Thread: Firearms ban in Western aussie

WA has full firearms registration and the firearms they are banning have been selected from their registration records which is how they have so much detail, the exact number of people affected, etc. We don't have such records here YET but wait until we do! All this is more proof of the historical reason we are permitted to be armed by the Bill of Rights 1688.

Originally Posted by gundoc

WA has full firearms registration and the firearms they are banning have been selected from their registration records which is how they have so much detail, the exact number of people affected, etc. We don't have such records here YET but wait until we do! All this is more proof of the historical reason we are permitted to be armed by the Bill of Rights 1688.

This is interesting about historical and legal rights.
https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search...25ddff0759.pdf

@Tahr. An interesting fishing expedition. At least, though, the decision outlines what not to argue.

Originally Posted by RugerM77

@Tahr. An interesting fishing expedition. At least, though, the decision outlines what not to argue.

Its how the law lays. If people want to argue the Magna Carta and antiquated law they can go to it. This will be the result.

Flyblown is arguing compromise. The trouble with compromise is that you seldom get more than 50% of what you want.

Argue subjectivity laced with emotion and you will get nothing. Thats what I sometimes see as a theme in these threads.

Reasoned argument using facts and objectivity laced with dogged determination will be persuasive. NZDA in particular and maybe other organisation Im not familiar with seem to be getting this nowadays.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Flyblown is arguing compromise. The trouble with compromise is that you seldom get more than 50% of what you want.

Sure, fair point. But if the 50% is what you really need and the 50% you didn't get were the "nice to haves but not essential", then it's still a win.

It's when you end up with nothing because you set out with an ill advised position and refused to budge, with no political capital to support that position, that's when you have a real problem.

My information from our local branch is that the NZDA is much, much better prepared now. Long may it continue.

Originally Posted by Flyblown

Sure, fair point. But if the 50% is what you really need and the 50% you didn't get were the "nice to haves but not essential", then it's still a win.

It's when you end up with nothing because you set out with an ill advised position and refused to budge, with no political capital to support that position, that's when you have a real problem.

My information from our local branch is that the NZDA is much, much better prepared now. Long may it continue.

Yes. There is an argument to negotiate for the sky, and then getting half of that is still plenty.

The NZDA CEO is (was) a very well qualified and highly regarded lawyer. He is doing the job for hunters and hunting - certainly not because of the money. He will be taking a big personal hit for us.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Its how the law lays. If people want to argue the Magna Carta and antiquated law they can go to it. This will be the result.

Flyblown is arguing compromise. The trouble with compromise is that you seldom get more than 50% of what you want.

Argue subjectivity laced with emotion and you will get nothing. Thats what I sometimes see as a theme in these threads.

Reasoned argument using facts and objectivity laced with dogged determination will be persuasive. NZDA in particular and maybe other organisation Im not familiar with seem to be getting this nowadays.

Sadly the Government argues using ‘may’ ‘possible’ and ‘might’ in their argument, just look at the WA authorities justification for banning those calibers.

Originally Posted by Finnwolf

Sadly the Government argues using ‘may’ ‘possible’ and ‘might’ in their argument, just look at the WA authorities justification for banning those calibers.

So we ought to keep asking for specifics and for their evidence based argument's that support their policies. In the absence or if they are flawed we go onto the front foot.