past nsw registery failures

[bigrich]

proof of licensing failures in the past that a royal commission would expose https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... ocialshare

i'm not a fan of the SMH , but have a read

[Zappa]

We're placing a good amount of focus on firearms licensing - and that's not a bad thing - but what the police wont tell you, until a formal inquest is made, that the perp would have had access to firearms well before that anyway. If he was denied a license, he could have smuggled them in via the Philippines, Afghanistan, Pakistan or purchased them on the dark web.

If he was hell bent on committing atrocious acts, a license wouldn't have stopped him.

[bigrich]

We're placing a good amount of focus on firearms licensing - and that's not a bad thing - but what the police wont tell you, until a formal inquest is made, that the perp would have had access to firearms well before that anyway. If he was denied a license, he could have smuggled them in via the Philippines, Afghanistan, Pakistan or purchased them on the dark web.

If he was hell bent on committing atrocious acts, a license wouldn't have stopped him.

absolutely , and that's the point that needs to be made abundantly clear to the public .

[Finniss]

Not to mention terrorists dont need guns at all.

Be nice to see all these police and registry failings together in a documentary. Along with the govt distraction and stealing from its citizens as a response.

[Zappa]

We will always have an margin of error. It's inherit in the system and thus occasionally something will tend to fall through cracks. On this occasion it was a combination of things that led to this person acquiring firearms and more factors that led him to fire on the innocence. The system isn't infallible and bad things can happen.

So instead of launching a formal review, a royal commission et-al coming up with holistic approaches and empirical data, and the getting the stakeholders, police together in the discussion, a Premier and our Prime Minister saw it fit to drop the guillotine on the firearm community. They saw the lynch crowd coming over the hill waiving pitchforks and hatchets, and used us as fodder.

Since 1996 have there by any State firearm legislation reviews that reversed a past decision or relaxed some kind of rule?

[alexjones]

As a man who loves freedom I don't blame NSW police for this.

The son being investigated by ASIO means nothing to me. Why should the father be denied a licence because his son was investigated?

Was his son charged with a crime? Was he convicted of a crime? No!


I have won court cases against the police so merely being investigated should not deny people a licence.

[Finniss]

A few positives in the last few years Zappa. Suppressors for some inVic And NSW I believe. NT removed 28day waiting for PTAs for a second gun of the same category....after they reintroduced it a couple years back.

Not 100% sure of the details but NSW seemed to be removing appearance laws and maybe adjustable stocks. Doubt thats happening now

I was feeling a bit positive about hunting/shooting in Australia not so long ago.

[alexjones]

Cat R non functioning replicas in Queensland no longer need to be on a collector licence.

They do not need any licence to possess. Just walk in and buy.

[bigrich]

As a man who loves freedom I don't blame NSW police for this.

The son being investigated by ASIO means nothing to me. Why should the father be denied a licence because his son was investigated?

Was his son charged with a crime? Was he convicted of a crime? No!


I have won court cases against the police so merely being investigated should not deny people a licence.

seriously so your telling me your okay with what happened at bondi ? your okay with people having involvement with ISIS or other terrorist groups and giving them gun licenses ?! there's freedom, and there's really inadequate risk assessment and blatant stupidity by the firearms branch . you just blew my mind AJ.

go back and read the link i put up that details epic past fails by the registry.

[alexjones]

As a man who loves freedom I don't blame NSW police for this.

The son being investigated by ASIO means nothing to me. Why should the father be denied a licence because his son was investigated?

Was his son charged with a crime? Was he convicted of a crime? No!


I have won court cases against the police so merely being investigated should not deny people a licence.

seriously so your telling me your okay with what happened at bondi ? your okay with people having involvement with ISIS or other terrorist groups and giving them gun licenses ?! there's freedom, and there's really inadequate risk assessment and blatant stupidity by the firearms branch . you just blew my mind AJ.

go back and read the link i put up that details epic past fails by the registry.

The father had the licence. What crimes did the father commit? According to the law the father was a fit and proper person.

What crimes was the son convicted off? All I'm seeing is that he is was investigated(whatever that means). I am not seeing him being convicted of anything criminal.

I am not seeing anything criminal before the attack happened to deny them a licence.

[womble]

Arguably a firearms prohibition order would be appropriate if on a terror watch list.

[bigrich]

As a man who loves freedom I don't blame NSW police for this.

The son being investigated by ASIO means nothing to me. Why should the father be denied a licence because his son was investigated?

Was his son charged with a crime? Was he convicted of a crime? No!


I have won court cases against the police so merely being investigated should not deny people a licence.

seriously so your telling me your okay with what happened at bondi ? your okay with people having involvement with ISIS or other terrorist groups and giving them gun licenses ?! there's freedom, and there's really inadequate risk assessment and blatant stupidity by the firearms branch . you just blew my mind AJ.

go back and read the link i put up that details epic past fails by the registry.

The father had the licence. What crimes did the father commit? According to the law the father was a fit and proper person.

What crimes was the son convicted off? All I'm seeing is that he is was investigated(whatever that means). I am not seeing him being convicted of anything criminal.

I am not seeing anything criminal before the attack happened to deny them a licence.

mate , his son was on a watch list and the both of them were investigated by asio . how can you possibly argue that the father was a "fit and proper person" ?
after what's happened at bondi , and the vilification of LAFO's , i don't understand your point of view . given the circumstances , no way would i have granted a license to the father if i was in authority.
are you seriously suggesting you're all for foreign nationals investigated for links to isis, be given access to firearms on the basis that they've got no convictions or criminal record . the reason for the current mess is because of bad decisions and lack of common sense, and not enforcing criteria in existing laws , that's what your advocating for ?. by your logic anyone in the "hells angels" who hasn't been convicted of a crime should also be granted a firearms license . i'm dumbfounded ......

[womble]

Arguably he should not have had access to a belt fed full semi auto shotgun and a light sabre.

[bigrich]

Arguably he should not have had access to a belt fed full semi auto shotgun and a light sabre.

no arguably about it mate , the father was not a fit and proper person .

[Zappa]

are you seriously suggesting you're all for foreign nationals investigated for links to isis, be given access to firearms on the basis that they've got no convictions or criminal record . the reason for the current mess is because of bad decisions and lack of common sense, and not enforcing criteria in existing laws , that's what your advocating for ?. by your logic anyone in the "hells angels" who hasn't been convicted of a crime should also be granted a firearms license . i'm dumbfounded ......

I can understand where alexjones is coming from. We're given forms to fill and answer them with honesty. Then we're permitting the regulator to perform background checks on us with a view that if we're nothing turns up and our disclosure is valid, we're normally granted the license.

The father in this case had tripped some flags because it took 4 years to get his license. I'm presuming the father was enquiring and appealing his decision as to why his license was not being granted. Where the authorities honest and transparent in all their background checks? When it goes in depth to AFP and the intelligence agencies investigations, findings are not forthcoming. They will give you very little detail.

I don't have any experience with the appeal NCAT process, but if the authorities don't give you a clear reason for license rejection, what exactly can you appeal against?

However If they did, come out and say we have clear evidence of your association with illegal groups, then I would think he would have taken steps to mitigate and show his associations where unfounded. Over time, he obtained his license.

Admittedly there are a lot presumptions there, but I'm thinking this is based on the Premiers NCAT law of not permitting right of appeal for firearm related matters. If they were vague about your license rejection previously, now they'll come out and say ' go away'.

Most of this stuff will come out with a royal commission, anything that cannot be made available to the public ' due to national ops security' will be redacted with ministerial disclosure only.

[bigrich]

are you seriously suggesting you're all for foreign nationals investigated for links to isis, be given access to firearms on the basis that they've got no convictions or criminal record . the reason for the current mess is because of bad decisions and lack of common sense, and not enforcing criteria in existing laws , that's what your advocating for ?. by your logic anyone in the "hells angels" who hasn't been convicted of a crime should also be granted a firearms license . i'm dumbfounded ......

I can understand where alexjones is coming from. We're given forms to fill and answer them with honesty. Then we're permitting the regulator to perform background checks on us with a view that if we're nothing turns up and our disclosure is valid, we're normally granted the license.

The father in this case had tripped some flags because it took 4 years to get his license. I'm presuming the father was enquiring and appealing his decision as to why his license was not being granted. Where the authorities honest and transparent in all their background checks? When it goes in depth to AFP and the intelligence agencies investigations, findings are not forthcoming. They will give you very little detail.

I don't have any experience with the appeal NCAT process, but if the authorities don't give you a clear reason for license rejection, what exactly can you appeal against?

However If they did, come out and say we have clear evidence of your association with illegal groups, then I would think he would have taken steps to mitigate and show his associations where unfounded. Over time, he obtained his license.

Admittedly there are a lot presumptions there, but I'm thinking this is based on the Premiers NCAT law of not permitting right of appeal for firearm related matters. If they were vague about your license rejection previously, now they'll come out and say ' go away'.

Most of this stuff will come out with a royal commission, anything that cannot be made available to the public ' due to national ops security' will be redacted with ministerial disclosure only.

i agree with most of what you've said . minns doing away with the right of appeal goes against the basic cornerstone of democracy and our westminster system of guv'ment . a federal royal commission is needed to expose failings of the application of existing firearms laws as the cause, and not persecuting LAFO's . in the interest of community safety the authorities must defer to caution in issuing licenses to people of dubious background like the bondi shooters , bikie gang affiliates , ect . otherwise we end up with tragic events that bring LAFO's into disrepute with the general public, who through their ignorance, back calls for tighter gun laws . this is why a comprehensive public debate is most important, with input from all affected groups/shooters in drafting new laws. which the labour guv'ment has dismally failed at. i'm looking forward to upcoming legal challenges .if a royal commission gets up , and exposes the lies, we could see the destruction of left wing politics in this country, which is long overdue . here's hoping

respectfully , AJ seems to have a USA second amendment view on gun laws and their included right to bear arms. we are living in a british colonial country , that as far as i'm aware , does not guarantee this as a right . i'm under the impression owning guns is viewed more as a privilege by guv'ment . if i'm wrong, someone please correct me . cheers

[Zappa]

It's seen as a privilege as they repeatedly hammer this home every time the topic comes up and so is a car license. Again hammered into our heads like school kids every time the vehicle accident numbers go up.

Deny All, and Allow on exemption.

I'm not sure whether this is a product of the Westminister system, but this is what AI has to say.

Commonwealth countries like Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and Canada maintain strict firearms laws primarily due to a different cultural perspective on gun ownership (seeing it as a privilege, not a right), historical context, and in response to specific mass-casualty events.

Cultural and Historical Factors

Gun Ownership as a Privilege: A fundamental difference from countries like the United States is the prevailing cultural and legal view that owning a firearm is a government-regulated privilege, not an inherent or constitutional right.

Lack of Militias Tradition: Many Commonwealth nations, such as Australia, never had to fight a war of independence on their own soil, so they do not have a historical tradition or constitutional provision for armed civilian militias.

Emphasis on Community Safety: The political and public discourse in these countries often prioritizes overall community safety and public welfare over individual rights to self-defense using firearms. Self-defense is explicitly excluded as a genuine reason for obtaining a firearms license in Australia.

Response to Mass Shootings
Major legislative changes in several Commonwealth countries were a direct, bipartisan political response to specific, high-profile mass shootings, which galvanized public opinion and political will for stricter controls.

I'd like to see the canucks protect themselves when the 'Mercins decide to head north and annex them.

[bigrich]

It's seen as a privilege as they repeatedly hammer this home every time the topic comes up and so is a car license. Again hammered into our heads like school kids every time the vehicle accident numbers go up.

Deny All, and Allow on exemption.

I'm not sure whether this is a product of the Westminister system, but this is what AI has to say.

Commonwealth countries like Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and Canada maintain strict firearms laws primarily due to a different cultural perspective on gun ownership (seeing it as a privilege, not a right), historical context, and in response to specific mass-casualty events.

Cultural and Historical Factors

Gun Ownership as a Privilege: A fundamental difference from countries like the United States is the prevailing cultural and legal view that owning a firearm is a government-regulated privilege, not an inherent or constitutional right.

Lack of Militias Tradition: Many Commonwealth nations, such as Australia, never had to fight a war of independence on their own soil, so they do not have a historical tradition or constitutional provision for armed civilian militias.

Emphasis on Community Safety: The political and public discourse in these countries often prioritizes overall community safety and public welfare over individual rights to self-defense using firearms. Self-defense is explicitly excluded as a genuine reason for obtaining a firearms license in Australia.

Response to Mass Shootings
Major legislative changes in several Commonwealth countries were a direct, bipartisan political response to specific, high-profile mass shootings, which galvanized public opinion and political will for stricter controls.

I'd like to see the canucks protect themselves when the 'Mercins decide to head north and annex them.

whilst a reasonably good summary, i take AI generated answers generally with a grain of salt . actually, i think anything derived from the net these days requires a certain amount of scepticism and fact checking . back on topic, the bondi shooting won't be the last failure by "the system". as such firearms owners have to get more politically savvy , with advocacy groups and legal challenges to prevent shooters paying the price for the failure of authorities. as well as countering the negative "public image", and ignorance by the general public and politicians. which is why i posted the link at the top of this topic

[alexjones]

Bigrich

Mate I don't like the situation but I just cannot see any grounds the NSW police had to reject him. Being a foreign national means nothing to NSW police in regards to issuing a licence(at that point in time).

And what came of the investigation? Nothing. No charges, no convictions nothing. People have the right to innocent until proven guilty.

NCAT is a public record that you can search so if the father went to NCAT there would be a record of it.

Is it possible ASIO had information that they have not disclosed to NSW? 100% its possible but with the information the NSW police had his licence should of been granted.

I don't like the situation, the situation is f***ed.

[alexjones]

People can't just be denied a licence due to being investigated onetime with nothing coming of the investigation. That is undemocratic.

If the investigation is ongoing I can understand but if the investigation is closed than a licence must be issued or find other grounds to deny the licence.

[alexjones]

Who here hasn't been investigated in their lifetime? I have been investigated and charged with crimes and I have won those court cases hence why I am a legal gun owner. The police know who I am and have never had grounds to deny me a licence because being investigated is not a big deal.

I do feel strongly about innocent until proven guilty because I have had to prove that innocence and it is a s**ty feeling. People do judge you.

[womble]

It's seen as a privilege as they repeatedly hammer this home every time the topic comes up and so is a car license. Again hammered into our heads like school kids every time the vehicle accident numbers go up.

Deny All, and Allow on exemption.

I'm not sure whether this is a product of the Westminister system, but this is what AI has to say.

Commonwealth countries like Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and Canada maintain strict firearms laws primarily due to a different cultural perspective on gun ownership (seeing it as a privilege, not a right), historical context, and in response to specific mass-casualty events.

Cultural and Historical Factors

Gun Ownership as a Privilege: A fundamental difference from countries like the United States is the prevailing cultural and legal view that owning a firearm is a government-regulated privilege, not an inherent or constitutional right.

Lack of Militias Tradition: Many Commonwealth nations, such as Australia, never had to fight a war of independence on their own soil, so they do not have a historical tradition or constitutional provision for armed civilian militias.

Emphasis on Community Safety: The political and public discourse in these countries often prioritizes overall community safety and public welfare over individual rights to self-defense using firearms. Self-defense is explicitly excluded as a genuine reason for obtaining a firearms license in Australia.

Response to Mass Shootings
Major legislative changes in several Commonwealth countries were a direct, bipartisan political response to specific, high-profile mass shootings, which galvanized public opinion and political will for stricter controls.

I'd like to see the canucks protect themselves when the 'Mercins decide to head north and annex them.

Oh boy. How much time have you got
Not really Westminster system. Well it is in a legal sense.
But it’s Colonialism, Liberalism, Age of Enlightenment. Age of revolution.


Emphasis on community safety is the key issue.
It’s the interpretation of the right to life in a liberal democracy. It’s two separate ideological views, being the liberal version vs the conservative version.
So, we’re discovering, establishing new countries, French , English, Spanish whatever colonialism. And we need to adopt laws and human rights charters for a civil society
So is the crown establishing a new colony in the new world. If so, English or French. They’ve just had their revolutions and are fresh out of serfdom.
They are now masters of their own destiny. They are their own kings. So now we need laws and rights for our new societies.
Right to life and liberty. Freedom. We now have ownership of our own life.
Libre is it latin or Greek I can’t remember. Liberty. Liberalism the I guess tame pragmatic version.

So the liberal version is emphasis on community safety. Therefore the right to life extends to the community. Now at this point firearms are just an extension of the right to life. Or rather being armed to protect yourself, savage new frontiers, brave new world. etc.
Colonies. Nope you must be disarmed for the safety of the community. To ensure everyone has the right to life. You have the right not to be shot by your community.
America. f*** Of. Stick your crown where it fits. Republic. Right to life remains with the individual.
And a very trigger happy wild west.

The USA is the only outlier. And now we have the constant battle between liberals who want what the rest of us have. Vs conservatives who want the principle foundations of their nation to endure.

[alexjones]

I will always make the argument that guns make a society more safe.

60% of all American gun deaths are suicides. The vast majority of the remainder are gang on gang crime and just your usual accidents and typical murders that occur everywhere.

Such a mathematically anomaly to have a random mass shooting event.

The more guns and self defence laws the safer a society is.

[Finniss]

I agree with your sentiment Alex. But in this instance with the current powers in existence I think the police should have or did have enough info to deny or cancel a licence and if they were consistent in application of the law, they should have. I heard some bloke on some podcast say they had known extremists round for dinner etc years after the son had been cleared. ( who really knows at this stage) so i assume they were being watched.

I dont think you should be guilty by association but our government does so they should have acted.

Speaking of registry failures i had 2 ptas issued to me accidentally in the last few months.

[alexjones]

Where is all this information you guys are getting about the alleged ISIS investigation? Is it all confirmed cause I am only hearing conjecture.

WE NEED A ROYAL COMMISSION!!!!

[alexjones]

Funniest QLD registry failure was when old mate applied for a cat A/B licence but they issued him with a A/B/C/D licence on his card.

Only came to light when he applied for a PTA for a cat D and they wanted extra information then they realised they f***ed up.

[Finniss]

Where is all this information you guys are getting about the alleged ISIS investigation? Is it all confirmed cause I am only hearing conjecture.

WE NEED A ROYAL COMMISSION!!!!

Agreed. But will it get to the truth?
I know i'm commenting on info from an untrustworthy media coz its the only info available to attempt to combat Minns lies.

Hopefully this isn't a bum steer but I think the line about known extremists in their house after the son was cleared was from the 'I Catch Killers' podcast on Bondi.

One line..from a bloke who didn't give a source.but I think one line from a rushed podcast might be more truthful than other articles and a crafted investigation. It's probably edited out now.

[bigrich]

Where is all this information you guys are getting about the alleged ISIS investigation? Is it all confirmed cause I am only hearing conjecture.

WE NEED A ROYAL COMMISSION!!!!

i agree

[bigrich]

It's seen as a privilege as they repeatedly hammer this home every time the topic comes up and so is a car license. Again hammered into our heads like school kids every time the vehicle accident numbers go up.

Deny All, and Allow on exemption.

I'm not sure whether this is a product of the Westminister system, but this is what AI has to say.

Commonwealth countries like Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and Canada maintain strict firearms laws primarily due to a different cultural perspective on gun ownership (seeing it as a privilege, not a right), historical context, and in response to specific mass-casualty events.

Cultural and Historical Factors

Gun Ownership as a Privilege: A fundamental difference from countries like the United States is the prevailing cultural and legal view that owning a firearm is a government-regulated privilege, not an inherent or constitutional right.

Lack of Militias Tradition: Many Commonwealth nations, such as Australia, never had to fight a war of independence on their own soil, so they do not have a historical tradition or constitutional provision for armed civilian militias.

Emphasis on Community Safety: The political and public discourse in these countries often prioritizes overall community safety and public welfare over individual rights to self-defense using firearms. Self-defense is explicitly excluded as a genuine reason for obtaining a firearms license in Australia.

Response to Mass Shootings
Major legislative changes in several Commonwealth countries were a direct, bipartisan political response to specific, high-profile mass shootings, which galvanized public opinion and political will for stricter controls.

I'd like to see the canucks protect themselves when the 'Mercins decide to head north and annex them.

Oh boy. How much time have you got
Not really Westminster system. Well it is in a legal sense.
But it’s Colonialism, Liberalism, Age of Enlightenment. Age of revolution.


Emphasis on community safety is the key issue.
It’s the interpretation of the right to life in a liberal democracy. It’s two separate ideological views, being the liberal version vs the conservative version.
So, we’re discovering, establishing new countries, French , English, Spanish whatever colonialism. And we need to adopt laws and human rights charters for a civil society
So is the crown establishing a new colony in the new world. If so, English or French. They’ve just had their revolutions and are fresh out of serfdom.
They are now masters of their own destiny. They are their own kings. So now we need laws and rights for our new societies.
Right to life and liberty. Freedom. We now have ownership of our own life.
Libre is it latin or Greek I can’t remember. Liberty. Liberalism the I guess tame pragmatic version.

So the liberal version is emphasis on community safety. Therefore the right to life extends to the community. Now at this point firearms are just an extension of the right to life. Or rather being armed to protect yourself, savage new frontiers, brave new world. etc.
Colonies. Nope you must be disarmed for the safety of the community. To ensure everyone has the right to life. You have the right not to be shot by your community.
America. f*** Of. Stick your crown where it fits. Republic. Right to life remains with the individual.
And a very trigger happy wild west.

The USA is the only outlier. And now we have the constant battle between liberals who want what the rest of us have. Vs conservatives who want the principle foundations of their nation to endure.

great social history assessment . after 1776 in america, Britan kept a tight reign on it's colonies . i don't think Australia's ever had a militia cause of the american revolution. they didn't muck around with the eurecka stockade

[womble]

Californian rangers played a crucial role in the Eureka Stockade.
Unfortunately the British won on strategy.
The rangers left the camp to intercept British reinforcements.
And were absent in the final battle. Which was not anticipated.
Makes for interesting reading you may enjoy bigrich.

Yes we’ve had militias. In preparation and throughout ww11. Arms and ammo dumps everywhere.
The japs didn’t just bomb Darwin. They conducted aerial raids up and down the east coast probing defences. Probably for a landing as much as they like to deny that today. They did land a recon party on the west coast. Rather harsh country, largely uninhabited. They perished

We were still very much in this mode for decades after ww11. To have peace you must prepare for war.