Won't it just bring vic law in line with NSW?
Doesn't seem to be working too well there...
southwest shooter wrote:We need them now , it's a joke .
Have any of these clowns heard a 22/250 at 3 am ?
Sarco wrote:I disagree,
The bill is seeking that licenced recreational shooters will be able to APPLY to possess, carry and use "silencers". This is a gross fail, using the word "silencers" rather than "suppressors". It just about guarantees the bill will fail, as all most politicians know about "silencers" is what they see in Hollywood movies.
This also smacks of a politician trying to be seen to actually be doing something for his likely voter base, coming up to an election, with out actually having any likelihood of achieving anything. Then saying at least I tried.
It still comes down to even if the bill is passed and makes it into law, how many applications will be approved by the Chief Commissioner (or their delegate)? My suggestion is sweet FA.
Sarco
winton wrote:Shooters are not well represented in politics. Thats just the facts.
Most shooters are more interested in Border Security or Job security rather than firearm rights.
There have been politicians that have started out gung ho for shooters rights, but then they feel that its a good long term career and that means they need to go soft on gun rights in order to get votes from mainstream voters.
Just my opinion.
I just see Suppressors as being a bridge too far now. We let Howard take it away and it will cause an uproar if we bring it back in.
Still I look on the bright side. Being in Vic, we get to hunt alot. I'd rather have this accessibility than a suppressor, although a supressor would be nice.
Windston wrote:I for one am pissed at the government for this. Why should I not be allowed to protect my hearing!? Or lifestock/dogs in the area around the shot?! Or even the bloody neighbours getting pissed off at shots?
It's just rediculus that the powers that be just don't seem to care about us enough. It works in the UK, new Zealand etc, why not here?
Gaznazdiak wrote:Just a thought, but most of those who are granted one of the rare permits to own and use a suppressor are vets and rangers for whom it is considered as an OH&S issue.
If they are allowed to protect their hearing during the few shots they fire in the course of their employment, is it not a form of discrimination to prohibit hunters and sporting shooters from having the same protection?
After all we are the people who do the most to protect the country from invasive pest species, at our own expense, yet we are denied the protection supplied by a harmless, inert metal tube.
Perhaps we are approaching the issue from the wrong angle.
bladeracer wrote:Gaznazdiak wrote:Just a thought, but most of those who are granted one of the rare permits to own and use a suppressor are vets and rangers for whom it is considered as an OH&S issue.
If they are allowed to protect their hearing during the few shots they fire in the course of their employment, is it not a form of discrimination to prohibit hunters and sporting shooters from having the same protection?
After all we are the people who do the most to protect the country from invasive pest species, at our own expense, yet we are denied the protection supplied by a harmless, inert metal tube.
Perhaps we are approaching the issue from the wrong angle.
Except that most of us shoot voluntarily, if we want to protect our hearing we can simply stop shooting.