Military appearance

Questions about New South Wales gun and ammunition laws. NSW Firearms Act 1996.

Re: Military appearance.

Post by Baldrick314 » 24 Dec 2014, 8:31 am

grizzly wrote:This law where you can't have anything that looks like a military frirearm is insulting to anyone with intelligence.

You would think that the law makers and leaders of any country should be the most level headed, clear minded, educated and informed people of their land. To review existing laws to try and prevent a percieved risk in the future is fair enough but to then ban a firearm based solely on it's appearance is the most uneducated, uninformed and absent minded decision I have ever seen in firearm laws.


It's absurd to us because we understand firearms. I'm sure when the laws were being drafted they were trying to make it so in the event of a robbery you wouldn't have someone waving around what looks like an AR in the faces of people who only know that profile from movies and would assume it's a machine gun. Not that rate of fire would really come into it in that situation but if I tell myself they had their hearts in the right place I might retain a little faith in our legal system.
.177, .22lr, .22-250R, 2x .308W, .30-30W, 7.62x54r, 8x56r, 9x19, .357 Mag, 12GA
User avatar
Baldrick314
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 980
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance.

Post by grizzly » 24 Dec 2014, 9:06 am

Baldrick314 wrote:
It's absurd to us because we understand firearms. I'm sure when the laws were being drafted they were trying to make it so in the event of a robbery you wouldn't have someone waving around what looks like an AR in the faces of people who only know that profile from movies and would assume it's a machine gun. Not that rate of fire would really come into it in that situation but if I tell myself they had their hearts in the right place I might retain a little faith in our legal system.


......and of course anyone that is willing to rob a bank has complete disregard for the law anyway so are unlikely to follow firearms laws when robbing said bank. If they want to reduce the rate of fire (which is understandable), pass laws on the action not the appearance.
grizzly
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 16
United Kingdom

Re: Military appearance.

Post by Baldrick314 » 24 Dec 2014, 9:29 am

grizzly wrote:......and of course anyone that is willing to rob a bank has complete disregard for the law anyway so are unlikely to follow firearms laws when robbing said bank. If they want to reduce the rate of fire (which is understandable), pass laws on the action not the appearance.


If we could get them to see that tougher laws on legal firearms owners don't stop criminals then we wouldn't have to question the stupidity of these laws
.177, .22lr, .22-250R, 2x .308W, .30-30W, 7.62x54r, 8x56r, 9x19, .357 Mag, 12GA
User avatar
Baldrick314
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 980
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance.

Post by nords » 24 Dec 2014, 1:53 pm

grizzly wrote:This law where you can't have anything that looks like a military frirearm is insulting to anyone with intelligence.


Just one of the many excuses they're using to make life hard for shooters in the hope of putting them off it.
Norica Spider GRS Camo .22
Browning BLR Lightweight 81 .243
Browning A-Bolt Medallion 300 Win Mag. Weaver V-Series 3-15 x 42.
User avatar
nords
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 191
Western Australia

Re: Military appearance.

Post by sally-bee » 24 Dec 2014, 1:55 pm

I'm very new to shooting so not sure what my opinion is worth, but what I've seen on shelves in gun stores is making sense now.

Lots of what I'd call hunting rifles, very few of what I'd call tactical looking rifles.

Maybe 50 for everyone 1 of the other.

I agree it's very stupid to judge on appearance and not how it fires.
User avatar
sally-bee
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 127
South Australia

Re: Military appearance.

Post by Baronvonrort » 24 Dec 2014, 7:41 pm

I think of it more like modern and old fashioned instead of military appearance.
Baronvonrort
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 896
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance.

Post by Seconds » 26 Dec 2014, 8:12 am

Baronvonrort wrote:I think of it more like modern and old fashioned instead of military appearance.


You like to... Not the Gov though :(

You may recall the Steve Lee video where he talks about the M14 being banned 6 months ago or whenever it was.

It's cat D but he had the license, it was the 'old fashioned' timber one, not a modern tactical version.

Still gone :(
Sako 85 Hunter
.308 Winchester
User avatar
Seconds
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 357
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance.

Post by Vati » 26 Dec 2014, 8:13 am

sally-bee wrote:I agree it's very stupid to judge on appearance and not how it fires.


You're not the only one but the Gov aren't set to change it any time soon :(
Reach out and touch...
User avatar
Vati
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 426
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance.

Post by Odo » 05 Jan 2015, 4:21 pm

Yep the law is made vague on purpose. No guidelines, no measurements, just appearance.
Like putting some racing stripes on a Datsun 180B and calling it a Ferrari.

Most of the handguns out there are of Military appearance......
Smith and Wesson. Norinco. Chinese Brno. Feinwerkbau. Gamo. Sportco. Slazenger. Drulov.
Odo
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 20
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance.

Post by Westy » 05 Jan 2015, 8:13 pm

Just curious here what is a military look anyways????? Basic black bullets go in here and come out here??/ Sounds like your common rifle to me???
go figure any more military and it could be a rifle!!!Look out
I've learned that pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing everyone off is a piece of cake.
User avatar
Westy
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1276
Queensland

Re: Military appearance.

Post by nords » 06 Jan 2015, 8:55 am

I wonder if you draw a picture of a switch and write 'safe' and 'semi' in red on the side of your rifle is that counts as military so you can't have it :lol:
Norica Spider GRS Camo .22
Browning BLR Lightweight 81 .243
Browning A-Bolt Medallion 300 Win Mag. Weaver V-Series 3-15 x 42.
User avatar
nords
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 191
Western Australia

Re: Military appearance.

Post by Point223 » 06 Jan 2015, 8:59 am

As far as the law is concerned (and it is very vague admittedly) anything resembling an AR-15 or an AK47 in mag,look and appearance is military and therefore illegal. Think about all the tactical firearms you have seen and they're all no good as far as they're concerned.. I'm referring to NSW law I don't know about other states.
Remington Model 7600 Police .308
User avatar
Point223
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 120
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance.

Post by Zilla » 06 Jan 2015, 8:59 am

nords wrote:I wonder if you draw a picture of a switch and write 'safe' and 'semi' in red on the side of your rifle is that counts as military so you can't have it :lol:


I dunno what you're laughing about Mr. Western Australia :P

You guys drew the shortest straw of all shooters :lol:
Ruger M77 mark II Target Rifle 6.5mm Creedmoor - Redfield Revolution 4-12x40mm
Ruger 77/44 Rem Mag - Redfield Revolution 2-7x33mm
Marlin Model 1897 .22
User avatar
Zilla
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 116
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance.

Post by Supporter » 06 Jan 2015, 9:02 am

Point223 wrote:I'm referring to NSW law I don't know about other states.


Crappy everywhere, worse here :(
Winchester 1894 30-30
Howa Varminter .204 Ruger
Savage Model 10/110 Trophy Hunter XP 30-06 Springfield
User avatar
Supporter
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 249
Western Australia

Re: Military appearance.

Post by Baronvonrort » 06 Jan 2015, 10:19 am

Seconds wrote:
Baronvonrort wrote:I think of it more like modern and old fashioned instead of military appearance.


You like to... Not the Gov though :(

You may recall the Steve Lee video where he talks about the M14 being banned 6 months ago or whenever it was.

It's cat D but he had the license, it was the 'old fashioned' timber one, not a modern tactical version.

Still gone :(


The M14 is classified as a current military weapon because it's still used for military target shooting comps and ceremonial purposes in the USA,Like the FN FAL it can only be used for aerial culling.
If you are certified for aerial culling you can have the M14 or FN FAL, the rules state you should have a spare rifle with aerial culling certification and you are allowed to purchase 2x Fn FAL from the Australian military.

If Mr Lee had aerial culling certification why would he choose an M14 and what would he use for a spare rifle, the magazines should fit the spare rifle because you don't have time to reload magazines if swapping rifles in the air.
You have to do a minimum of 8 hours aerial culling every year to maintain certification ,the problem is there isn't enough work to maintain certification
The M14 is allowed with Cat D if you are qualified for aerial culling,it can only be used for aerial culling and not general Cat D work.

A NSW forum member has a Barrett M98B, I like the look of this rifle it is now made in 7.62 and 300wm and legal everywhere except WA,at $6K then more for glass it isn't cheap.
Baronvonrort
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 896
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance.

Post by Pennsylvania Yank » 06 Jan 2015, 9:18 pm

agentzero wrote:
Point223 wrote:Say a 7600 .308 Remington modified to look like an AR-15. Is that legal?


This is the problem with the 'military appearance' legisation, it's very unclear.

There are no set features, colours, dimensions, accessories etc. which are specifically listed as having a 'military appearance'.

It's just what they decide they should ban.

In WA at the moment guys are losing their Colt 2012's because they're the wrong looking rifle, even though they've been legal up to this point. Someone has just decided to take offence to them now.


With all due respect to your country, can anyone explain how your court system works? I suspect such a vague law in the US would likely be challenged by gun rights groups and struck down by our courts. The law as written either bans bolt action rifles, or certain features and accessories, or it doesn't. If you have a law enforcement entity that can ban a Colt 2012 because of a gray area in the law, then the law should not stand judicial scrutiny or else the courts should demand that your legislature fix the language. At least that is what my common sense and experience tells me.
Pennsylvania Yank
Private
Private
 
Posts: 57
United States of America

Re: Military appearance

Post by brett1868 » 06 Jan 2015, 10:02 pm

Pennsylvania Yank wrote:At least that is what my common sense and experience tells me]


Common sense is a foreign concept to some of our state governments and we don't have any powerful lobby groups like they do in the U.S. Our firearms market is so small compared to many countries and there just nothing in it for the politicians to bother with doing anything.

There's so much anti gun hysteria in this country that I don't tell many people I shoot for fear of being judged a crazed gun nut capable of mass murder at any time.

I suspect that the military appearance thing relates to rifles that look like current issue Australian military hardware otherwise how to explain the fact that I legally have at least 4 rifles currently used by foreign military forces? DTA HTI, DTA SRS, Barrett M99, Barrett M98B all currently used by foreign military yet I have them?

Perfectly legal in NSW but probably 10+ years in gaol if caught with one in some other states.
How's my posting?
Complaints, Concerns - 13 11 14
User avatar
brett1868
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3017
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance.

Post by anthillinside » 06 Jan 2015, 10:37 pm

Pennsylvania Yank wrote:With all due respect to your country, can anyone explain how your court system works? I suspect such a vague law in the US would likely be challenged by gun rights groups and struck down by our courts. The law as written either bans bolt action rifles, or certain features and accessories, or it doesn't. If you have a law enforcement entity that can ban a Colt 2012 because of a gray area in the law, then the law should not stand judicial scrutiny or else the courts should demand that your legislature fix the language. At least that is what my common sense and experience tells me.

I'm no expert on the court system here or inthe US of A but heres my 2c worth,
The judicial system here is suposed to be totaly independant from government but I think judges are actually appointed by the govt. [some one know for sure?]
Once appointed they are basicly unaccountable to anyone, it's almost impossible to get rid of one no matter how he/she performs.
Basicly the last people thay are accountable to is the general public, they almost have to be hit by lightning to listen to public opinion.
They can interpret the lay in any way they want.
Theres been a few cases where interpretations have been bounced back and forth between judges and overturned several times.
For many of us the court system is so far beyond our understanding we just give up.
Not because we're stupid or don't know the laws but often we just don't believe that any sane person could pass down the type of decisions they often do.
I note your "With due respect" I suspect there are many here in Aus who have lost respect for our courts.
Now you can teach me a thing or two about the US. [Please correct me]
I think a lot of your higher office holders are elected either at local or state level?
Sheriffs Judges other officials?
And if they mess up an enough citizens raise concerns it's not too hard to get them removed.
How does the average American feel about the US court system?
:idea: This could be a subject that could go on forever :mrgreen:
Last edited by anthillinside on 06 Jan 2015, 10:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There's always room for at least one more gun in my safe.
There's always room for one more safe in my house.
User avatar
anthillinside
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 375
Victoria

Re: Military appearance.

Post by ex_reven » 06 Jan 2015, 10:38 pm

From our legislation:
Schedule 1 Prohibited Firearms
7 Any firearm that substantially duplicates in appearance (regardless ofcalibre or manner of operation) a firearm referred to in item 1, 5 or 6.
**Where 1,5,6 are machine guns, self loading rimfire and self loading centrefire firearms respectively***

Pennsylvania Yank wrote:With all due respect to your country, can anyone explain how your court system works? I suspect such a vague law in the US would likely be challenged by gun rights groups and struck down by our courts. The law as written either bans bolt action rifles, or certain features and accessories, or it doesn't. If you have a law enforcement entity that can ban a Colt 2012 because of a gray area in the law, then the law should not stand judicial scrutiny or else the courts should demand that your legislature fix the language. At least that is what my common sense and experience tells me.


To my knowledge some bright spark proposes a bill to change legislation - they form a parliamentary committee of a dozen or so people usually stacked by the Greens. They then discuss/debate/modify/approve the bill to go before parliament where if approved becomes law.

http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_bus ... parliament
This is a page of all bills currently in this process.
Custom 6mm Dasher
Sako 85, Sako Quad,
K98, K98 Sniper, No 4 Mk 1/2, Norinco JW25a
Kimber 1911 .45ACP, S&W 629 .44 Mag, Walther PPQ, Walther P22, S&W 686, Colt Gold Cup
Akkar Churchill, Crossman 1077
User avatar
ex_reven
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 47
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance

Post by ex_reven » 06 Jan 2015, 10:41 pm

Also I guess a few of my rifles are in breach of the law - military appearance circa 72 years ago - still got the nazi markings and all!
(not mine pictured, but same rifle).

Image
Custom 6mm Dasher
Sako 85, Sako Quad,
K98, K98 Sniper, No 4 Mk 1/2, Norinco JW25a
Kimber 1911 .45ACP, S&W 629 .44 Mag, Walther PPQ, Walther P22, S&W 686, Colt Gold Cup
Akkar Churchill, Crossman 1077
User avatar
ex_reven
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 47
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance.

Post by nords » 07 Jan 2015, 8:09 pm

Pennsylvania Yank wrote:With all due respect to your country, can anyone explain how your court system works? I suspect such a vague law in the US would likely be challenged by gun rights groups and struck down by our courts. The law as written either bans bolt action rifles, or certain features and accessories, or it doesn't. If you have a law enforcement entity that can ban a Colt 2012 because of a gray area in the law, then the law should not stand judicial scrutiny or else the courts should demand that your legislature fix the language. At least that is what my common sense and experience tells me.


I'm no expert on court, nor have I ever been but I can tell you about the Western Australian state legislation. The wording in several sections is, if "in the opinion of the Commissioner..." blah blah blah whatever they decide isn't proper.

The opinion of these people is law :roll:

Our 'gun rights groups' are nothing like the NRA in the US. No where need the same muscle.

No shooters like it and a few are vocal or work against it but we can't say there has been much progress?

:(
Norica Spider GRS Camo .22
Browning BLR Lightweight 81 .243
Browning A-Bolt Medallion 300 Win Mag. Weaver V-Series 3-15 x 42.
User avatar
nords
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 191
Western Australia

Re: Military appearance

Post by Point223 » 08 Jan 2015, 8:36 am

I've said it before.. the Fishers Shooters Party should create a fuss with at least a million of us going downtown for a protest. They will hear you then.
Remington Model 7600 Police .308
User avatar
Point223
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 120
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance

Post by ex_reven » 08 Jan 2015, 12:18 pm

Point223 wrote:I've said it before.. the Fishers Shooters Party should create a fuss with at least a million of us going downtown for a protest. They will hear you then.


You will never get the numbers. Protests have been organised in the past and the turn outs were pretty piss poor. Shooters as a community suck at communication in terms of organising this sort of thing, not since the 90s have we had any decent protests or campaigns.

We need to take a leaf out of the greens book on some of their campaign methods.
Custom 6mm Dasher
Sako 85, Sako Quad,
K98, K98 Sniper, No 4 Mk 1/2, Norinco JW25a
Kimber 1911 .45ACP, S&W 629 .44 Mag, Walther PPQ, Walther P22, S&W 686, Colt Gold Cup
Akkar Churchill, Crossman 1077
User avatar
ex_reven
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 47
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance

Post by anthillinside » 08 Jan 2015, 8:17 pm

ex_reven wrote:We need to take a leaf out of the greens book on some of their campaign methods.


Yes we should.

But most of us are not over emotional wankers and don't want to bee seen as such.

We really do need to come up with something to gain media attention and public support.

The very fact that you have to be rational and have a modicum of intelligence to own a firearm pretty much excludes us from doing the headline grabbing and often illegal things that the Greens do.
There's always room for at least one more gun in my safe.
There's always room for one more safe in my house.
User avatar
anthillinside
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 375
Victoria

Re: Military appearance

Post by Vati » 09 Jan 2015, 8:34 am

ex_reven wrote:We need to take a leaf out of the greens book on some of their campaign methods.


I'll start making up lies to support my unfounded personal opinions immediately :lol:
Reach out and touch...
User avatar
Vati
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 426
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance

Post by headspace » 11 Jan 2015, 8:58 pm

What if you made it look like a SMLE? Would that be too military looking? Sorry blokes, but I just don't care for all the black stuff, I'm a walnut and blued steel kind of fella. But I guess you do whatever floats the boat.
If it's not wood and blued steel, it's not one of mine
headspace
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 738
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance

Post by Seconds » 12 Jan 2015, 10:52 am

Baronvonrort wrote:The M14 is classified as a current military weapon because it's still used for military target shooting comps and ceremonial purposes in the USA


Be that as it may, the point is it's stupid to restrict things on that basis. It has nothing to do with anything...

A semi-automatic centre fire should be treated as a semi-automatic centre fire whether it's black, blue, timber, pink with polkadots.

Whether it's used for combat, hunting, target shooting, ceremonies or for literally shooting fish in a barrel.

They use it for military ceremonies in the USA, great, good for them. It should have no bearing on anything else.

Surely you agree it makes no sense to be allowed one self loading CF rifle and denied another, even though their function is exactly the same, because a military force in a different country uses it for something or other. I can't see how you couldn't.

That stupidity is the issue.

What if they stopped using their current range of rifles and swapped to the ones we're currently allowed under regular cat D licensing? We'd just be arbitrarily swapping the 'can' and 'can't' have list for no logical reason.

(not having a go at you)
Sako 85 Hunter
.308 Winchester
User avatar
Seconds
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 357
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance

Post by lole » 12 Jan 2015, 10:57 am

headspace wrote:What if you made it look like a SMLE?


Paint it blaze orange.

The NSW powers-that-be are all about blaze orange :lol:
User avatar
lole
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 359
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance

Post by Baronvonrort » 12 Jan 2015, 12:04 pm

headspace wrote:What if you made it look like a SMLE? Would that be too military looking? Sorry blokes, but I just don't care for all the black stuff, I'm a walnut and blued steel kind of fella. But I guess you do whatever floats the boat.


I have a walnut thumbhole stock on my Anshutz 22, I like thumbhole wood stocks I think they look hot and more modern.

I have built wood,composite and alloy boats, wood can swell up in humid conditions which is why wood doors and windows can get tighter after rainy weather, maintaining the moisture content in the wood is key to long term survival.
I will never own another wooden boat I will go composite or alloy, this canoe would be the only exception for me to have a wooden boat, I should add a stock done with balsa/S glass epoxy could look hot and sidestep the moisture content issues with wood.
www.storerboatplans.com/Balsacanoe/Balsacanoe.html
My aversion to wood comes from having to repair dry rot

I like the MDT LSS stock, it's alloy so no worries about maintaining it, 2 bolts hold the receiver and no bedding required,it's simple and light.

I wish people would be more accepting of individual choices people make, there are guns I don't like yet if you are happy with it I am happy for you even if I dislike your choice.
Baronvonrort
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 896
New South Wales

Re: Military appearance

Post by Baronvonrort » 12 Jan 2015, 12:14 pm

Seconds wrote:
Baronvonrort wrote:The M14 is classified as a current military weapon because it's still used for military target shooting comps and ceremonial purposes in the USA


Be that as it may, the point is it's stupid to restrict things on that basis. It has nothing to do with anything...

A semi-automatic centre fire should be treated as a semi-automatic centre fire whether it's black, blue, timber, pink with polkadots.


I agree with what you are saying, I don't see any difference between the lethality of a Ruger mini 14 and AR15.

Restricting bolt action rifles on military appearance is absurd, I have a lot of sympathy for those in WA on this issue.
Baronvonrort
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 896
New South Wales

PreviousNext

Back to top
 
Return to New South Wales gun laws