Who best to effect change our laws?

[scoutinabout]

Hi, I was reading the thread on seeking legal advice before being interviewed by police. Very informative reminder.
In it, a post mentions that our laws work against us, regarding genuine reason and right/privilege.
I'm happy with safe storage, not with inspections, but I would like to be able to have a firearm in a ready place for self defence of my home one day.
My question is: Who do you thinkwill best effect change of that law?
SFFp or Leyonhjelm's Ldp?
I'm an SFFp member, but am unsure on my vote at this time.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

[bluerob]

I'd dare say that the use of a firearm for self protection will never be something that would ever occur in Australia for private citizens. Maybe after a zombie or nuclear apocalypse?

I've heard many guys over the years say "I'd have no problem...." At that point, a mate of mine who knows alot about this points out that you'll be charged with murder. Probably get manslaughter. Murder charge is used because the gun (depending on actual circumstances) may have been kept loaded and not stored in accordance with safe storage requirements. Being kept loaded shows "intent." Hence the murder charge.

I think you'll find that this topic has been discussed quite alot on this forum. Use the search function and have a read of the posts. Some great reading.

[Supaduke]

As mentioned , this subject has been discussed at great length. Bottom line is there is no way , no how , not ever going to be any change to current self defence laws regarding firearms. Check out section 462a of the crimes act regarding use of force in self defence and defence of others. Independents such as the shooters party can certainly 'stop' laws being passed, but Australia's two party system makes it very difficult for independents to make or change laws. So it's the old problem of easy to block change, hard to enact it.
Gun culture is a touchy subject for the two main parties and political dynamite. Far easier to gather the populist vote and make life hard for shooters. Therefore any change in legislation that makes life easier for shooters is unlikely to gain traction with the major parties. Sorry if this sounds defeatist but they are the facts.

Democracy can really suck when you are in the minority

[Wylie27]

Groups like firearms owners United, one shot Australia etc who keep sprouting we want all laws repealed and have self defence allowed are to me just as extreme as the greens..

We need to be sensible in how and what gets repealed.

I am not saying we should have those rights back, what I am saying it needs to be done carefully and one law at at time.

Who to vote for? Well there is only one party who is 100% a shooters party, anyone else who has positive firearms legislation can and most likely will change their vote for a piece of legislation they want. Eg sink shooters when they need something. Even the LDP.

The SFFP needs to be number one on every single ballot paper we fill out.

The more people they have in parliament the better chance we have of getting things back..

After the SFFP put down any other candidate you think is pro firearms and make sure the greens are last or not chosen at all.

[Supaduke]

Not much else you can do. Pro-gun pollies are rare, support them where you can. At the very least they provide a voice (and vote) against anti-gun sentiment. Personally I think your efforts are better directed at a more local level. Start with the wife, friends and workmates. Demystify guns and promote yourself as a good example of responsible gun ownership. Take people out shooting, demonstrate safe and mature handling of firearms. Show newbies that guns are both safe and most importantly FUN.
Don't be a d1ckhead with guns and pull up people who try to be one. Every time you see a road sign out in the country with a bullet hole it reflects badly on all of us. The worst are the YouTube videos of people being absolute tools with firearms, may seem funny but it does us no favours at all.

[adam]

Groups like firearms owners United, one shot Australia etc who keep sprouting we want all laws repealed and have self defence allowed are to me just as extreme as the greens.

It depends on what they're talking about with self defense really.

I see nothing extreme about legalising pepper spray to licensed people and think it would be a great step forward.

[<<Genesis93>>]

If you're only concerned with firearms law, then vote SFFP I'd say... trouble is they very focused area of concern would turn away a lot of shooters. Yes firearms are important, but so are so many other matters...

LDP... yes the liberty aspect is great, but their other policies are POS.

The only way legislation will be changed in ways other than a little bit around the edges, is when a significant number of Aussies are concerned enough - that is when a significant number of us are licensed and that time is approaching -hence the police, the unions and every other anti-gun mouth-piece are getting increasingly concerned with the INCREASE in licence numbers and the UPDATE in the sport and recreation. they know VERY well that once a critical mass of licensed shooters is attained; there is jack proverbial they can do to stop AUSTRALIAN from changing the laws.
##thats why every individual in my household 12year+ IS LICENSED!
##thats why every person I can legitimately get a firearm in the hands of - has a shoot.
##thats why you should encourage your friends to look at getting involved, having a shoot, perhaps a licence, tell them, that although theres a bit of a process, its relatively straight forward to get a licence.


What about changes to the gun laws; What changes? NOTHING to do with self defence, firearms law is not at all related to the use in SD.... other laws deal with that.

FORGET THIS MISCONCEPTION THAT GUNS ARE NOT ALLOWED FOR SELF DEFENCE.
THEYRE NOT PERMITTED TO BE OWNED FOR SELF DEFENCE.
YOU NOT ALLOWED TO PURCHASE A GUN SPECIFICALLY FOR SD, the rest is up to you.

If you are in a perilous situation YOU decide how you save yourself and loved ones. NO ONE ELSE

Dont let the police union and staff neither the bureaucrats warming the seats in the houses of parliament from time to time DECIDE whether you effectively defend yourself and your family. you know they wont.

Consider those mouthpieces in parliament have a 'right' to say anything they want in parliament without fear of any penalty under the law, indeed the labor party have called upon the same 'right' (in the greatest bow-drawing exercise of recent times) on those documents seized by the Feds recently from homes and offices; that right is known as 'PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE'..... relevance? Well, its very sad, nay treasonous, that 99.996% of conscious Australians have ZERO idea that the document that enacted and enshrined that most 'sacred' right that MPs rely on every single day in Parliament has another 'right' that is so much more significant than an MPs special freedom of speech, it is the right to arms for self defence;

Example in Victoria, the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 [law in effect today],

That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.

may have arms as allowed for DEFENCE by law, so in other words REGULATED... certainly not PROHIBITED.

Consider this was in place UNTIL 1996 - when the mongrels put in place the GENUINE REASON which with a stroke of the pen, STOLE from us an ancient right that was in place for 308 years, that various regents, and countless others literally lost their heads for ..... even the number is a coincidence... perhaps. If I was especially cynical I would say they probably all got together in a steam room in Canberra on chilly night 20 years ago and chanted something like "there goes your right 308".... as the towels dropped to the floor..

This is the Bill of rights of 1688 of the United Kingdom, enacted in 1689, the basis of our democratic system evidenced by the fact that its still laws today, however the defence part has been surreptitiously deleted in various, but not all states by sly 'law-makers'... with little fan fare or protest. This must be undone.

[adam]

FORGET THIS MISCONCEPTION THAT GUNS ARE NOT ALLOWED FOR SELF DEFENCE.
THEYRE NOT PERMITTED TO BE OWNED FOR SELF DEFENCE.
YOU NOT ALLOWED TO PURCHASE A GUN SPECIFICALLY FOR SD, the rest is up to you.

Actually there's more to it... the rest isn't up to us.

We are not allowed to store a gun in a way that it is readily and easily accessible in a home invasion scenario.

We are not allowed to carry the firearm (or many other self defense items) for the purpose of self defense as well..

The laws are not just designed to make self defense a "non genuine reason" - but they're also designed to stop us from using guns (and other items) for self defense from a practicality point of view as well. One can argue the technicalities of it all day - but the end result is that there are very few scenario's where one could be practical about it - and stay within the parameters of the law.

It's the same as saying old granny is allowed to defend herself from a gang mob breaking into her house. She's allowed to - just not given the ability for it to make it practical...

But I think we've had plenty of threads on this too.

[Supaduke]

My eyes are glazing over, the topic of firearms for self defence really has been done and dusted It often gets a bit heated too.

[Title_II]

Vote for Title_II !!!

[darwindingo]

Tough question Scoutinabout, I wish I could give you a definitive answer.

I think the issue of firearms for self defense pertaining to private citizens is unlikely to ever gain the overwhelming support that would be required to effect such a change.

In saying that, I think the most likely to alter the balance of support for such a change are the offenders themselves. I mean if they cause enough harm that personally effects the people that currently oppose such a thing, then who knows what could happen?

Jeff

[happyhunter]

I'm happy with safe storage, not with inspections, but I would like to be able to have a firearm in a ready place for self defence of my home one day.
My question is: Who do you thinkwill best effect change of that law?

Police, security guards and some criminals carry guns for self defense. If a pleb decided to break the law by keeping a gun for self defense, detection would be unlikely unless:
1. They actually used a gun in self defense which would attract a police investigation, or
2. They were dobbed in by a 'friend'

If the law does change, which is not as impossible as some people believe, you might find that the people who are most likely to be shot (usually accidently) are the people who keep a gun within easy access, if only by the statistics.

[darwindingo]

One thing that could present a serious issue to overcome is "In a ready place" I take that as the "Easy access" referred to in the previous post . By their very nature either term would likley contravene the secure storage requirements, (say under the pillow or bead side draw for example). However there could be ways that you could have it stored in a safe that only authorised and licensed individuals within the household could access in a satisfactory and effective way that would be vastly preferential in my opinion, in such a circumstance..

Jeff

[GLS_1956]

Scoutinabout. You asked who is best to effect changes in Australian gun laws. The answer to you in "The Land Down Under" is the same as it is for me in Oklahoma, The VOTER. Yes you and your friends and fellow shooters/gunowners, not political parties and not outside organizations, more on that in a moment.

When I go into the polling station I base my vote on my RIGHTS as an American CITIZEN. Not just on gun rights but on the other RIGHTS enumerated in our Constitution. Now what this means is that if you were to take a nation wide poll asking who is for or against gun ownership, in the USA, you'd get the response that the Dems are anti-gun and the Repubs are pro-gun. Do this in Oklahoma and you'll find that both Republican and Democrat party members are viewed as pro-gun. I would be hard to get elected "turd buster at a sewage plant" in Oklahoma if you are anti-gun. Organization wise you'll hear/read about the NRA's voting block power. Understand this, the NRA has no ability to cast a single vote anywhere in America. What the NRA has, like any other organization, is the freedom and ability to get out it's side of the debate. But make sure you understand that it is the VOTER, me in the US and you in Australia, that has the power to change the laws.

[anthillinside]

Scoutinabout. You asked who is best to effect changes in Australian gun laws. The answer to you in "The Land Down Under" is the same as it is for me in Oklahoma, The VOTER. Yes you and your friends and fellow shooters/gunowners, not political parties and not outside organizations, more on that in a moment.

When I go into the polling station I base my vote on my RIGHTS as an American CITIZEN. Not just on gun rights but on the other RIGHTS enumerated in our Constitution. Now what this means is that if you were to take a nation wide poll asking who is for or against gun ownership, in the USA, you'd get the response that the Dems are anti-gun and the Repubs are pro-gun. Do this in Oklahoma and you'll find that both Republican and Democrat party members are viewed as pro-gun. I would be hard to get elected "turd buster at a sewage plant" in Oklahoma if you are anti-gun. Organization wise you'll hear/read about the NRA's voting block power. Understand this, the NRA has no ability to cast a single vote anywhere in America. What the NRA has, like any other organization, is the freedom and ability to get out it's side of the debate. But make sure you understand that it is the VOTER, me in the US and you in Australia, that has the power to change the laws.

I agree that the voter has a certain amount of power. yes in the end the ultimate power to vote in or out whoever they want.
BUT you have to have a political organisation that will make the changes you want to vote for.
In Aus the majority of politicians use an anti gun stand as a we'll keep you safe law and order argument, so both our equivalents of the USA’s Dems and Repubs, Libs and Labor are both anti gun.
So we need grow our power base in every way we can, lobby groups like the NRA could help.
But I do agree that our main focus should be on the power of our vote putting pressure on our politicians to do what WE want them to do.
We start a long way behind you in the USA, we don’t have your constitution or your bill of rights.
Western civilization, so much alike but so different, let’s hope we don’t destroy ourselves by trying to please everyone.

[BBJ]

2. They were dobbed in by a 'friend'

Bragging to a friend has brought many a person undone for their particular misdeeds.