Mark TAC wrote:Seems to be a bit of drawing a long long bow happening here.
It refers to anyone who is "banned from owning weapons". Not just anyone.
Somebody who does not hold a firearms licence is not "banned" - same as a person who does not hold a driver's licence is not "banned" - they just have not applied yet.
Banned means that due to past criminal offences you can't hold a licence. You are banned. And NOT just a restraint order, that is not banned i- t is a temporary seizure of yoru guns due to the order. BTW I have seen mates with a restraint order have their guns taken, then a week later go to court and contest that part, get their guns back and the order still stands cos thay don't WANT to see the other person.
So the intent of this is not that warrantless searches can happen all over the place - the intent is that those who are *declared* as banned (like bikies and druggies and psychopaths) can be searched easily. Given the number of threads here about picking on the real crooks not the law abiding firearms owners - isn't it a good thing?
And BTW dunno about over east but in WA your place can be searched and guns taken without warrant if Police believe there may be immediate harm or u are a threat etc. So really in an emergency situation where a d**khead is talking about killing people a warrant is not needed. So it happens anyway (very rarely)
I think anyone who declares themself to be the 1% who do not follow our laws and hates society should be subject to searches at random with no warrant. I mean, he does not believe the law applies to him and he wants illegal guns in his occupation as dealer and standoverman. Right...?
I'd rather see this law than ones that make it harder for the lawful firearms owner. And a lawful firearms owner is not a "banned" person as the proposed laws refer to...
What really concerns me is a proposed increase of the max penalty from 10yrs to 14. When did we EVER see anyone get 10yrs jail for possessing illegal guns - even a drug dealer with an assault rifle??? Magistrates NEVER impose the maximum so increasing it from 10yrs to 14 for having an illegal gun is a joke. It's a populist media stunt.
Considering the worst of the worst often just get a fine for having a gun I'd rather see them force magistrates to give a decent penalty. Maybe a few years on top of sentence, instead of dealers getting 2yrs for their coke or meth and $500 for the gun it should be 5yrs for the gun on TOP of the drug sentence.
These laws are demonising all firearms owners by placing the emphasis on the firearms(illegal or otherwise) rather than those willing to use them unlawfully. Is a car any less essential in a drive by than a firearm or an associate willing to pull the trigger?
The Police already have sufficient laws to target unlawful behavior and are seeking further laws to deflect criticism from their ineffectual attempts so far.
If a previous criminal offence is sufficient to justify a warrantless search then why just stop at firearms? Why not make it apply it all people with drug offences, drink drivers, white collar crime? I mean if the point of the proposed laws is to prevent further crime then surely there is an obligation to pursue all potential offenders in all areas?
When a person with a banning orders house is searched is there any thought to the civil rights of the partner or children who have never offended or may only recently have met?
Why not just make all undesirable people wear a patch so we can segregate them and remove the rights that others enjoy?
It is a very slippery slope once you start edging down it and pray that you never slip into the sights of someone willing to extend it, just a little bit more, to all who have firearms. You don't think it could happen? Don't forget we all paid a high price for the actions of one man in 1996. Yes it was illogical but it still happened.
