Baitlayer wrote:G'day to all.Well I may not have got a definitive answer to my post( Realistically I didn't expect one),one thing that is abundantly clear is the frustration that arises from the confusion and lack of clarity in the present laws.They are so open to interpretation and dependent on which source your info comes ,that it is not surprising it causes anger and frustation.I have recently had the same conversation with long serving police officer here in WA and he told me they are equally frustrated and confused by the situation.Surely it is time for the various representative bodies(SSAA, NRAA etc)to forget the infighting and work toward uniform and clear firearms laws,preferably national .and not state based.I realise this is pie in the sky thinking but we can only hope.
For what its worth, when the SSAA asked for input into the review of regulations for NSW last year, I wrote to them asking for exactly that - and for whatever reason, it unfortunately didn't make it into the submission they eventually sent to the government, although a lot of other sensible suggestions on other issues were proposed so I can't complain too much.
Realistically, the representative bodies won't push the government unless the members tell them they want something. People whinge about the SSAA (a lot of time for good reason) but if you want them to lobby for changes in the law you can't just pay your dues and forget about it, email them and tell them what you want them to push for.
As a side note baitlayer, it basically has to be a state based law unfortunately because of who has what powers under the constitution. The national firearms agreement after Port Arthur was really the national government getting all the states to individually agree to all put in basically the same set of laws - and then they changed a bit over time. The national government doesn't really have much power in this area. That's the reason why they couldn't actually ban the Adler, but they were able to threaten to ban any more importation of them.