Discussion in 'General Sako Discussions' started by stonecreek, Mar 2, 2018.
I normally don't get involved in semantics.... however.....you are so wrong it is offensive to anyone who bothers to read the law not just put your own spin on it. I have taken into consideration that you are Victorian so your first line makes sense to me.
In The Great State of Queensland a Weapon under the Legal definition of the Weapons Act a weapon is:
or(ii)another thing prescribed under a regulation to be a weapon or within a category of weapon; or
(iii)a thing that would be a weapon mentioned in subparagraph (i) or
(ii), if it were not temporarily inoperable or incomplete; and
(b)does not include a public monument.
There is no such beast as a "hunting rifle, sporting firearm or similar", you and I are involved in a great sport but ...you have an over inflated opinion of yourself if you think your bush lawyer mentality would fly in Any Court or Legal jurisdiction anywhere. Please go to the Legislation Page in the Victorian Statutes and educate yourself, the dribble is offensive. End of story, sorry Yanks most of us have moved on from our Convict past some maybe not.
British-Americans are no different. We're just the ones who dodged the Constabulary and made it to a boat going West.
In common language an object may be defined differently depending on its use. There is no question that any firearm falls into the category of "weapon", but calling it by that name implies that its usage is for either defense or offense against an adversary. None of my firearms have ever been used as weapons, but rather as tools. That is not to say that one could not be used as a weapon.
Many firearms are designed strictly as weapons. A handgun with fixed sights and a short barrel is ill-adapted to any other use. Some American have recently attempted to re-labeled assault rifles as "Modern Sporting Rifles", when we all know that they were designed as weapons. Sure, they can be modified with typical hunting sights, a target trigger, and barrels which will group more or less like an actual hunting rifle. But that is, admittedly, lipstick on a pig.
I've hunted deer with a "Modern Sporting Rifle" and done so successfully, but I found it a rather unfulfilling experience and feel no compulsion to do it again. Although it is true that I will sometimes take my "Modern Sporting Rifle" afield if I think there is a good chance of running across a large sounder of feral hogs. Of course, in that instance, it has largely reverted to the category of "weapon" since it is to be used offensively against an adversary with the intent of killing as many of them as possible. It's really difficult to escape the reasons behind the design of some handguns and some rifles which are much more weapons than tools.
When we simply use the broad term "gun", most people think of a weapon -- in its worst connotations. That's why I always refer to a Sako as a "rifle" -- which may be either a weapon or a tool, but clearly, Sakos are designed as tools and not weapons.
Perhaps one of the most offensive trends currently among firearms manufacturers is the recent crop of bolt action rifles made to mimic the appearance of assault rifles, with black plastic stocks, barrel handguards, and muzzle devices. In other words, making them appear to be designed for shooting people rather than shooting game or targets. Folks, giving the public the impression that all firearms are intended for shooting people is a really good way to get them unreasonably restricted.
So, I'd suggest, legal definitions and alternative uses aside, that we refer to Sakos and other firearms designed for sporting purposes as "rifles", "shotguns", etc., and not apply the term "weapon" to them. Does that make sense?
Sounds like commonsense to me Stonecreek,
You are all headed down rabbit burrows. The OP related to Australia's gun laws. Stick to that.
Any firearm that a cop gets to see the wrong end of is 99% likely to be illegal so by definition the laws don't apply.
So called "assault rifles" were never a big part of the Oz scene, as evidenced by those buy back pics.
There is currently a narrative seeking to link illegal firearms to thefts from LAFO's. I've never seen any stats to confirm that so have my doubts that it's a significant contributor to the back market, and the fact is the vast bulk of stolen firearms which are attractive to criminals have come from the military and law enforcement, or were Glocks illegally imported through a dodgy post office. There is a report from bureau of crime statistics which stated that very few stolen firearms end up linked to crime scenes.
So, back to examples of retardedness of the Oz gunlaws.
Forget bump stocks, some of our states have problems with pistol grip stocks. Until recently, the ACT allowed pistol grip stocks for target rifles, but not hunting rifles. The reason was that a pistol grip stock could be used one handed during a robbery. ACT cops struggled to define what a pistol grip was. It was pointed out to them that this was forcing people to buy two firearms when one could do both jobs. In the end, the registrar at the registry changed and the whole debate started over again. The point is, there is too much discretion delegated to unelected officials.
If you are a firearm instructor, you have to use your own or a club owned firearm when instructing. That means if a father turns up at the range and asks an instructor to teach his kid, they can't use the dads rifle. The kid has to be at least 12. It has to be at a range and a whole bunch of paperwork needs to be signed in order for an unlicensed person to try shooting. All are attempts to make it too hard, and starve the shooting sports of new participants.
Handguns are restricted to .38 Cal, except for active participants in two specified comps. In practical terms thats up to 357 mag or 357 Sig. Western action and Met Sil can go up to 45 with an additional super special permit and additional attendance requirements. It gets silly when I can't have a 40 S&W yet I can get a Contender in far more powerful rifle cartridges like 308 Win, 338 Win Mag, etc.
I can't have a pump action 12 gauge, yet I can have a pump action centrefire rifle.
Recently, there was a big fuss over a particular lever actioned shotgun. It was beat up in the media as "new technology" designed to circumvent our laws against semi autos. After all the who ha, it was decided that a lever up to 5 shot was OK, but the same thing with 7 shots was the equivalent to a machine gun (Cat D).
If I have a collectors license, I cant actually shoot anything I hold on that collectors license. I cant have any ammo that suits those firearms either. Valuable antiques must be permanently rendered inoperable (read, destroyed) before they can be displayed in places like museums and veterans association clubs.
Suppressors are virtually impossible to get here, yet in many other countries like NZ and UK you are considered a dick head if you don't use one. Yes, our lawmakers watch Hollywood movies as research and legislate accordingly.
Replicas and toys are often classed as firearms unless the register determines that they aren't firearms. I know of one high end Olympic level training system that uses a white plastic thing with a laser in it as the handle. Because the white plastic thing resembles (in shape only - it's solid resin) a short barrelled semi auto shotgun, it's classed as a prohibited weapon. Yet you can go to any amusement arcade and find shootem up games using a handgun version of the same thing and that's OK.
I could go on for days. Whilst the US has a problem that needs fixing, I'm here to tell you the Oz laws are not your answer. Whilst the focus is on firearms, the real underlying reasons are being ignored.
A couple of years ago we had an incident in the U.S. in which a 6 year-old at breakfast at school inadvertently chewed his pop tart (a sort of flat pastry with some fruit filling) into a shape which, after he looked at it a moment, reminded him of the shape of a handgun. He held it up to show and tell his little friends at the table. You guessed it -- he was summarily expelled from school under their "zero tolerance" policy. No one place or country has a monopoly on officials with a severe lack of judgment.
as said > there is a lot on nonsense IN the Aussie LAWS, where they don't even understand English >> means totally bending around the meaning of words, because a weapon can be a firearm, still doesn't mean that a firearm is a weapon per se - unless used for that.
As said > firearms can be used as a weapon, and anything can be weapon - and your idea that there is no such thing as a "hunting rifle, sporting firearm or similar" is just plain nonsense.
Twist it whatever way you like, my (Quote) refers to legal definitions. Great discussion listening to peoples interpretation of Legislation. Its amazing that such a diverse group can still appreciate the finest of rifles and enjoy hunting. Amazing work is being done by SSAA in trying to reign in some of our wayward Politicians. This is where we should send this argument.
Okay, guys, this forum is known for its politeness so let's keep it civil.
The information provided by our Australian members has been very helpful to understanding firearms regulation in that country, regardless of what you may think of it. There are probably a number of Australian forums where discussions of how those laws and their application might need changed, which would be a better place for airing those views.
"3 Arrange firearm storage that meets safety regulations. "
Our Aussie members may comment on this, but to me this means you could be subject to inspections (searches) to insure the storage is up to standards that could be changed/reinterpreted/misinterpreted by the authorities.
Seems I recall reading that there was also a provision that if you left the building unoccupied for any period of time the guns had to be relocated to an "approved" location, leading to more inspections, etc.
Correct, most inspections are pre-arranged by the local Police. I have been inspected once in 20 years. No issues with the way it was done. There are numerous provisions for alternate storage should it be needed.
Yes, inspections of safe storage are built into the laws.
There are a few trigger points for an inspection including purchase of first firearm, change of address or addition of a higher category license. It can also come out of the blue.
I went 12 years and never had an inspection followed by two in quick succession.
Inspections are meant to be prearranged at a mutually agreed time but this is not always the case. My last inspection, the local cop called to arrange but I was away working so he said he would call back to arrange a later date. Two weeks later they turned up unannounced. I could have turned them away but rather than make trouble, it was easier to get it done.
The inspections are usually civilized affairs with a look at the safe and then checking firearm details against the registry list. It seems the registry list has mistakes more often than not - firearms legally purchased not being on the official list, firearms sold still on the list, incorrect serial numbers, incorrect caliber/make/model/mag capacity details...
They make notes which go to registry... and the mistakes may or may not get corrected!
All my firearms were inspected with barely a comment - including a 375mag, 300mag, semi auto shotgun, pump action 357 mag but the only one commented on was the semi auto 22 in a black stock. Apparently it "looked scary" and deserved a "what do you need that for?"
I told them it was just a 22 in a black stock and we continued. I decided not to point out that it was probably the least powerful and least effective firearm in the safe unless you happen to be a rabbit.
I will note that at no time did the offending black stocked "assault rifle" jump off the rack and cause any issues. Surprisingly it just sat there like an inanimate object with the rest of them.
A lot of police attending these inspections comment that apart from a quick check to see if the storage is compliant, it's a waste of their time.
I have had similar experience as alpine hunter. Only 1 inspection in 40 years of holding a licence, which was triggered when my son got his licence and permit for his first rifle, which was to be stored in my safe. The inspection was prearranged, but my son was away with work, so I showed them around 14 bolt/ lever action rifles that were held between us.
One of the police officers made a point of starting off by advising me that they didn't belive the public should be able to have firearms to use against her, which soured the mood somewhat. I made a comment that she didn't need to be concerned about these ones and left it at that.
The list they had was inacurate as indicated by alpine hunter in relation to what had been bought and sold and Cal etc. I was able to provide names and dates when rifles had been sold to help them update the register. I was also able to produce copies of the permits I had for the ones I had that were not listed. I never heard back in relation to what, if any, corrective action was taken to update the register.
Your comment about the lady not liking guns is one of the reasons we want to keep that "camel's nose" out of our homes. When the opinion of individuals can become policy without legal support it can cause quite a problem.
I'm having a fight with local building regulators and know how frustrating it can be to fight a bureaucrat.
Thanks for the info, and I'd love to visit Australia (my baby sister married an Aussie!) and help with some of your feral critter control!
I think that California has had some kind of safe storage requirement for private firearms for some time, but I'm not familiar with how it is applied. Maybe some of our West Coast residents can enlighten us.
Nothing against the police, but they have plenty to do already. I don't think they are the proper agency (in any country) to handle licensing and regulation of legally owned firearms. Legal guns are a civil issue. It is only when they are used in criminal activity that they become a criminal issue. Police don't regulate banks; they investigate bank robberies. Police don't regulate the stock market; they prosecute financial fraud. Police write the traffic regulations; they enforce the traffic laws. So let's not mix law enforcement with clerical or licensing functions.
Separate names with a comma.