Gun Law

The NSW Firearms Registry is conducting a Regional Forum in Queanbeyan on 16 April 2018 at the Bicentennial Hall in Queanbeyan commencing at 5.30.

Suppressors have taken the shooting world by storm, and internationally it has become a popular accessory for target shooters and hunters alike.

The Court noted: It would be inconsistent with the spirit of s80(2) for the Minister in exercising power under this section to return them to the owner.

Sadly this is not the first time someone active within the sport has been singled out.

Digging by Tasmanian shooters revealed that the ban was recommended by four members of the TASPOL Firearms Categorisation sub-committee.

Shooters are often amazed when the unexpected activities of a petulant child undermine their sport.

Simon outlines ways to join the fight in defending your rights as a shooter.

Long delays are prima facie evidence of problems in the Registry that are suggestive of the need for an internal audit in order to ascertain if there are problems within the organisation.

When Police seize firearms, it can be quite difficult for people to get them back. Often Police seize firearms for 28 days if there is a suggestion of domestic violence.

This is every shooters fear. Police arrive to seize your firearms.

There is no rule, anywhere in Australia that states you cannot shoot 1km from a main road or town, although I have commented previously, this view is welded into Australian folk lore.

What sort of arguments can one raise, when one is faced by the Suspension of your firearms licence under these circumstances.

Simon addresses clauses relevant to target shooters and hunters, and I am dealing with only major issues in a document that spans 77 pages.

I assume that the person who wrote the legislation would have had a view that the holder of a Firearms Dealers Licence, or Club Armourer somehow has special skills, however, most holders of these licences do not, and are NOT gunsmiths.

Feeney v Qld Police Service (Weapons Licensing Branch) 2017 QCAT 203 is the latest in a line of cases dealing with the vexed question of possession of Category H licences by either farmers or those assisting farmers with pest extermination.