Skadoo wrote:Be sure that the fuzz are aware of sites like his as well.
Norton wrote:I'd like to be able to shoot pistols on a suitable private property, I think that's reasonable.
Norton wrote:I'd like to be able to shoot pistols on a suitable private property, I think that's reasonable.
Dunno what you can say for the blokes above though. You know it's prohibited and you film yourself doing it and post it on the net? What else would you expect but to lose your stuff?
Always gotta be sure you're doing the right thing to protect your rights here.
JC102 wrote:Why can't you shoot handguns on private property in the first place?
buster wrote:Wouldn't mind a low capacity sidearm for hunting either.
JC102 wrote:If that's what happened with Steve, I would have thought he'd have known better.
Norton wrote:If I was writing our firearms laws you would be able to.
As you know we need a 'genuine reason' to own our firearms in Australia.
Currently the only one for owning/shooting a pistol is target shooting which must be done at an approved range. Practice target shooting on private property is not currently allowed.
Manimal wrote:I dunno if that's what happened but anyone can make an honest mistake I guess.
Perhaps this happened, and on film?
JC102 wrote:Was that the case pre '96?
JC102 wrote:Apologies if I'm wrong, but he must have known shooting handguns on private property wasn't allowed, so it wasn't too smart to be filming it and putting it on his YouTube. Having his friend shoot at the ute probably didn't do him any favours either.
Manimal wrote:"a bit of a run in with the firearms registry"
Sounds like a suspended/lost license to me?
WesleySnipes wrote:Our firearms registry is ridiculous...
Manimal wrote:Maybe keep that comment to yourself considering the circumstances
feedr wrote:Watching that again he says in it something along the lines of...
On a cat D license he can't have anything used by the military etc. (which we knew was the situation). He goes on to say though that he has a few military firearms on his license already which the registry had overlooked.
yoshie wrote:Most of the firearms registries even get funny about bolt actions that take AR mags or guns chambered in 5.56 NATO not 223.
DJCoopes wrote:
aren't .223 and 5.56 Magazines interchangeable?
yoshie wrote:Not really. There is a couple of straight pull based on ARs, but most states and territories have not allowed them due to the military appearance clause in our legislation. There was also one based off a HK too. Most of the firearms registries even get funny about bolt actions that take AR mags or guns chambered in 5.56 NATO not 223. If you get your collectors licence or dealers licence or set up a pro shooting company, you can get real ones.
Gaznazdiak wrote:DJCoopes wrote:
aren't .223 and 5.56 Magazines interchangeable?
The external differences between the two are so small that they are indistinguishable to the eye, so yes.
I believe it's the higher pressure in 5.56 that is the main difference.
JC102 wrote:feedr wrote:This could be just the rumour mill but it's what I read on the net some time ago...
Apparently he lost his license? The story was that in one of his videos he had his Cat C out and left the room during the video (left the rifle unattended) so gone done for improper storage or something along those lines?
As I said could be wrong, if so apologies to Steve. That's just what I read...
I hope that's not the case.
I noticed another video of him shooting handguns with his son on private property was also deleted. Unless I'm mistaken, no state or territory allows you to shoot a pistol on private property.
Anyway, I hope he makes an update video soon.