Dear Minister,
Apologies, I may have not worded my main point properly.
I'm at a loss regards the non prescriptive nature of a firearm being judge by "appearance" which is entirely subjective by whomever the officer on the day might be.
I think this part of the current legislation needs attention and applying a more prescriptive guideline as to what actually constitutes a military style firearm. This also protects those working under the Act from unfair critics.
I hope to provide a better wording of how this affects me in the farming operation I own and run.
A lever action rifle was a military firearm well over 100 years ago, but isn't any more. Lever actions are now freely available under the legislation.
A M1 Garand is also no longer a military rifle, but was during WW2 & the Korean War. One rifle that closely resembles it is the Ruger 10/22 which, as a primary producer I qualify for. The calibres are different.
At present we have feral animals in amongst our bluegum plantation. A self loading centrefire firearm in .223 would actually be of great benefit to our feral control programme. We run cattle in an ongoing rotational system in the plantation and whilst cells of trees & pasture are unoccupied by livestock we can properly address feral animals. At present I use a bolt action .223, but I have one shot because I cannot get a clean and accurate 2nd shot off before ferals move 8 to 12 feet in the old language and are lost from view/rifle range into the next row of trees and are gone. So its firstly find the feral, take aim & fire. Then come back a fortnight or two later (or longer) when I can finally approach them within an accurate firing distance again.
A solution to this would be a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle which is a self loading .223.
I was told I cannot get this firearm because of the legislative section you also cited in your correspondence "
That "a self-loading centre fire rifle designed or adapted for military purposes or a firearm that substantially duplicates such a firearm in design, function, or appearance".The Ruger M14 Mini Ranch Rifle is self loading centrefire but it is not designed or adapted for military purposes.
It does duplicate in design and function a M1 Garand which was a World War II firearm.
The M1 Garanad is, like the lever action is no longer a military firearm, its a collectible historical firearm.
The Ruger M14 Mini Ranch Rifle also substantially replicates the Ruger 10/22 which I can qualify for.
The Ruger M14 Mini Ranch Rifle also differs from the now non-military M1 Garand in that the Ranch Rifle is .223 not the larger 30-30 calibre. The .223 a humane cartridge size for larger ferals like dogs & kangaroos giving less recoil and better chance of an accurate 2nd or even 3rd shot on feral animals.
With utmost respect minister your letter related that in regards to the Ruger 10/22 "The calibre of a firearm has no bearing on determining whether a firearm meets the criteria under regulation 26" - In the case of myself needing a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle, the main difference between it and the Ruger 10/22 is the calibre, one is .22 & one .223. Both have the same appearance, both have the same design and function, neither are military firearms nor resemble current military firearms.
Both have the same bullet diameter. The main difference is one is rimfire, one is centrefire and one has more powder powering it than the other.
Here are 2 comparison photos.
Firstly the Ruger 10/22 then the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle. Neither resemble military rifles. One has more powder powering it. Under Regulation 26 one of the rifles below sits on the prohibited list with mortars, hand grenades, bazookas, machine guns, tear gas guns, chemical and incendiary ammunition & 20mm missiles etc.
Neither are based on military rifles, both are completely legal in other states of Australia and very much available to primary producers.
In my situation as a primary producer running an innovative farming operation with a complex management system to allow renewable timber plantation & beef cattle to be combined we're held back by not being able to use the specific tool for our operation. We have a greater feral problem than an operation without renewable timber aspect because we have higher shelter for feral animals and hence harder to shoot and control. Its a feral haven. Ironically I can more easily get a larger 30-30 calibre lever action (or even larger) but its overkill, harder to manage an accurate first and second shot and more importantly has a far greater range (distance) than I'm comfortable with.
If I farmed cattle on a renewable timber plantation in Queensland, this firearm would not be on the prohibited list and easily accessible to a farmer. I genuinely urge the minister to review this and a small number of other firearms that fall into Cat. D that should be made available to those of us with genuine and reasonable need.
In closing Minister, you also referenced the Port Arthur massacre, one of the saddest and darkest events in Australian history. It is worth noting that firearms used there were actual high powered automatic military assault rifles. All were illegally purchased by a person of very serious mental dysfunction who did not have a firearms licence nor even a drivers licence and should not have been in possession of any firearm at all. Aside from his serious mental sickness, he was not a legal and lawful fire arm owner with a genuine & reasonable need. You'll note that I do not use his name. For my own reasons I refuse to use his actual name and only refer to him as the convicted gunman. I understand the Minister's deep regard for keeping the community safe but some firearms, in strict circumstances should be off the Cat D list as they are in other states of Australia.
Below is a FN AR-10, identical to one of the military assault rifles used at Port Arthur. This will show how far removed the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle is from an assault rifle.
In my situation as a primary producer running an innovative farming operation with a complex management system to allow renewable timber plantation & beef cattle to be combined we're held back by not being able to use the specific tool for our operation. We have a greater feral problem than an operation without renewable timber aspect because we have higher shelter for feral animals and hence harder to shoot and control. Its a feral haven. Ironically I can more easily get a larger 30-30 calibre lever action (or even larger) but its overkill, harder to manage an accurate first and second shot and more importantly has a far greater range (distance) than I'm comfortable with.
If I farmed cattle on a renewable timber plantation in Queensland, this firearm would not be on the prohibited list and easily accessible to a farmer. I genuinely urge the minister to review this and a small number of other firearms that fall into Cat. D that should be made available to those of us with genuine and reasonable need.
In closing Minister, you also referenced the Port Arthur massacre, one of the saddest and darkest events in Australian history. It is worth noting that firearms used there were actual high powered automatic military assault rifles. All were illegally purchased by a person of very serious mental dysfunction who did not have a firearms licence nor even a drivers licence and should not have been in possession of any firearm at all. Aside from his serious mental sickness, he was not a legal and lawful fire arm owner with a genuine & reasonable need. You'll note that I do not use his name. For my own reasons I refuse to use his actual name and only refer to him as the convicted gunman. I understand the Minister's deep regard for keeping the community safe but some firearms, in strict circumstances should be off the Cat D list as they are in other states of Australia.
Below is a FN AR-10, identical to one of the military assault rifles used at Port Arthur. This will show how far removed the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle is from an assault rifle.
I wish to thank the Minister for her genuine regard for the community in an area of legislation that has some faults and lacks harmony with other states and fails some of the genuine need of some primary producers. I understand the current legislation is not of your making Minister & you're working hard to improve things. I hope I have been able to show you a side that may not have been presented to you and an area I hope you can rectify.
Very best regards
Peter Robins
Very best regards
Peter Robins
