Gun laws before 1996

News and events in the media and political arena relating to firearms.

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by NTSOG » 30 Apr 2021, 3:50 pm

G'day,

I seem to remember cadets carrying Lee Enfields on the tram in the 1960s. There was also a .22 rifle range on the roof of one of the buildings at the school I attended in South Yarra. I do remember a Cadet Officer [school teacher] discharging a blank 303 round during cadet parade on the school oval having put a jam tin on the muzzle. We were all very impressed by the hole in the can and how dangerous a blank round was which, of course, was the point of the exercise. That wouldn't happen nowadays, but, as many of the teachers had served in combat during WW II there was a whole different attitude towards firearms from most adults in their 40s - 50s who had gone through the war years and also seen thousands of troops marching through Melbourne. [The MCG was a US barracks during the War.] On the farm rifles and shotguns were not locked up, but the ammo was. Shooting was part of my father's way of life growing up on the land; we accepted it as just a natural part of outdoor life.

Jim
NTSOG
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 291
Victoria

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by Communism_Is_Cancer » 30 Apr 2021, 4:06 pm

bladeracer wrote:
womble wrote:Sorry i meant own the farm. Primary producer.


CatC I'm aware of. I could own one semi-auto rimfire rifle and one pump/semi shotgun, if I felt the need to control pests on my own properties. But I can't have CatD unless I'm shooting pests contractually for my livelihood. In both cases though, I could not take my CarC/D firearms for hunting recreationally, or onto any other property than stated for owning them.

I'm not aware that Qld is any different. The handful of videos I've seen of CatD firearms used in Qld have all been held under those same stipulations as we have in Victoria.


Yes in Queensland you can get Cat C,D and H for primary production. It can only be used on the registered property. The reason being is because it is not fair to pay a pest controller to come onto the property when you can do it yourself. Queensland has a lot of pigs and dogs that can cause massive damage to cattle.
Communism_Is_Cancer
Private
Private
 
Posts: 56
Queensland

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by bladeracer » 30 Apr 2021, 4:13 pm

Communism_Is_Cancer wrote:
bladeracer wrote:CatC I'm aware of. I could own one semi-auto rimfire rifle and one pump/semi shotgun, if I felt the need to control pests on my own properties. But I can't have CatD unless I'm shooting pests contractually for my livelihood. In both cases though, I could not take my CarC/D firearms for hunting recreationally, or onto any other property than stated for owning them.

I'm not aware that Qld is any different. The handful of videos I've seen of CatD firearms used in Qld have all been held under those same stipulations as we have in Victoria.


Yes in Queensland you can get Cat C,D and H for primary production. It can only be used on the registered property. The reason being is because it is not fair to pay a pest controller to come onto the property when you can do it yourself. Queensland has a lot of pigs and dogs that can cause massive damage to cattle.


Is CatD like CatH up there though, theoretically possible, but practically impossible to actually get?
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
General
General
 
Posts: 7787
Victoria

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by Communism_Is_Cancer » 30 Apr 2021, 4:27 pm

bladeracer wrote:
Communism_Is_Cancer wrote:
bladeracer wrote:CatC I'm aware of. I could own one semi-auto rimfire rifle and one pump/semi shotgun, if I felt the need to control pests on my own properties. But I can't have CatD unless I'm shooting pests contractually for my livelihood. In both cases though, I could not take my CarC/D firearms for hunting recreationally, or onto any other property than stated for owning them.

I'm not aware that Qld is any different. The handful of videos I've seen of CatD firearms used in Qld have all been held under those same stipulations as we have in Victoria.


Yes in Queensland you can get Cat C,D and H for primary production. It can only be used on the registered property. The reason being is because it is not fair to pay a pest controller to come onto the property when you can do it yourself. Queensland has a lot of pigs and dogs that can cause massive damage to cattle.


Is CatD like CatH up there though, theoretically possible, but practically impossible to actually get?


So in theory anyone who has a need to cull animals can apply for cat D. But in reality its primary producers, land holders and feral pest controllers.

Section 33 of the Queensland weapons regulations.
"A person who, in the conduct of the person’s business or
employment (whether or not in primary production), has a
need for a category D weapon to cull animals may apply for a
firearms licence with an endorsement for no more than 2
category D weapons."



Cat D is common for primary producers in Queensland. Queensland has some very big properties and a lot of wild animals. In regards to cat H for primary producers have a read of the below police fact sheet. Cat H for primary production is one of the rarest in Queensland. Only around 100 people have it.

https://www.police.qld.gov.au/sites/def ... 0sheet.pdf
Communism_Is_Cancer
Private
Private
 
Posts: 56
Queensland

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by pomemax » 30 Apr 2021, 4:28 pm

I was at a range the other week in NSW a guy beside me pull out A 308 semi AUTO and shoots it bout 30 times while sighting in a thermal scope then when he was done with that out came a .223 semi AUTO with a silencer on it another 30 rounds the 7.52 x 39 semi auto same thing .

Of course I got chatting to him .

.He has D on his licence when i asked about how he got the D it was he owned a property so did his Dad and 3 cousins all had properties .

So he contracted to his dad and to all his cousins $1000 per year to shoot pigs and dogs so $4000 per year on tax return done that for 2 years and they all done the same thing .
Once he had D he was getting contracts all over NSW a few mines and believe it golf courses in Sydney
pomemax
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1063
New South Wales

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by deye243 » 30 Apr 2021, 6:52 pm

bladeracer wrote:you are deluded if you believe preventing us from lawfully owning firearms means terrorists and criminals are equally prevented. Where do you think the hundreds of thousands of semi-auto rifles went that were not handed in in 1996? All the AG42's, SKS/SKK's, M1 Carbines, Mini14's, and the other fun stuff that was imported and sold - if they had been handed in, the pile would've been bigger than the single-shot rimfires and guns that were handed in.

So, no, just because somebody _might_ use something to commit an atrocity is _not_ sufficient reason myself, or you, or any other Aussie, shouldn't be able to enjoy owning and using something for lawful purpose.

+1
deye243
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1184
Victoria

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by womble » 30 Apr 2021, 7:45 pm

Cat D in any state is a commercial or corporate licence. It’s not the same as a recreational licence.
It’s not available for recreational shooters or hunters in any state afaik.
You need to justify your need or requirements in relation to a business income.
womble
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 655
Victoria

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by womble » 30 Apr 2021, 8:05 pm

[quote="bladeracer"]you are deluded if you believe preventing us from lawfully owning firearms means terrorists and criminals are equally prevented. Where do you think the hundreds of thousands of semi-auto rifles went that were not handed in in 1996? All the AG42's, SKS/SKK's, M1 Carbines, Mini14's, and the other fun stuff that was imported and sold - if they had been handed in, the pile would've been bigger than the single-shot rimfires and guns that were handed in.

So, no, just because somebody _might_ use something to commit an atrocity is _not_ sufficient reason myself, or you, or any other Aussie, shouldn't be able to enjoy owning and using something for lawful purpose.


Works for us.
Tarrant would have killed in Brisbane. He was’nt able to access them through criminals because he was a weirdo/incel and a loner.
Did’nt network with gangs and drug dealers.
He need a licence to buy them and he could’nt get that here.

As for where all the semi-autos went, i think you know the answer.
womble
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 655
Victoria

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by deye243 » 30 Apr 2021, 9:45 pm

Yep in a Howard safe
deye243
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1184
Victoria

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by bladeracer » 01 May 2021, 12:21 am

What evidence do you have that suggests our gun laws have prevented these mass murders? Does the same evidence explain why we didn't see these mass murders before the laws changed?


womble wrote:
bladeracer wrote:you are deluded if you believe preventing us from lawfully owning firearms means terrorists and criminals are equally prevented. Where do you think the hundreds of thousands of semi-auto rifles went that were not handed in in 1996? All the AG42's, SKS/SKK's, M1 Carbines, Mini14's, and the other fun stuff that was imported and sold - if they had been handed in, the pile would've been bigger than the single-shot rimfires and guns that were handed in.

So, no, just because somebody _might_ use something to commit an atrocity is _not_ sufficient reason myself, or you, or any other Aussie, shouldn't be able to enjoy owning and using something for lawful purpose.


Works for us.
Tarrant would have killed in Brisbane. He was’nt able to access them through criminals because he was a weirdo/incel and a loner.
Did’nt network with gangs and drug dealers.
He need a licence to buy them and he could’nt get that here.

As for where all the semi-autos went, i think you know the answer.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
General
General
 
Posts: 7787
Victoria

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by womble » 01 May 2021, 5:22 am

We’ve always seen mass murders and we always will. No different to in any human society throughout history.
How a particular society views them though is the relevance. Ours is a society of deterrence.

I mentioned a particular mass murder that was carried out with high powered semi auto rifles in 2019 that our gun laws prevented from happening on home soil. A preventative to the means of which the victims were murdered.
Certainly not a preventative to mass murders by any other means.

What i think is irrelevant. To draw a conclusion that political extremists want arms from reading gun forums has no weight. It’s just as likely the posters are anti-gun protagonists.
What asio thinks is of relevance. They have people in the field infiltrating these groups. Therefore the threat is real.
How a government will react to it’s intelligence agencies is to mitigate risk. In this particular example risk mitigation is restrictions on the type of firearms it’s citizens can own.
And i would anticipate further restrictions to come.

I hope that’s a simple enough explanation, cheers.

And no Hugh, theres no Howard safe.
womble
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 655
Victoria

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by Communism_Is_Cancer » 01 May 2021, 6:27 am

womble wrote:We’ve always seen mass murders and we always will. No different to in any human society throughout history.
How a particular society views them though is the relevance. Ours is a society of deterrence.

I mentioned a particular mass murder that was carried out with high powered semi auto rifles in 2019 that our gun laws prevented from happening on home soil. A preventative to the means of which the victims were murdered.
Certainly not a preventative to mass murders by any other means.

What i think is irrelevant. To draw a conclusion that political extremists want arms from reading gun forums has no weight. It’s just as likely the posters are anti-gun protagonists.
What asio thinks is of relevance. They have people in the field infiltrating these groups. Therefore the threat is real.
How a government will react to it’s intelligence agencies is to mitigate risk. In this particular example risk mitigation is restrictions on the type of firearms it’s citizens can own.
And i would anticipate further restrictions to come.

I hope that’s a simple enough explanation, cheers.

And no Hugh, theres no Howard safe.


You sound like the mainstream media. I don't know if the rifle he used was 223 or 556 but either way that is not high powered. I would also like to mention some things to you if I may. He was only licenced to use 7 round magazines but like a true criminal, he did not follow the law and used a standard 30 capacity magazine. In NZ the police have to do interviews on references before people get their firearm licences. The police failed to do so. The laws already existed to help weed out criminals but the police failed in their obligation.

Also, Martin Bryant did not have a gun licence or a car licence and he had guns and drove a car. Even in Tasmania in 1996 you needed a firearms licence. Criminals will always not follow the law. That's what makes them criminals.
Communism_Is_Cancer
Private
Private
 
Posts: 56
Queensland

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by NTSOG » 01 May 2021, 7:34 am

G'day,

MB in Tasmania had a history of significant behavioural issues indicating he presented through childhood and adolescence with the features of a conduct disorder: high risk taking, lack of empathy, cruelty to other people and animals, etc. over and above his intellectual impairment. [His full Scale IQ ( FSIQ) as reported in the forensic psychiatric court report was 64.] He had been seen in his early years by a psychiatrist. He was not Autistic - Asperger's Syndrome as assessed by the forensic psychiatrist. [I worked, in the community and institutions, for 40 years with people like Bryant, some were very dangerous; in fact I had a similar client in 1997 who at age 13 was the most dangerous person I have ever met. However none of my clients had access to firearms though they used other weapons.] Having an FSIQ of 64 doesn't preclude having skills such as being able to drive or fire a rifle, but having a deep understanding of and respect for other people in society is another matter. An IQ of 64 means that MB had a mental age equivalent to a child of about 8-9 years or so. I suspect that when MB was growing up he was the equivalent of the local 'village idiot' - his 'eccentricity' tolerated and indulged by his family and some neighbours in spite of his often dangerous and odd antics which never quite crossed the line legally. Nowadays his actions would see him sent for an intensive psychiatric assessment as the profile of such disturbed children growing up is far better understood. It wasn't when he was a developing child/adolescent. The combination of his severe, but not understood, developmental profile with more relaxed attitudes toward possession of firearms and, especially, lack of specialist services in Tasmania for people such as MB led to the events of 1996. A whole lot of factors came together in Tasmania in 1996 resulting in a mass killing by a 'moron'*.

Jim


* Moron was the clinical term used to describe people at MB's level of FSIQ/development in the early C20.
NTSOG
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 291
Victoria

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by Communism_Is_Cancer » 01 May 2021, 7:55 am

NTSOG wrote:G'day,

MB in Tasmania had a history of significant behavioural issues indicating he presented through childhood and adolescence with the features of a conduct disorder: high risk taking, lack of empathy, cruelty to other people and animals, etc. over and above his intellectual impairment. [His full Scale IQ ( FSIQ) as reported in the forensic psychiatric court report was 64.] He had been seen in his early years by a psychiatrist. He was not Autistic - Asperger's Syndrome as assessed by the forensic psychiatrist. [I worked, in the community and institutions, for 40 years with people like Bryant, some were very dangerous; in fact I had a similar client in 1997 who at age 13 was the most dangerous person I have ever met. However none of my clients had access to firearms though they used other weapons.] Having an FSIQ of 64 doesn't preclude having skills such as being able to drive or fire a rifle, but having a deep understanding of and respect for other people in society is another matter. An IQ of 64 means that MB had a mental age equivalent to a child of about 8-9 years or so. I suspect that when MB was growing up he was the equivalent of the local 'village idiot' - his 'eccentricity' tolerated and indulged by his family and some neighbours in spite of his often dangerous and odd antics which never quite crossed the line legally. Nowadays his actions would see him sent for an intensive psychiatric assessment as the profile of such disturbed children growing up is far better understood. It wasn't when he was a developing child/adolescent. The combination of his severe, but not understood, developmental profile with more relaxed attitudes toward possession of firearms and, especially, lack of specialist services in Tasmania for people such as MB led to the events of 1996. A whole lot of factors came together in Tasmania in 1996 resulting in a mass killing by a 'moron'*.

Jim


* Moron was the clinical term used to describe people at MB's level of FSIQ/development in the early C20.




There has been series investments in this countries mental health since 1996. Which is why heavily restricting firearms based on action makes no sense. I can only speak for Queensland but getting a legal firearm now is still pretty much the same as it was before 1996. All it takes is to join a club or have rural land, do a safety course then apply for a licence. The only major difference is it takes about 6 months and you are restricted on magazine capacity and action type. 10 rounds is the limit for pump and lever action centrefire rifles. Because as everybody knows as soon as you add the 11th round you instantly become a deranged psychopath.

The dad in NSW that killed his kids and himself with the handgun waited the nearly year long wait to get his guns so he could commit his crime. All the laws in the world do not prevent crime, they only slow it down.
Communism_Is_Cancer
Private
Private
 
Posts: 56
Queensland

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by Communism_Is_Cancer » 01 May 2021, 8:16 am

I think of so called mass shootings the same as airplane crashes. People are so terrified of them happening because when they do the casualty rate is high but the likelihood of them happening is so incredibly low that one is likely to never experience it. Yet everyday someone dies in a car crash or a single case of murder but nobody is worried about that now are they? Go to the FBI website and have a look at the murder statistics. More people are killed in the USA by hands and feet(IE beaten to death) then by rifles (AR15s). Around 800 beaten to 400 by rifles. So the media wigs out about AR15s killing people but not the dangerous hands and feet?

330 million people in the USA and only 400 are killed by rifles in a year. 400 / 330 000 000 = 0.00012% of the population.

Also killed refers to death. Suicide, murder, accident etc etc
Communism_Is_Cancer
Private
Private
 
Posts: 56
Queensland

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by NTSOG » 01 May 2021, 8:26 am

G'day C_I_C,

Yes intervention and services starting with children is better. However so-called average, though maybe somewhat 'different' or eccentric people cannot be forced to undergo assessment and treatment without due processes being met under the Law, e.g. Guardianship. The obviously disturbed or incompetent are mostly picked up fairly quickly now, but as we know from cases like Ted Bundy in the USA and the bloke in NSW there are some very smart people with murder in their minds whose 'time-on-task' is excellent: they plan and wait their chance and there is damn-all that can be done until it's too late. During early C20 many 'fringe' people were sent to live in institutions where they were 'contained' - legally or otherwise - just because they were 'strange', considered at risk, e.g. 'wayward' teenage girls were placed in institutions to prevent them becoming pregnant, or different, though not 'criminal'. However the last institution in Victoria was shut in 1994 and the people from such places now live in community residences with support. I once worked in a large institution. Every so often a local Magistrate would send some not very bright but street-wise lad who had been caught nicking hubcaps to the institution as gaol wasn't the right and safe place for the slow-witted.

There is no easy answer to the issue of people who might be odd and might present risk to others.

Jim
NTSOG
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 291
Victoria

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by Communism_Is_Cancer » 01 May 2021, 8:33 am

NTSOG wrote:G'day C_I_C,

Yes intervention and services starting with children is better. However so-called average, though maybe somewhat 'different' or eccentric people cannot be forced to undergo assessment and treatment without due processes being met under the Law, e.g. Guardianship. The obviously disturbed or incompetent are mostly picked up fairly quickly now, but as we know from cases like Ted Bundy in the USA and the bloke in NSW there are some very smart people with murder in their minds whose 'time-on-task' is excellent: they plan and wait their chance and there is damn-all that can be done until it's too late. During early C20 many 'fringe' people were sent to live in institutions where they were 'contained' - legally or otherwise - just because they were 'strange', considered at risk, e.g. 'wayward' teenage girls were placed in institutions to prevent them becoming pregnant, or different, though not 'criminal'. However the last institution in Victoria was shut in 1994 and the people from such places now live in community residences with support. I once worked in a large institution. Every so often a local Magistrate would send some not very bright but street-wise lad who had been caught nicking hubcaps to the institution as gaol wasn't the right and safe place for the slow-witted.

There is no easy answer to the issue of people who might be odd and might present risk to others.

Jim


Us lawful firearms owners are just left in the middle being tarnished with the same brush. If one is deemed fit and proper to own a firearm then they should be deemed fit and proper to own any action they decide.
Communism_Is_Cancer
Private
Private
 
Posts: 56
Queensland

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by Oldbloke » 01 May 2021, 6:57 pm

womble wrote:How a government will react to it’s intelligence agencies is to mitigate risk. In this particular example risk mitigation is restrictions on the type of firearms it’s citizens can own.
And i would anticipate further restrictions to come.


100% correct. Just like you need a licence for the operation of some equipment or to make explosives. etc.
But in our case politics is also part of the mix.
Good manners are free. Hunt safe, look after the bush & plug more pests. :thumbsup: The greatest invention in the history of man is beer. :drinks: Text alone does not convey the full message. Practice good hygiene.
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 7113
Victoria

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by Oldbloke » 01 May 2021, 6:59 pm

I used to travel on the Melbourne suburban trains to meet a mate and go hunting for the weekend Reularly carried a soft rifle case. Never even a look sideways. Lol
Good manners are free. Hunt safe, look after the bush & plug more pests. :thumbsup: The greatest invention in the history of man is beer. :drinks: Text alone does not convey the full message. Practice good hygiene.
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 7113
Victoria

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by Farmerpete » 02 May 2021, 1:44 pm

The old guy at my lgs remembered in Queensland serving guys who'd walk in look at a gun and say "what do I need to do to get it?" His response was have you got a drivers licence and money?.

A gun licence was brought in shortly before 1996 but it was a formality to trak who had a gun, you could still buy and sell them in the paper, no pta or category etc.

As for storage my dad kept an sks with fully loaded mag beside it on the table in the shed.
Never went missing or got messed with by any of the workers it was just part of the farm.
Farmerpete
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 290
Queensland

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by Oldbloke » 02 May 2021, 6:19 pm

Farmerpete wrote:The old guy at my lgs remembered in Queensland serving guys who'd walk in look at a gun and say "what do I need to do to get it?" His response was have you got a drivers licence and money?.

A gun licence was brought in shortly before 1996 but it was a formality to trak who had a gun, you could still buy and sell them in the paper, no pta or category etc.

As for storage my dad kept an sks with fully loaded mag beside it on the table in the shed.
Never went missing or got messed with by any of the workers it was just part of the farm.


Mmm, what state was that?

I got my gun licence in 1973 when I turned 18. Just paid over the counter at the local cop shop.
Good manners are free. Hunt safe, look after the bush & plug more pests. :thumbsup: The greatest invention in the history of man is beer. :drinks: Text alone does not convey the full message. Practice good hygiene.
User avatar
Oldbloke
General
General
 
Posts: 7113
Victoria

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by Farmerpete » 06 May 2021, 12:40 am

Oldbloke wrote:
Farmerpete wrote:The old guy at my lgs remembered in Queensland serving guys who'd walk in look at a gun and say "what do I need to do to get it?" His response was have you got a drivers licence and money?.

A gun licence was brought in shortly before 1996 but it was a formality to trak who had a gun, you could still buy and sell them in the paper, no pta or category etc.

As for storage my dad kept an sks with fully loaded mag beside it on the table in the shed.
Never went missing or got messed with by any of the workers it was just part of the farm.


Mmm, what state was that?

I got my gun licence in 1973 when I turned 18. Just paid over the counter at the local cop shop.


Queensland

The sks had a 30 shot mag too
Farmerpete
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 290
Queensland

Re: Gun laws before 1996

Post by Bravs » 06 May 2021, 4:34 am

Oldbloke wrote:I used to travel on the Melbourne suburban trains to meet a mate and go hunting for the weekend Reularly carried a soft rifle case. Never even a look sideways. Lol


A few years ago, I bought a gun bag from an Aussie outdoor shop at Fountaingate. I did not want them to fold the bag so they can fit in a shopping bag so decided I'd just shouldered it and take it to the car.
Walked out the shop with a toddler by the hands, not even 50 steps from the shop and here's Mr. Wilson asking if there's a firearm in that bag.
Bravs
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 21
Victoria

Previous

Back to top
 
Return to Firearms related media and politics