Registration Leads To Confiscation... AGAIN

[Kennedy 0]

Australian police have seized an estimated 40,000 formerly legal firearms from residents of New South Wales, and in the process shut down several companies providing security services. According to an Australian national newspaper, police were either not satisfied that the firearms were being kept securely or decided that possession "was not necessarily further warranted."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12208288-1702,00.html

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[randomdude 0]

and the gf wonders why we aren't going to
honeymoon in Aust.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

and the gf wonders why we aren't going to
honeymoon in Aust.

I'd not really have considered bringing a gun on a honeymoon.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JesseP 0]

In Australia the laws of gun ownership are different.

This article simply highlights our authorities up-holding our laws, which by the way are supported by the majority who live here.

That's the way we like it over here.

[Kennedy 0]

So you're a fan of constant confiscations of private property that has not beens hown to be any sort of threat? OK, whatever floats your boat.

Personally, I'm not a believer in the old "the government will solve my problems" mentality.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

So you're a fan of constant confiscations of private property that has not beens hown to be any sort of threat? OK, whatever floats your boat.

Of course he's not. He'd likely have a fit if the government came and confiscated his air-conditioner, but since an EVIL gun, something he thinks he doesn't need and likely doesn't approve of it's all OK.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[JesseP 0]

Please don't speak for me. Also try not to use hypothetical analogies to make me sound like an idiot.

In this country, although guns are private property, they are heavily regulated because they are viewed differently than they are in certain areas of the U.S. The article posted was nothing more than a report about regulated and in some cases prohibited weapons being seized because they were not being stored in accordance with the law.

But nice try anyway guys.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

and in some cases prohibited weapons being seized because they were not being stored in accordance with the law.

How did the police know that they weren't being stored in accordance with the law?

Confiscation of private property is confiscation of private property - whether it's property you find offensive or unnecessary or not has nothing to do with it.

Quote

That's the way we like it over here.

I'm willing to bet that there are approximately 185,000 licensed firearms holders who will disagree with you.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[JesseP 0]

Exactly where in either of my posts have I mentioned anything about my attitude towards guns?

Putting words in my mouth to try and back up your rather weak argument is quite silly.

I imagine the police had good reason to believe the guns were not being stored correctly. Perhaps they checked, this is especially likely in the cases of the security firms that had their weapons confiscated.

Again, this has bugger all to do with my opinions and everything to do with up-holding Australia's laws.

I'm sure your next response will be along the lines of me being a freedom hating commie or something...don't let me down.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

The article posted was nothing more than a report about regulated and in some cases prohibited weapons being seized because they were not being stored in accordance with the law.

It wasn't banned firearms, these were all legal arms. Also, not all were taken for the red-tape reason of storage violations. Possession of some firearms was not

Quote

necessarily further warranted.

Quote

Mr Moroney said NSW police carried out a big audit and compliance check of all firearms in NSW last year.

These were all registerd firearms. Many were taken for no particular reason at all. No crime committed, no problems caused, but no right to hold onto your private porperty.


ps - I don't think you're an idiot at all, but you're attention to detail when you want to debate things could use some work.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Jimbo 0]

Ya freedom hating commie!


-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I imagine the police had good reason to believe the guns were not being stored correctly. Perhaps they checked, this is especially likely in the cases of the security firms that had their weapons confiscated.

Their reason for checking is that they knew where the guns were, nothing more.

THIS WAS AN AUDIT OF REGISTERED FIREARMS

Quote

Again, this has bugger all to do with my opinions and everything to do with up-holding Australia's laws.

Right, because all laws are good laws and they should always be upheld and enforced to the maximum.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JesseP 0]

I'm not against the private ownership of guns, provided that ownership conforms to this country's (yes, rather strict) laws. I think most of the regulations brought in where a knee jerk reaction to the Port Arthur massacre that happened a decade or so ago.

However, the rules of firearm ownership are no secret. If you do not store, carry or use your gun according to the guidelines set down in the law, you forfeit your right to own them. I am also all for that.

And to Kennedy, I'm not sure I was being selective in the information I used. The guns may well have been formerly legal, but due to changes supported by most of the country that is no longer the case. However it is hard to tell precisely what happened due to the brevity of the article.

[JesseP 0]

THIS WAS AN AUDIT OF REGISTERED FIREARMS



And that audit revealed that these weapons were being stored incorrectly. Good thing there was an audit.

Not all laws are good. But if you know the rules then there is no reason to snivel like a bitch when you get caught breaking them.

[Kennedy 0]

I would've said it was pretty clear in saying that the government just didn't think the people needed the guns anymore, and so it took them away (in addition to the storage violations)

Not a precedent I'd be comfortable with in my country.


(While I disagree with the general premise of storage regulations, I have to agree that breaking the law during a suprise audit can only have one outcome - I strongly disagree with the outcome, but there's not much to be done about it)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

And that audit revealed that these weapons were being stored incorrectly. Good thing there was an audit.

Not all laws are good. But if you know the rules then there is no reason to snivel like a bitch when you get caught breaking them.

Maybe I'm getting repetitive now, but I don't know why you're not getting it.

Not all of the guns confiscated were improperly stored.

Quote

Mr Moroney said that, as part of the blitz, thousands of weapons were destroyed because police were not satisfied that the firearms were being kept securely, or that "possession of that firearm was necessarily further warranted".

Some were taken without breaking any laws at all.

Are you ok with that?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[JesseP 0]

I think we both need more information about why they were taken.

If the reason was something along the lines of a private security firm having an unnecessary weapon (a large rifle or something) then yes, I am okay with that (provided there is a mandate in the law for its confiscation).

If the authorities are making up the rules as they go along then I am totally opposed to that in every way.

It is impossible to tell from the sentence you quote.

[randomdude 0]

Jesse,
The question is, where does it end? I think you'd
probably find that the majority of those gun owners
bent over backwards to comply with the laws. The
important thing you're not exactly seeing is
that criminals are criminals because they break
laws. Rapists don't care about rape laws, murderers
about laws against murder, etc. Why punish law
abiding gun owners?

[happythoughts 0]

news

Quote

A number of private security firms had closed following a police audit of the industry, he said.

"We're working with the security industry of course in terms of the ballistic testing of all firearms in possession of the security industry itself."

"We've sought to apply a strong audit and compliance regime with the industry itself.

"As a consequence of that a number of private security firms have had to close down.

"We're not satisfied with the level of security that they've been taking."

The security industry had strongly supported the police actions, Mr Moroney said.

Detective Superintendent John Kerlatec said six guns had been stolen from security guards this year, compared with about 10 last year and more than 60 in 2003.

The problem was that 6 guns were stolen from security guards. The security firms were not storing them correctly. After the audit, firms that were not taking the correct precautions were closed down.

Quote

Premier Bob Carr meanwhile said the Government was working with police to reduce the number of guns in the community.

When asked if there were too many guns on the streets, Mr Carr replied: "Absolutely".

"If there is one person with malevolent intentions and one gun in his possession, that's one too many," he said.

There is 600,000 registered guns. 43,000 were destroyed last year.

Quote

THE daylight robbery of a man at gunpoint near a busy train station has renewed fears of a rise in gun crime in Sydney.

The 34-year-old man, who asked to be known only as Paul, said he was walking to Harris Park railway station on his way to work about 6.45am on January 11 when another man approached him and asked for a light.

Quote

Mr Moroney labelled the attack on Paul as cowardly and said the mugger could strike again.

"This cowardly attack on an ordinary citizen going about an everyday task going to work – wanton, brazen, cowardly in every way – is an attack not only on the individual but is an attack on each and every person in the state," he said.

"I have a confirmed concern this offender may reoffend again and on the next occasion the level of crime that he commits may be far more serious."

[Kennedy 0]

What do you think about the police taking someof the guns, not becuase a law or regulation had been broken, but because they decided that

Quote

possession of that firearm was necessarily further warranted.

The audit was to private owners as well, not just security firms. So how does it sit with you that the government can decide for you whether private ownership may or may not be "further warranted?"

Quote

Premier Bob Carr meanwhile said the Government was working with police to reduce the number of guns in the community.

When asked if there were too many guns on the streets, Mr Carr replied: "Absolutely".

"If there is one person with malevolent intentions and one gun in his possession, that's one too many," he said.

And to hell with the people who are suffering ever-increasing numbers of home invasions by thugs with blunt force and edged weapons?

Quote

Mr Moroney labelled the attack on Paul as cowardly and said the mugger could strike again.

"This cowardly attack on an ordinary citizen going about an everyday task going to work – wanton, brazen, cowardly in every way – is an attack not only on the individual but is an attack on each and every person in the state," he said.

"I have a confirmed concern this offender may reoffend again and on the next occasion the level of crime that he commits may be far more serious."

And since armed self defense is out, and the police can't be everywhere, how does he intend to stop this?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

What do you think about the police taking someof the guns, not becuase a law or regulation had been broken, but because they decided that

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


possession of that firearm was necessarily further warranted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Canada for instance, security officers employed in valuable transportation are allowed to carry fire arms. Other security personel are not allowed to carry firearms. If a security company switches function and does not hand in their guns, I would hope my government will confiscate them because possession was no longer warrented.

Why do you feel so strongly that fire arm legislation in the rest of the world has to be like the US?

[happythoughts 0]

I posted that link because it was the best online news that I could find with more information. Even it was pretty murky.

It really sounds like the goal is the removal of firearms from the general public and they are enforcing rules in whatever fashion they choose.

Sydney, New York, and LA will always have crime because they are big cities. In a city of 400, crimes are solved because there is no anonymity. You would know who robbed you. In a city of 4 million, people blend in and disappear.

***"Sydney will end up like New York or Los Angeles if we keep going the way we're going," he said.

Quote

Since it is illegal to own a handgun in New York, taking away all the firearms from law-abiding citizens in Sydney may make Sydney just like NY. The irony of that statement is huge.

LA has a drug/gang weapons problem that will not go away. Somehow, I do not believe that a gang, that makes all their money through illegal activities, is going to obey any other law.

Crime in different cities is not related to the volume of guns. It is the society. An unarmed Sydney may function differently than an unarmed New York, better or worse.

• Quote

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

And that audit revealed that these weapons were being stored incorrectly... But if you know the rules then there is no reason to snivel like a bitch when you get caught breaking them.

If your auto registration expires because you forgot to renew it, do they confiscate your car?

Punishment should be proportionate to the crime. Property should not be confiscated for minor technical offenses.

Unless they are guns, of course, then any old excuse will do, no matter how trivial... [sarcasm off]

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

In Canada for instance, security officers employed in valuable transportation are allowed to carry fire arms. Other security personel are not allowed to carry firearms.

Don't you find it odd that it's okay to carry a firearm to guard expensive property, but not for citizens to do the same thing to guard their own life?

Isn't life more important than property?

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

In Canada for instance, security officers employed in valuable transportation are allowed to carry fire arms. Other security personel are not allowed to carry firearms. If a security company switches function and does not hand in their guns, I would hope my government will confiscate them because possession was no longer warrented. legal.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.