Australian gun regulations get even worse

My understanding of Australian guns law is that unless you are a farmer, professional shooter (such as professional competition shooter or professional pest hunter) or collector you are only allowed paintballs markers, air guns and non-semi-automatic rimfire/centerfire rifles and shotguns (pump action shotguns are subject to same restrictions as semi-auto shotguns). Pistols can only be owned by target shooters and the caliber is restricted in most cases to .38 (9mm).

Things just got worse for our Australian gun owning brethren:

The Federal Government will change import regulations to tighten controls on firearms that have a “military-style appearance”.

Mr Debus said that there was “absolutely no reason” for anyone to own a shotgun that looked like a semi-automatic rifle.

Now any rifle, shotgun or even paintball marker looks like a semi-automatic is will be destroyed by customs. This will limit the import of pump-action rifles into the country. Apparently they have been importing the Romanian pump-action AK pattered PAR-3/PAR-1 rifle.

 Common Imagedata 0,,6406524,00
From the above article. Looks like a
AU legal PAR-3 or PAR-1 (top).

I am sure they will ban the pump action Remington 7600 rifle pistol grip and M4 style stock as well. I believe the 7600 is popular in Australia. The politicians must have forgotten to ban pump action rifles.





Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • Langy

    Meh, Paintball markers that have any resemblance to military arms have been labeled as “Restricted Items” (Governments double speak for banned) such as the Tippmann A5 and X7.

    What you have said is pretty much correct, the only shotguns we can possess on a Class B Firearms license (The highest longarm license they will allow us peasants to have) are breach loading double barrel and single shot models, funnily enough they banned pump actions but we can still own lever action shotguns such as the Winchester 1887, if you can find one.

    Rifles, we are pretty much limited to Bolt, Lever, Single Shot and Pump action which is what they’re apparently trying to ban here, I have lots of hunting friends who use there pump action rifles for deer. Granted they are only Remington’s and Brownings and aren’t scary looking.

  • Ben

    I do not think they can ban the Remington 7600 series in Australia. In Queensland there are some restrictions on the configuration of the 7615 and the 7600. You can’t have a collapsible stocks or ajustable stocks like the M4. There is a Magazine limited of up to 10 rounds as well.

    I’m sure they won’t ban the 7600 because there are so many out there at the moment I don’t think they will be able to afford to buy them all back. I’m not sure about if they will stop the import of them just yet.

    • Ben, they already ban M4 style stocks?!?! Crazy.

  • Ben

    Yea it sucks you can buy M4 type stocks from survivalarms.com.au but they are non adjustable and they don’t fit on the 7600 too well. I’m guessing the government will probably ban them next.

  • Pedro

    There are more guns living in plastic pipes in the ground, particularly in Queensland, than you can shake a stick at.

    A well maintained gun will last for over a hundred years.

    Good luck trying to disarm all Aussies. Sharks will have head mounted lasers via evolution before the last Australian firearm is seized by the government fascists.

  • Sadelis

    I don’t have anything against guns and gun ownership, and likewise, the people that own guns aren’t trigger happy maniacs, but honestly – what need is there for a weapon like this. For that matter, outside of law enforcement and civil defence, weapons hardly seem necessary.

    And if you’re a collector or hobbyist and just enjoy using weapons recreationally there really *is no need* for you to have weapons. Yeah, it sucks, but I’d rather have a few disgruntled collectors with no guns than the situation in the U.S. where you can literally get a gun for opening a bank account.

    The semantics on which politicians base their laws don’t seem to make sense sometimes, but that’s inherent with bureaucracy. If it’s a hobby, find a substitute. I love to play the drums and love the feel of a real, acoustic strike and the rich sound it provides, but if my neighbours start hurling bricks through my window and mailing me anthrax because I’m making loud noise till the early hours of the morning, I’ll use an electric set with headphones in stead.

    It’s a big difference, granted, but it’s also a slippery slope. And I’d rather feel safe knowing how hard it is to get your hands on guns in our fine country.

    And no, guns don’t kill people, but cowards with guns do. And there’s plenty of gutless f**king cowards in this country.

  • pk

    There is plenty of gutless cowards in this country and most of them dont own guns ,once guns are gone …which they will be eventually ,thanks to the do gooding U.N and Naive idiots like Rebecca Peters, who have never read a history book , you will have the pleasure of living a Global version of Nazi Germany ,Polpots regime ,Stalinist Russia

  • dan

    our gun regs are pretty tight mate im getting a 7615 with a pistol grip and an aimpoint and i was dissapointed to find out: no m4 style stocks,no high capacity mags (over here high capacity= more than 10) and our customs wont let through spare mags because they are compatible with ar15s its rediculus

  • dan

    our gun regs are pretty tight mate im getting a 7615 with a pistol grip and an aimpoint and i was dissapointed to find out: no m4 style stocks,no high capacity mags (over here high capacity= more than 10) and our customs wont let through spare mags because they are compatible with ar15s

  • Siledas

    Organizations filled with religious fundamentalists and conspiracy theorists would have everyone believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves through ownership of firearms. I don’t know about you but I’d rather nobody in the country have guns then everybody in the country have guns.

    Yeah, sure, I’d probably feel safer if I had a gun knowing that everyone around me could cap my ass at any given moment, but that in itself is self-perpetuating fear mongering.

    I’d prefer a home invasion turn into a knife fight over a shoot out.

    PK, you said you were worried about a global version of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia happening once all the guns are gone – the real danger of those situations wasn’t lack of civilians with firearms, it was lack of civilians with the capacity to think for themselves.

    Conformity and unquestioned loyalty to authority was what allowed all of that to happen – because it wouldn’t have mattered if every man, woman and child in Nazi occupied France had an assault rifle – they still wouldn’t have fared well.

    • Aaron E

      Siledas I couldn’t disagree more. A bullet is dictated by the barrel it is shot from, and if the victim has some distance they have a better chance of avoidance by movement. However, a knife attack is by necessity at very close range. A knife can go in a multitude of directions simply by the movement of the attacker’s arm. And that can change direction in the same movement.

      A gun shot can cause series harm to the victim, not only from penetration but from ballistic shock waves upon impact. I don’t think anyone wants that. However, the application of direct pressure can often stave off shock and death from blood loss as seen from numerous battlefield examples, and allow the victim to live.

      A knife wound can slice a large wound that cannot quickly be managed, even with direct pressure. Puncture wounds from knives are often jagged and create a larger hole than a bullet. All of that considered – I’d rather be shot than stabbed. But I agree with you, I’d rather avoid either if I can. And a gun in hand may prevent both attacks.

  • dan

    @Silidas mate not being aggressive or anything if you dislike guns why are you on a gun forum? and have you ever been in a knife fight? they can get pretty messy mate

  • Siledas

    @dan don’t get me wrong, I think they’re pretty enjoyable to use and fascinating to study, but they’re designed to be used predominantly as tools of conflict. They have about as much place being in the common household as a Sherman tank.

    And to answer your second question, no I wouldn’t call it a ‘fight’ per se, but I was stabbed in a random unprovoked attack last year and I’d much rather experience that again than be shot at.

    From what my friends and relatives in the military tell me being shot at sucks.

    You can run away from a guy with a knife, you can’t outrun a bullet.

    But in the end, I guess you’re right in that a gun blog probably isn’t an appropriate place to debate the merits of carrying firearms.

  • dan

    @siledas sorry for snappin at you before mate but i agree with you in a way guns in the wrong hands can be very dangerous and more guns in the right hands doesnt cancel that out

  • shaun

    hey does anyone know if the romanian par-1’s can be sold here in australia, they are just a pump action centre fire, i dont see any reason why they wouldnt be, and does any one know eho can import them,

    cheers

  • canon eos 600d kit

    Nagyon szerettem volna küldeni egy kis szót köszönetet mondani nektek a fantasztikus pontokat írunk ezen az oldalon. Saját időigényes internetes keresést a végén beváltása rendkívül jó ötletek cseréjét az én cimborák. Én d hangot, hogy sokan a látogatók valóban rendkívül felruházva, hogy létezik egy jelentős közösség oly sok szép egyének hasznos pontokat. Úgy érzem, nagyon szerencsés, hogy használják a weboldal, és várom, hogy oly sok más szórakoztató pillanatokat az olvasást. Köszönöm ismét egy csomó dolgot.

  • Michael Whitty

    The ownership of Guns does not lead to an increase in gun violence, a good example is a town in Texas in the USA. It is a crime in this town not to be carrying arms..this town has almost has zero crime.
    Countries around the world that allow their citizens to own and carry arms, have a lower crime rate than those who do not allow the right to carry..a good example is the UK, as they stripped the citizens of their right to have arms, the crime level rose.

    • Siledas

      “The ownership of Guns does not lead to an increase in gun violence, a good example is a town in Texas in the USA. It is a crime in this town not to be carrying arms..this town has almost has zero crime.”

      Where exactly are you getting your statistics?

      http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm
      http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/tx/crime

      Moreover, what you’ve mentioned is a logical fallacy anyway, because you’re drawing a relationship between correlation implying causality and that simply isn’t true.

      You could probably find a town in the ‘states where an increase in the sales of milk coincided with a decrease in the crime rate, but would that imply that milk sales prevent violent crimes? Not at all.

      Maybe it’s worth considering places that have always had a fairly diligent gun control policy (like Australia) and assess the rates of gun-related and/or violent crimes there in comparison.

      http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1318.3Feature%20Article14Jul%202009
      http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyTopic/6B9FE55503A650FDCA25690D00835F84?OpenDocument

      Even if you were to multiply the population of Queensland and the amount of murders in the year 2000 by six times, the amount of murders would still be lower per capita than the amount of murders in Texas in 1970 (which is apparently the lowest it’s been in the last forty years).

  • Sam Suggs

    this shit happen in the u.s im not goiing quietly into the night

  • Sam Suggs

    give them a little and yo end of hiding the mile under the foundation of your garage