Thread: Firearms ban in Western aussie

For once Flyblown I agree with you.

I think that we need to stand united on this issue and bloody well fight back. Its bad enough that Semi autos are gone.

Its like death by a thousand cuts from a razor. Slowly but surely these wallies will ruin our sport and passion, for some people their businesses, and they wont give two fucks about who they squash whilst they're doing it, because 'they are doing it for the safety of all NZers'

Horseshit.

The reason we will lose our hobby in the end is Apathy, that and the fact that most user cannot seem to understand that throwing each under under the bus in the vain and forlorn hope that they will be allowed to continue their particular discipline or hobby in the short term.

Some FAL user groups seem to have the perception than some firearms are "badder" than others based upon the "look", Calibre, action type or the fact that they were "military grade" whatever the hell that means.

I have done my bit with multiple donations to COLFO and other groups, (for all the good it has done) and will continue to do so. I will also continue to support all the different user groups and disciplines even though I am not particularly interested in them.

Hell I would support the Muzzle Loading Morris dancing user group even though I have Zero interest in either...............its their right to do what they want as long as they remain "law abiding"

Make no mistake whats happening is Aussie is already underway here.

Originally Posted by mikee

The reason we will lose our hobby in the end is Apathy, that and the fact that most user cannot seem to understand that throwing each under under the bus in the vain and forlorn hope that they will be allowed to continue their particular discipline or hobby in the short term.

Some FAL user groups seem to have the perception than some firearms are "badder" than others based upon the "look", Calibre, action type or the fact that they were "military grade" whatever the hell that means.

I have done my bit with multiple donations to COLFO and other groups, (for all the good it has done) and will continue to do so. I will also continue to support all the different user groups and disciplines even though I am not particularly interested in them.

Hell I would support the Muzzle Loading Morris dancing user group even though I have Zero interest in either...............its their right to do what they want as long as they remain "law abiding"

Make no mistake whats happening is Aussie is already underway here.

Muzzle Loading Morris Dancers...have a contact for these fine folk?

Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg

What are you on about ?,

Clearly you didn't see the work that went into submissions & appearances in front of the select committee

You are possibly thinking of Fish & Game, Federated Farmers, Hunting & Fishing or Davey Hughes

The amount of time, effort & resources that the NZDA put into advocacy on behalf the hunting/shooting community, not just their members is enormous and on going

Um,Federated Farmers advocated for MSSA's to be kept because they are required for pest control

Originally Posted by Flyblown

@timattalon

This is a really good example of the problem with the Internet. I can’t be bothered to respond to the rest of the accusations but I’ll reply to you because it’s an interesting leap of logic that you’ve made.

@GDMP said the cartridges being banned were sporting cartridges.

I looked again at the list and saw a couple of cartridges that are definitely sporting (which I had already stated should be removed from the list), and I saw several that are purpose designed heavy calibre cartridges for specialised military use. And I gave one specific example.

You have now jumped to the conclusion that I support the banning of all military originated cartridges. And the cars thing…

It is the how you’ve made the giant leap to that conclusion that interests me. It is unfounded and illogical and stated in an emotional manner... there is nothing I have said that could possibly support your conclusion that I would support the banning of the 308 Winchester for example. I put it down to the hysteria that these things whip up in people when they read words on a small screen on the internet. If you and I were to sit face-to-face and have a conversation about it I am 100% certain that you would reach a different conclusion about how I feel about this latest ban in Western Australia.

The hysteria that has erupted on the Internet over this issue is a good example of what is getting in the way of the development of a strategy to tackle the erosion of firearm ownership in NZ. And boy do we need a robust strategy. The Australians have the SSAA - it is interesting to know that this issue does not appear to even be mentioned on their website (yet). Do you think this has escaped their attention? Of course not. The SSAA is a well-established and competent organisation that has done a lot of very good work winning legal battles against vote chasing politicians on firearms issues. The fact that it is still relatively straightforward for new sports shooters to get into firearms in Australia has a lot to do with the strategy, organisation and influence that the SSAA has brought to the field.

The SSAA will be very carefully plotting their position on this issue. The only way you can maintain a seat at the table is by avoiding the kind of emotional responses that this thread has generated when one guy argues against some of the misleading or incorrect statements. The SSAA will approach this in a much more level headed way. Their position at the Federal government table must not be threatened by the kind of pot stirring that the NSC is engaging in with WARA and WAPOL etc - this latest ban is part of a protracted and really quite dirty political battle at the state level. At the heart of it is the point that I made - that to survive long-term there will need to be some form of compromise by firearms owners and their representatives. To protect the long-term interests of firearms owners Australia wide, the SSAA must remain above the finger-pointing and mudslinging that has been going on in W.A. in the last couple of years.

So please don’t misrepresent what someone says in such a way as to whip up more hysteria. Pick your battles. The biggest issue we have here in New Zealand is we are insufficiently organised. Instead of ranting on the Internet against anything remotely associated with restriction, join your local NZDA and COLFO, attend meetings, pay fees, be part of the long-term organised response to this deeply rooted problem facing us.

I did not jump to that conclusion...I suggested that by your reasoning that this would be in line with you support. To state a calibre (or anything) should be banned because it was designed specifically for military use against other humans is simplistic and emotional. Consider what else fits that description; the calibres mentioned in my response, almost every rifle action in existence, camouflage, almost all emergency trauma response products (TQs - Chest seals etc) . Just because it was designed for use against humans does not make it evil and unable to have a legitimate sporting or recreational use.

The reason I raised that is this is the next step these authorities WILL take. Compromise is not a win. it is the next step to their next demand- one at a time is easier to sneak past. The car analogy was simply an example of the idiocy of their demands. One of the people supporting this in Aussie is an avid superbike rider and cannot see the difference between too much bike and too much gun being the same.

However, I agree 100% whole heartedly of you last paragraph. So much so I will highlight it so it stands out for others.

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

Originally Posted by timattalon

I did not jump to that conclusion...I suggested that by your reasoning that this would be in line with you support. To state a calibre (or anything) should be banned because it was designed specifically for military use against other humans is simplistic and emotional.

So we are still in the same position.

I did not say that any of the rifles should be banned because they were designed specifically for military use. I did not say that. What I did was respond to another poster’s claim that all the rifles on the list were sporting rifles, specifically hunting cartridges. That is demonstrably untrue, and that is what I pointed out by posting the Wikipedia description of the .408 Cheytac. Post #21 and #23. You (and others) have gone and taken that comment (which is factually correct) and applied a hefty dose of supposition and concluded that I must support a ban of all military cartridges. Whilst your conclusion is completely incorrect, it nevertheless influences subsequent discussion and before you know it what I did say is completely irrelevant. Flyblown supports a ban of all military cartridges. This is the Internet / social media problem, right there.

The expression "you couldn't make this stuff up" comes to mind. Seems that we can, its real easy.

@Flyblown, they are sporting rifles.

These are not owned by people involved in the military...

They are used by private citizens for the sport of ELR shooting.

Just like the AR15s in NZ that I and others used for service rifle and 3-gun.

Originally Posted by ebf

@Flyblown, they are sporting rifles.

These are not owned by people involved in the military...

They are used by private citizens for the sport of ELR shooting.

Just like the AR15s in NZ that I and others used for service rifle and 3-gun.

And therein lies the very guts of the debate Eben.

Because it totally depends on whose definition of "military" and "sporting" carries the most weight in a negotiation.

Remember what was said, in this thread, specifically. That the rifles in the WA list are hunting rifles.

"All the calibers mentioned are sporting calibers.....hunting."

That is what I responded to. A .50 BMG is not a hunting rifle. You know that, I know that, the police know that, the SSAA know that, COLFO know that. Some will argue that it can be whatever you like, but you and I both know that would just make you look silly in your discussions with police.

Which brings me to the important point - at least you are having discussions with police! And long may that continue. The question in my mind is have you lawyered up? The funding for proper legal representation is the Achilles heel going forward - the NRA defend themselves through an army of specialist lawyers that are very hard to beat.

Those sitting on the other side of the table from you will be hoping you turn up with a ill-considered "no compromise" position, because that is always the easiest position to defeat. A "no compromise" position enables them to make you look intransigent and dangerous, and there's all sorts of ways that can be used against you. This is why so many influential figures did not adopt a non-compromise position here in NZ last time round. No compromise needs more support that you've probably got and that's a big problem.

@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.