Age article..gun owner fails to win back firearms licence

[happyhunter]

As part of the decision to take away his licence, Mr Mazur refused requests to undertake a mental health check. Neither Victoria Police or the AFP considered Mr Mazur a direct threat and he has not been charged with any offence.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/malco ... s9tki.html

Seems being a law abiding ex service men with no criminal record with a legally registered rifle he has have owned since 1959 and not being considered a threat by police didn't help this gentleman.

[colinbentley]

When you hold views like this crackpot, you don't express them in public. He was begging to have his gun license revoked. You can think it, just don't voice it. I for one think it is great this crazy SOB no longer has the right to carry a gun. he was an act of violence waiting to happen.

[happyhunter]

When you hold views like this crackpot, you don't express them in public. He was begging to have his gun license revoked. You can think it, just don't voice it. I for one think it is great this crazy SOB no longer has the right to carry a gun. he was an act of violence waiting to happen.

So your expert opinion is correct, and the police view that he is no threat is wrong?

[happyhunter]

When you hold views like this crackpot, you don't express them in public. He was begging to have his gun license revoked. You can think it, just don't voice it. I for one think it is great this crazy SOB no longer has the right to carry a gun. he was an act of violence waiting to happen.

..and there are members of this forum who believe the PA massacre may have been a government conspiracy, so do you consider them to be crack pots who deserve to have their tickets revoked?

[colinbentley]

When you have a firearms license it's dumb to express opinions such as this. It's asking for trouble.

[happyhunter]

When you have a firearms license it's dumb to express opinions such as this. It's asking for trouble.

Ok, so the Firearms Act should include a clause that forbids gun owners from the freedom to express views that besides being harmless, these views go against the mainstream? Are you saying Australia no longer allows free speech?

[andreweden]

Go have the mental health check! If he passed that, then no worries. This is not that difficult.
I think being "not crazy" is probably a good gate to pass through when owning a firearm.

[deadkitty]

I have to agree with Colin, the man has serious mental health issues, he did have the option of undertaking a mental health assessment, which he refused....why?..... if he is perfectly sane he'd have nothing to worry about would he?. The day is coming when we might all be subjected to mental health checks before owing a firearm. Not such a bad thing in my view. Cheers

[Wylie27]

so much annoyance right now at the level of crap these new comers to the sport are displaying.

I am going to let others deal with this... what I will say might get me banned from this place.

[deadkitty]

I have been shooting since 1965....and that makes me a newcomer to the sport does it?. Mate I've probably shot more rabbits and foxes than you ve ever seen..... but ignore me.... I'm a newcomer. If a mental health check worries you, then....you worry me. Cheers

[doc]

I can see why people may be concerned with his mental health stability with what he wrote. Further more, I don't think he is the best advocate for firearm owners.

However in saying this - if he is mentally unstable to possess a firearm, then shouldn't he also be considered mentally unstable to possess a drivers license and a vehicle and these should also be taken away?

Shouldn't this go even further? Anyone else that fits into this same level / category (aka - people with no firearms, but with cars that express similar opinions to him or act in a similar way) - shouldn't they also be under the same level of scrutiny and have their drivers licenses and cars taken from them as well?

I can see why happyhunter is upset. Firearm owners should have the same rights, and not be treated any differently to the rest of the population. If there are concerns about our mental health and they're valid, the same should apply to everyone - not just one person because they own a gun, and not someone else because they don't.

Likewise if you support mental health checks to prove you're OK - that too should also apply to drivers, or anyone else that operates anything that could cause GBH to other people. (Trains, planes, you name it).

[scotty87]

One has to wonder if his views weren't anti-Semitic would he have been labeled a crackpot? If his views were the same but he blamed Iran or Russia or China would he still have lost his firearms? In this case though it's not so much his views but to whom and how he decided to express them that resulted in action against him. I very much doubt this man would have been a threat to the general public, the article makes no mention of him threatening to back up his views with violence. The AFP is overly paranoid as in this day and age the consequences if the are not could be horrendous, going by what acts of terror we've witnessed overseas.

[Oldbloke]

Yep, mental health check tk:
Drive a forklift
Crane
Train driver
Tram driver
Car and truck driver
Be a journist
IT person cause could be a security risk
Member of political party
Senator
Priminister
Accountant, might rip off the government. Lol
Doctor, might kill people.
Chemist, he might pop on people
Police, might harass people.
Prison officers, might treat prisoners badly

The list goes on. We are discriminated against at daily. Some people on this forum need to look in the mirror and reflect.

[gazza]

Comparing guns to cars, swimming pools, hammers etc makes me cringe. I don't think he should lose his rifle, I didn't think anyone liked Jews.

[on_one_wheel]

Yeah if he's that unstable surely his car license will be revoked

Dose he own knives and have access to house bricks, is there dangerous things in his workplace? I shudder to think

[happyhunter]

Let's look at facts only. The Age news paper makes no secret about being anti firearm ownership. The article is high on afjectives, but low on facts, but the few facts speak loudly.

1. This bloke is an ex serviceman. he probably has a sense of duty to his country.
2. He has owned a rifle since 1959.
3. He has no criminal record
4. He has complied with every gun law change from 1959 to present.
5. The State and federal police have deemed him not to be a threat.

He has refused a mental assessment, but considering he is 72 years old I can understand him taking offense to the suggestion he do so. His views may be uncomfortable for many people, but I would consider them more fantasy than extreme. Some might compare it to religious belief.

If you look only at the facts and ignore the deliberately manipulative writing style of the article, the facts say this bloke is a law abiding citizen who has no violent intention backed up by a history of compliance with the law and his clean record.

[deadkitty]

The issue is , do you think the man in the article is a fit and proper person to own a firearm?, it seems many, including myself, do not think he is. Gazza, comments like your last one do not reflect well on the shooting community, but I agree with your "Comparing guns to cars, swimming pools, hammers etc makes me cringe". Cheers

[tom604]

72 years old, has a different view of the world than the majority, thinks that turdbull is a jew, has a weapon,and dare i say it, a arab sounding name,,mmm why would the cops take his gun?? add on the fact that he must of been pretty vocal with his views to be dobbed in (someone must of complained for the cops to have taken notice of him) and that he may only be a step away from dementia, say bye bye gun. may not be fair but thats life

[gazza]

It was a bit of a joke kitty. I doubt anyone looking for dirt would even notice. Unlike the story of you and your brother.

[Oldbloke]

Let's look at facts only. The Age news paper makes no secret about being anti firearm ownership. The article is high on afjectives, but low on facts, but the few facts speak loudly.

1. This bloke is an ex serviceman. he probably has a sense of duty to his country.
2. He has owned a rifle since 1959.
3. He has no criminal record
4. He has complied with every gun law change from 1959 to present.
5. The State and federal police have deemed him not to be a threat.

He has refused a mental assessment, but considering he is 72 years old I can understand him taking offense to the suggestion he do so. His views may be uncomfortable for many people, but I would consider them more fantasy than extreme. Some might compare it to religious belief.

If you look only at the facts and ignore the deliberately manipulative writing style of the article, the facts say this bloke is a law abiding citizen who has no violent intention backed up by a history of compliance with the law and his clean record.

Spot on. And I would be offended if I was asked to do a psycho test. Let's call the cops and see if deadkitty would like that treatment. I don't like what he says.

[happyhunter]

72 years old, has a different view of the world than the majority, thinks that turdbull is a jew, has a weapon,and dare i say it, a arab sounding name,,mmm why would the cops take his gun?? add on the fact that he must of been pretty vocal with his views to be dobbed in (someone must of complained for the cops to have taken notice of him) and that he may only be a step away from dementia, say bye bye gun. may not be fair but thats life

The surname is Polish and they were on our side. He is a Vietnam vet, an ex soldier. Nobody dobbed him in. He wrote a letter to a politician expressing his views and that is what got attention. Keep in mind, he never made any threats.

[brett1868]

Interesting thread and yet another controversial one that seems to split our members. Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy debate and after reading the article in the paper I'm thinking he's essentially a harmless not so old bloke with politically objectionable opinions. He's certainly been vocal and has written letters but nothing threatening, no different to many other individuals or organisations. They have revoked his license based on "seemingly paranoid views" raised questions about his mental stability.

Since the issue of the license carries a clause about a licence must not be issued if the Commissioner has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant may not personally exercise continuous and responsible control over firearms because of:
(a) the applicant’s way of living or domestic circumstances, or
(b) any previous attempt by the applicant to commit suicide or cause a self-inflicted injury, or
(c) the applicant’s intemperate habits or being of unsound mind.

Since they have questioned his mental stability they probably revoked under Division 2, Section 24 Paragraph 2(c) "if the Commissioner is of the opinion that the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence".

I think the court did the right thing but if he submits to a mental health assessment and gets cleared they should re-instate his license without delay.

[Grated]

I think the court did the right thing but if he submits to a mental health assessment and gets cleared they should re-instate his license without delay.

We know that won't be the case though.

Take the license from him in an afternoon. If he's entitled to it back it'll take them a year to do it.

[pomemax]

"]Let's look at facts only. The Age news paper makes no secret about being anti firearm ownership. The article is high on adjectives, but low on facts, but the few facts speak loudly.

1. This bloke is an ex serviceman. he probably has a sense of duty to his country.
2. He has owned a rifle since 1959.
3. He has no criminal record
4. He has complied with every gun law change from 1959 to present.
5. The State and federal police have deemed him not to be a threat.

He has refused a mental assessment, but considering he is 72 years old I can understand him taking offense to the suggestion he do so. His views may be uncomfortable for many people, but I would consider them more fantasy than extreme. Some might compare it to religious belief.

If you look only at the facts and ignore the deliberately manipulative writing style of the article, the facts say this bloke is a law abiding citizen who has no violent intention backed up by a history of compliance with the law and his clean record.[/quote]


May be the only comment on here that,s to the point as to the mans sanity I can not comment on after reading 1 news report

I dint not know that a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal member Elisabeth Wentworth confirmed the decision to take away Mr Mazur's gun licence earlier this month, as she was not satisfied he was a fit and proper person

Even tho the State and federal police considered him NO threat Not That Commissioner has reasonable cause.

I think may be some posters on here would feel the same if it were them I think I would be inclined to refuse a mental health check as they are not Mandatory for all gun owners at this time .

His views are not mine Nor many other peoples It is very dangerous to start to condemn someone for their views as firearms owners we have all seen negative views against the sport we all participate in to the main stream our views all all wrong .

Should a tribunal member not have to follow the laws as we have to follow, if he has not broken any laws She should have made a decision on the facts presented to her NOT TRIED TO pass the buck to a Dr or panel of Dr

[MalleeFarmer]

I don't agree with his views on Jews or Israel. Having said that..... I FULLY AGREE WITH HIS RIGHT TO HAVE THOSE VIEWS, THATS WHAT MAKES US FREE.... it is not a reason to remove his firearms I have many views that are not suitable with our current popular culture. But I in no ways would attempt to hurt or kill someone just because I don't believe or think the way they do. I hope he can get his firearms back. And keep his opinion.. no matter how much it conflicts with the official state mandated ideas.

[Sydor]

I don't agree with his views on Jews or Israel. Having said that..... I FULLY AGREE WITH HIS RIGHT TO HAVE THOSE VIEWS, THATS WHAT MAKES US FREE.... it is not a reason to remove his firearms I have many views that are not suitable with our current popular culture. But I in no ways would attempt to hurt or kill someone just because I don't believe or think the way they do. I hope he can get his firearms back. And keep his opinion.. no matter how much it conflicts with the official state mandated ideas.

Thanks. I agree with you position.

I hate anti semites. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that every one in my family who did not manage to escape from the advancing Nazi's was murdered.
This guy is deplorable and full of hatred. His hate will kill him. But he did not threaten any one. He maybe paranoid. He might be another PA waiting to happen.

But this is not a job for a judge to give medical diagnosis. And we live in a country where people cannot (yet) be forcefully subjected to psychiatric assess if they disagree with the party line. It is much more dangerous for us, as a society, to accept punitive patriarchy (as it was in Soviet Union) as a norm.

[Supaduke]

People believe in an invisible man in the sky that creates and controls everything, but this guy is crazy......please.

His views might be objectionable but as a citizen of this country he still has the right to express them.

I find the alarmist , fear mongering hate speech of many left wing enthusiasts offensive. I still respect their right to waffle on about it.

[doc]

Thanks. I agree with you position.

I hate anti semites. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that every one in my family who did not manage to escape from the advancing Nazi's was murdered.
This guy is deplorable and full of hatred. His hate will kill him. But he did not threaten any one. He maybe paranoid. He might be another PA waiting to happen.

But this is not a job for a judge to give medical diagnosis. And we live in a country where people cannot (yet) be forcefully subjected to psychiatric assess if they disagree with the party line. It is much more dangerous for us, as a society, to accept punitive patriarchy (as it was in Soviet Union) as a norm.

So... here we have someone who's race this person was attacking standing against the injustice done against him. Your post speaks volumes Sydor. Respect!

[brett1868]

Judaism like Islam isn't a race, it's a belief and like any belief is open to challenge and debate from those of differing beliefs. I certainly don't condone the vilification of people based on religion, gender or sexual preference in any form. Back to the original story, if this gent was a Muslim sprouting anti Christian propaganda, would you all still agree to his right of free speech and allow him to keep his firearms?

[Oldbloke]

What happened go deadkitty? Perhaps he was subjected to his own prefered method of "assessment". And taken away ha ha, taken away ha ha.