There's a whole bunch of them and absurd the really are. OK its absurd that Tony Abbott brought about the Adler Shotgun Import Ban which effectively banned the import of a firearm that was actually legal in every state. It failed the reasonable person test on every level but it remained.
Absurdity # 1 - The Adler capacity is not excessive and its firing rate was not "rapid fire" and no one ever set out the definition of "rapid fire". Comparing it to a double barrel action shotgun, using exactly the same ammunition...exactly the same, a double barrel fires 2 rounds faster. Firing 5 rounds, the Adler Lever Action is just faster and firing 10 rounds its the same. What is rapid fire because the Act doesn't explain it. Which makes it odd that law is enforced by a notion not quantified in Act.
Absurdity #2 - Revolvers. A Pastoralist in WA can carry a side arm like a revolver whilst at work as a form of Protective gear. Now what gets odd is, if the Pastoralist wants to drive to a Pistol Club for an event and compete, he/she cannot compete with the "work revolver", they have to purchase another revolver for competing. And if the revolver is identical, Brand, Make, Model, Calibre? Too bad, you have to by an identical 2nd revolver. Gets even more odd. If they use the "club revolver" at work, they're breaking the law too.
Absurdity #3 - If you're married & you're a licenced firearms owner but your spouse isn't they cannot have access to the gun safe. They mustn't even know where the key is. If your spouse is a licenced firearms owner the couple can only share the gun safe if they're both licenced for ALL the firearms in the safe. If there's a difference, there has to be 2 separate gun safes. Yes double the amount of storage. There was the case where the police arrived to carry out a safe inspection, the husband, who was the licenced firearms owner was away. The police asked the wife if she had the keys so they could inspect the safe's bolts. She went & got the key and opened the safe where the police said it was not securely stored and the firearms were seized. The wife had no gun licence.
Absurdity #5 - Pump action rifles. They're allowable as are pump action shot guns but I think the latter are Cat C so not easy for everyone. Remington make 2 very good pump action rifles. One's in .223 & the other in .308. Obviously .308 is a bigger round and is used by several military firearms like the AR-10. The .223 is a bullet that's very common, used in the AR-15.
No military service uses pump action .223 or .308
Absurdity is in WA you can get the much larger Pump Action .308 but not the smaller .223 because the .223 Pump Action shares the same magazine as a AR-15.
It shares no other part, function, action or appearance...just has the same magazine as an AR-15
No other reason. Now there's absurd and then there's just downright preposterous.
Pump action rifle is a useful tool for pig control, because no centrefire semi autos are allowed in WA. Not even feral contractors. You can get an Ag Permit in Queensland & other states but not here.
Absurdity #6 - Ruger make two very good rifles in .22 calibre, which is a rim fire round. One's bolt action, one's semi auto. They both use the exact same magazine, perfectly interchangeable. However you can use a 25 round magazine in the bolt action, but if you put it into the 10/22 its a prohibited firearm, you have just broken the law. the 10/22 can only have a 10 round magazine. Yes you can easily have a dozen 10 round magazines but you cannot have just one 25 round magazine.
Absurdity #6b - The semi auto 10/22 is 100% legal in WA. It has a wooden stock. Now should you need to change out the stock you can, because there's no change in the firearm except ergonomics. There's plenty to choose from. BUT - if you fit one such as an Arch-Angel polymer stock you have converted your legal Cat C firearm into a prohibited firearm due to its appearance change. No performance change, all exactly the same except you can more easily add different straps, lights, sights etc & have the advantage of a different hand grip which makes the firearm safer & easier to handle. Nope not allowed to use it. Only modifies the chassis, the action, calibre, firing rate is all exactly the same as before.
Absurdity #7 - The often talked about "appearance clause" which pretty much points out that if the firearm in question replicates action, function or has the appearance of a military firearm its banned. I get that it says that, I get what it says what is highly absurd is WHY? Why is the appearance a danger or elevated threat? A 10/22 with a wooden stock will shoot the same bullets at the same rate, with the same velocity with the same accuracy as an AR-15 type stock. Only thing that's changed is the chassis and its appearance. Why is that look change a problem and how exactly does the look cause a threat?
In essence, if no military army in the world uses a M-16 in service, its no longer a military firearm. Does it come off the appearance list because lever actions are fine on Cat A & B, so too flintlock muskets...all ex-military firearms.
If I change the chassis on the firearm to look more military what will that change be likely to cause, how & why?
The answer is not "you don't need it" the answer is an explanation why changing from legal old fashioned wood stock to a black polymer military style going to do to a person in lawful ownership? How is it likely to change them into a threat to society.
Ask an MP...you'll hear crickets or a tactical reply instead of an answer.
If the military appearance is a mind changer, why do we not extend this to clothing with so many people now wearing military style camouflage cargo pants, is a threat suddenly elevated?
Absurdity #8 - Silencers...thing is they don't silence, they suppress, that's why people who actually know a little about firearms call them SUPPRESSORS. I've never used one and they're currently illegal in WA but they don't "silence" a gun like the movies would have you think. I'm told the person who invented the auto muffler invented the firearm suppressor. In NZ and many other countries, they're a no big deal thing. They're helpful when hunting affording more hearing protection for the shooter and also for the first shot making it less of a fright noise for the other prey. You have a better chance of follow up shots of ferals. All it does though is lowers the dB levels a little but it also takes off some of the velocity so the bullet doesn't quite hit with the same punch. This means recoil is slightly reduced. The decibel drop is very minor, but its a drop nonetheless and it can vary a great deal depending on barrel length, calibre size and variance within the different (bullet) loads. Some rifles can hit 130db and a suppressor can drop that by an average of 30dB. For some of the smaller calibres you can get it down to a dB level where no hearing protection is required like the mid 80s.
They really only work really well on sub-sonic ammunition but super sonic does have a lower tone & dB rating. They work best on bolt action rifles, work quite ok but to a lesser extent on semi autos and they really don't work on revolvers because so much noise and blast comes out between the cylinder and the forcing cone. Every now & then a Bond film or some other spy/cop movie from the 1960s has a bad guy with a revolver and its got a suppressor fitted. It fires and makes a Hollywood suppressor noise of muffled note that's nearly silent.
They should be a registered item usable for hunting and gun range use. Some places overseas you can get into trouble shooting WITHOUT one. But here, it must be the appearance law or the Hollywood threat we'll all turn into Bond-like assassins if we buy one.
Lowering the dB level is a safety issue, helps the hunter and can even get the noise of urban based gun range down. For competition use, range officers & coaches have a better time helping shooters improve their competitive edge with the use of suppressors. They're a regulated item in the USA but perfectly legal in most states and readily available in New Zealand.
Absurdity #9 - For my mind, if a person is a properly licenced firearms owner they must be a fit and proper person to own a firearm. Therefore, if they have genuine need, a proper purpose and pass the reasonable person test of being a fit & proper person requirement then perhaps they should be allowed, with correct restrictions, be allowed to own any gun at all. Working in the USA, one of the ranch hands next door had an enormous gun collection. Among it he had a fully automatic AK-47 and an Israeli made Uzi sub machine gun. Both used for cleaning up vermin and "spraying cans". No not tagging graffiti but putting old out of date, shook up beer cans on a dirt mound out the paddock and spraying them with gun fire. Harmless & fun. Yes I concede an Uzi has unique traits we don't need. Terrible easy for anyone to hide it on the street under their jumper
Absurdity #10 - Reporting...the game needs to be lifted greatly. An otherwise good ABC reporter filed a TV News report on the attacks on Australia's offshore detention centres, how gun fire had broken out and locals were attacking the camp. He cited that he'd seen some of the bullets and they looked to him like "automatic bullets".
I sent him and the ABC a message asking exactly what an "automatic bullet" was, what it looked like and how it differs from a non automatic round.
No reply yet. Possibly they then embarked on a little research and realised what a total pillock comment it was. Now ok 9mm pistol rounds (and some others) are a little different due to a different type of extraction & spent round ejection and yes you need moon clips to use them in a 9mm revolver but pretty sure he wasn't talking about thing like that. A simple old garden variety .223 round is used in ("non automatic") bolt action rifles and in semi automatic AR-15 rifles and also in those few AR-15s that have the "full automatic" function switch. The range, muzzle velocity. accuracy & lethality is not great influence by the firearm's type of action. Just an observation...
Absurdity #11 - Not quite here yet, IT'S NOT LAW BUT IT'S BEING SUGGESTED. Centralised firearms storage facilities. Might work in the city when owners only visit the range, but if farmers have to go many kilometres to pick up their firearm to put down an animal, yes its ridiculous. The other ridiculous absurdity comes from the rise of stolen firearms from farms. At present it is illegal for a farmer or any other person with firearms to take the firearms out of their gun safe and lock them up in the neighbours safe whilst on holiday or absent from the home. This needs to be changed to make it legal.
Hopefully though installing electronic alarms doesn't become mandatory either. Of little use if the police are stationed 25km. If they're 25kms away, well that's close for many farmers but its not close enough to deal with a break in alarm.
No comments:
Post a Comment