms individuals can own and use, as well as re-categorising firearms and further restricting belt-fed and 3D-printed firearms, are all welcome measures to strengthen the ACT’s gun control laws,” she said. Not explained was what on earth they mean by belt-fed firearms.
The Australia Institute would like to see the abolition of unlicensed firearm use and minor firearm licences. ACT law allows an unlicensed person to try out shooting under the supervision of a licensed firearms instructor, which is more rigorous than NSW. Every state and territory also issue minor permits, allowing those aged 12-18 to shoot under adult supervision. That really bugs anti-gun groups.
“It was part of the National Firearms Agreement not to issue licences to minors yet it continues to be the case, both in ACT and in other jurisdictions, that minors are able to access firearm licences,” said Alice Grundy, Australia Institute Research Manager.
Though the original NFA proposed an end to junior licensing, that was subsequently amended by a Minute of Federal Cabinet of June 11, 1996, which says the Commonwealth will propose to the states: “. . . the position of underage shooters under the Police Ministers’ resolution be clarified, to indicate all jurisdictions would allow and continue to allow persons under the age of 18, but above a specified minimum age, to use lawful firearms in supervised situations.”
That anti-gun groups continue to assert otherwise indicates either ignorance, reluctance to admit they’re wrong or willingness to lie to further their agenda. Here’s Gun Control Australia’s Roland Browne on the illicit market. “Every illegal gun starts its life as somebody’s legally-held gun and most of them are being stolen from homes,” he said. “Claims of illegal imports of firearms into Australia have dropped off significantly and probably disappeared.”
That’s simply not the reality and is reflective of the anti-gun group obsession with lawful firearms owners, not criminals, as the problem. Australian Border Force and Australian Federal Police routinely intercept guns and components coming into Australia.
Indisputably, criminals will steal guns where and when they can, yet those responsible for the highest profile gun crime in Australia, across Sydney’s western suburbs, aren’t using single-shot .22s or hunting rifles stolen from homes, for drive-by shootings and murder of drug gang rivals. What they’re using are mostly handguns, some stolen but increasingly smuggled into Australia or assembled from a mix of 3D-printed and imported components. And that’s not just a Sydney problem. Less than a month after the hearing, ACT police seized multiple 3D-printed guns, parts and ammunition in raids on two properties in Canberra’s north.
The reality for the ACT and also NSW is that any jurisdiction imposing caps on gun numbers will need to conduct a buyback and, even with the Commonwealth paying half, it’ll be expensive, time-consuming and labour intensive. Back in 1996 there was a clear understanding of what guns were to be banned and how owners would be compensated. Those who parted with their semi-autos weren’t happy, though compensation for most was generous and prompted compliance. Many, of course, used their compensation money to buy more guns.
So far there’s zero information on how any buybacks in NSW or the ACT will be conducted, how values will be set and will there be a right of appeal. Finally, aggrieved gun owners will surely vent their frustrations at the next opportunity and vote for One Nation, just as many did in 1996.