Bugman wrote:Just found out that a gun shop I sometimes frequent had a visit from FAR (NSW) and was instructed to fit security bars to windows and doors etc. Not sure of the full story, but it would seem the powers that be have started cracking down on what they think is the only way for a legitimate store owner to operate.
This could be the start of an even bigger brother is watching you. By the way, this store has been operating like this for many years, without incident and after having numerous FAR checks. Go figure.
Bugman wrote:Definitely not good news for us.
rc42 wrote:There was a break-in and theft of handguns a few months ago at Shooters Delight
https://www.facebook.com/9NewsGoldCoast ... 027648987/
I heard mention at our pistol club that the thieves went straight for the Glock pistols and that the way that security had been bypassed suggested insider help.
The double door system is for when the store is open, it just means there is no way for somebody to grab a firearm and run out of the store.
Police have firearms stolen from themselves too but they don't like to let that get into the news.
womble wrote:Here’s a thought.
If you own a shop that sells handguns and someone comes in to steal them, how about deterring them with a handgun.
Just putting it out there.
womble wrote:Here’s a thought.
If you own a shop that sells handguns and someone comes in to steal them, how about deterring them with a handgun.
Just putting it out there.
womble wrote:Don’t know where we went wrong but criminal syndicates are flocking here.
Because we are so naive and vulnerable.
Plus our prisons are like 5 star hotels to them
womble wrote:Here’s a thought.
If you own a shop that sells handguns and someone comes in to steal them, how about deterring them with a handgun.
Just putting it out there.
boingk wrote:
Lets not even get started on the very strict self-defense laws - you start something violent with someone you better be prepared to die, and by firearm if that person is so equipped.
Fahrk it, bring back the 'old west'. Throw a public hanging out once in a while.
- boingk
bigrich wrote:in the past this forum has had people on it i was sus on i'm quite sure some were feds monitoring this forum
rc42 wrote:womble wrote:Here’s a thought.
If you own a shop that sells handguns and someone comes in to steal them, how about deterring them with a handgun.
Just putting it out there.
There was a guy on a rural property (in NSW I think) that stopped a drug addict burglar and kept him there till police arrived by having an unloaded rifle in his hand, the police congratulated him that day but a few days later came back and confiscated every firearm belonging to him or his wife and tried to revoke his license for using a firearms outside of his license conditions.
He eventually got them back after much time and expense but protection of yourself, others or property is not a permitted use of a firearm for civilians in Australia, even having one in a holster on your own property is not permitted if it is used to intimidate an intruder or criminal.
If a gun store owner is being robbed he has to let the robbers take whatever they want and call the police if he isn't murdered in the process, even picking up an empty gun would result in the loss of his license, business and confiscation of far more stock than the robber could possibly have taken.
Bugman wrote:An interesting thing, is that my daughters neighbour had a break and enter when they were home. They apparently complied with the thief's demands but the dog had a go at him and did a bit of damage to his leg. The coppers arrived an hour or so later and said that they had a suspect in custody ( apparently arrested at a local hospital, waiting to get some stitches in the dog bite), but the coppers warned them that the thief could take civil action for damages. Huh? Have not heard any more on the matter so I don't know what happened.
Bugman wrote:but the coppers warned them that the thief could take civil action for damages. Huh? Have not heard any more on the matter so I don't know what happened.
bah! wrote:Bugman wrote:but the coppers warned them that the thief could take civil action for damages. Huh? Have not heard any more on the matter so I don't know what happened.
Yawn, heard versions of this going back to when people kept a dinosaurs as pets, or maybe the other way around.
The law however states;
Civil Liability
Under section 25 of the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) the owner of a dog is liable for damages in respect of:
Bodily injury to a person caused by the dog wounding or attacking that person, and
Damage to the personal property of a person (including clothing) caused by the dog in the course of attacking that person
However this section does not apply to an attack by a dog occurring on any property occupied by the dog’s owner or on which the dog is ordinarily kept, provided that the person attacked was not lawfully on the property and the dog was not classified as a dangerous, menacing or restricted dog at the time of the attack.