Bureaucracy gone mad?

Printable View

26th August 2009, 04:12 PM
Woodwould

Bureaucracy gone mad?

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBob%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><style>  </style> I don't like guns as a rule, however, I inherited several beautiful flintlock 'shooting pieces' which I disposed of before leaving Ireland and I really enjoyed just handling, admiring and owning them.

I took a notion a while ago to make a walnut-stocked flintlock. I don't want to shoot it, but I do like the idea of making an iconic accoutrement that most gentlemen of the eighteenth century would have owned. I mainly want to make a walnut stock, fettle some brass and steel parts and assemble a reasonably accurate copy of a (non-functioning) puff-bang pistol or blunderbuss.

There are a myriad of flintlock kits available in the US (who'd have guessed!) making it possible to knock up a working firearm with not much more than a screwdriver and some sandpaper.

I made enquiries with one US company about shipping a lock, barrel and a few other related bits of gun furniture to Australia and received a very daunting and lengthy response requiring various Australian permits and import documents before they would entertain my order.

I made enquires here and was informed by a gun dealer, a gun club and (through a friend) the police, that the only possible means to acquire something as innocuous as a triggerguard was to first join a gun club that specialised in black powder weapons, remain in good standing within the club for a period of one year, and only then could I approach a gun dealer and request him to purchase the parts on my behalf!

I realise there was a concerted effort some years ago to reduce the number of legally and illegally held firearms by the great unwashed, but is my desire to own a facsimile of an unwieldy, out-of-date puff-bang unreasonable, or has this country gone completely off the rails?
26th August 2009, 05:17 PM
Waldo

G'day Woodwould,

Tis sad but true. I have my Dad's old target air rifle, to keep that as well as ticking the boxes of storage I had to join a target rifle club. The cost of doing so was piling up, I only wanted to keep the gun not use it.

So I enquired, more for verification so I knew I was doing the right thing - I had two choices:

• have it disenabled, which to me was akin to not really having the rifle (but still requires a gun licence); or
• or change my Licence from target shooting to hunting, which all I had really to do was to get a bit of paper from the DSE.

This was done all on the day my Licence was up for renewal/expiry. A friendly cop told me the 2nd dot point, which I knew, but only after talking to three cops in Licensing at Know copshop. :?

So, I was told to complete the required forms for my license, all but sending the original bit of paper granting me permission to hunt on Crown Land - which gave me time to get the paper from DSE and I would then receive my application back from Licensing with 28 days to comply.

Now, my Licence has expired and I having wait to have returned to me the incomplete paperwork for me to get it returned complete does mean I am legal, though stored legally and am waiting for either the cops to send me the paperwork to complete and then inspect my gun storage etc; or bash down my door charge me have to explain why I have a gun without a current licence although its in the paperwork somewhere (not trusting that all heads talk to each other, although the visit will be from Licencing at Knowfield).

But in answer to your problem and as I understand it, there are a few things:

• to get a gun license (in your case which applies to me also - Category A or A and B longarms) you need proof of membership of a target shooting club, or permission from a land holder to shoot on their property or be a land holder, i.e. farmer in which case you need to show a rates notice and show proof of area of land owned. From the Victorian Firearms Licence Renewal Application Guidelines - Category A or A & B Longarms, " Copy of your current membership card of an approved shooting club or organisation."

There is no need to have it for 12 months. When I first got my licence I only had to show a letter from the president of the gun club that I had membership if I could not provide a membership card. On the Category A or A & B Longarms Renewal Application you have to either one of two things:

• approved sporting club/organisation's endorsement stamp, including signature of nominated person or

• Provide a copy of your membership card.

In other answers to your problem, and which is much more expensive to do you need a collectors licence. But to do so costs megabucks as you have to store the guns in a certain way.

But all said and done you need to get it from the horses mouth, and when I can find it I'll post up a phone number and a woman to ring direct at Licencing at Knox.

One other point, a category A licence lets you keep: airguns: paintball firearms, shotguns (not semi-automatic or pump action); and combiation of a shotgun and rimfire rifle; muzzle loading shotguns.

Category B lets you keep: muzzle loading firearms (except shotguns); center fire rifles (including pump action not automatic or semi-automatic); any combination of a shotgun, and center fire rifles, or black powder ball firing cannon. (category B automatically lets you use Cat A firearms).
26th August 2009, 05:42 PM
Waldo

Woodwould, phone Emma on 9247 6029 at Firearms Licencing at Knowfield copshop (I'm pretty sure that's the phone not the fax) explain the situation and she will easily tell you what you need to do. She is the only one I spoke to who could tell me the right thing when I needed something confirmed before I did it.

Even a gun dealer I spoke to ballsed up the real info!
26th August 2009, 05:59 PM
Woodwould

Thanks Waldo! :thyel:

It all involves ridiculous quantities of money and copious ammounts of red tape which I couldn't be bothered with just to own an ornament. :C

Apparently I could even be prossecuted for making/owning a replica flintlock pistol stock if it could be established a barrel could be fitted to it! Blimey! I've innocently made very convincing 'replica' guns for the Channel Nine props department in the past. I don't remember all the details, but IIRC, apparently it saves them having to have an armourer on set.
26th August 2009, 06:10 PM
rrobor

Every story has 2 sides. Can't remember which country it was that wanted to import these special steel pipes for their gas works. Turned out they were trying to build a great big gun capable of shooting rockets for several hundred miles. So as usual the innocent suffer because some damn idiot decdes he wants to shoot up something he thinks offends him. So Woodwould, ask yourself would you sleep better an night if it had been real easy to import gun bits. Back in Scotland I came from a place a few miles from Dunblane, an idiot went into the primary school there and shot kids. How many kids could he kill or maim with a blunderbus.
26th August 2009, 06:36 PM
Woodwould

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrobor

Every story has 2 sides. Can't remember which country it was that wanted to import these special steel pipes for their gas works. Turned out they were trying to build a great big gun capable of shooting rockets for several hundred miles. So as usual the innocent suffer because some damn idiot decdes he wants to shoot up something he thinks offends him. So Woodwould, ask yourself would you sleep better an night if it had been real easy to import gun bits. Back in Scotland I came from a place a few miles from Dunblane, an idiot went into the primary school there and shot kids. How many kids could he kill or maim with a blunderbus.

I was waiting for that argument! I fully accept your point, but surely to goodness, it should be legal to make a purely ornamental puff-bang with a sealed barrel. And before someone points out it wouldn't be difficult for some murderous individual to swap a sealed barrel for a functional one, there are many, many easier and more covert ways to concoct a gun. You can make a zip gun from a car aerial, a nail and an elastic band - even Biros have been used for ghetto guns. It's impossible to prevent a determined criminal from making and/or firing a weapon if he sets his mind to it.
26th August 2009, 08:26 PM
dazzler

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodwould

I was waiting for that argument! I fully accept your point, but surely to goodness, it should be legal to make a purely ornamental puff-bang with a sealed barrel. .

I think that if it looks like a gun its declared to be a gun under law:rolleyes:
26th August 2009, 08:55 PM
funkychicken

Make the trigger guard yourself and don't tell the cops:wink:
26th August 2009, 09:02 PM
AlexS

It's not a trigger guard, officer .....
It's a carrying handle for a lump of wood.:D
27th August 2009, 08:54 PM
bsrlee

Be thankful you are not in NSW - it is relatively easy to own a real firearm, but if you have a non-functional replica then you have a 'prohibited article' - last person I heard of who was charged with possession of a replica got 2 years - and that was after the item in question was declared by the Firearms Registry NOT to be a replica, but someone from another section disagreed & they conned the dope into pleading guilty :o - so there was no cross examination of 'expert' witnesses.

But don't worry, Victoria has promised to amend their legislation to follow NSW down the looney path.
27th August 2009, 10:55 PM
rrobor

Its very easy to believe its all the fault of the law but once you start making exceptions you muddy the water and make it easier for idiots to get hold of things. Customs are going to have nightmares as to is it, or is it not a gun, can it be modified and so on. Now anyone can turn a wooden barrel and paint it to look real, a firing mechanism is tougher but why does it need to , as Woodwould say go puff bang. If I hadnt come to Australia there would have been a very good chance that one of my daughters would have been in Dunblane school when a gunman killed 16 kids and a teacher. So no, lets not make it easy for maniacs. The price for that is you may have to forgo a toy.
31st August 2009, 10:29 AM
.RC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrobor

Its very easy to believe its all the fault of the law but once you start making exceptions you muddy the water and make it easier for idiots to get hold of things.

If you give up liberties for safety, you deserve neither...

And the country building the "super gun" was Iraq..It was for "launching satellites into space" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon
31st August 2009, 12:53 PM
rrobor

That's a platitude. Without law we would be subjected to the rabble. So yes some law we dont like and some we do, and to change the law you have a vote. Its called democracy.
31st August 2009, 03:20 PM
.RC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrobor

Its called democracy.

Except modern democracy is highly flawed..

I also did not mention getting rid of various laws, merely how Australians have sacrificed liberties for the illusion of safety...The free'est we ever were was in the seventies, now it feels like we are in communist russia..

How long till we become like the brits...Hell they shot an innocent person in cold blood in the name of "terrorism" and there was zero culpability on the people who ordered the shooting..
31st August 2009, 03:50 PM
Calm

I dont like the restrictions either

but

think about the poor bank teller/shop assistant with a weapon pointed at them

Do you think they can tell it's not going to kill them - or should they ask "by the way is that a real gun or just a replica" youre pointing at me.:no::no::oo::oo:

As with all rules they are made for the minoroty and restrict the majority.

Cheers
31st August 2009, 04:14 PM
.RC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calm

I dont like the restrictions either

but

think about the poor bank teller/shop assistant with a weapon pointed at them

Last time I looked armed robbery has always been illegal, do you think anyone thinking of committing this offence gives a rat about whether the weapon used is illegal or legal???
31st August 2009, 04:25 PM
rat52

As wouldwood said it is easy to make a gun and it is even easier to buy the ammo but if the ammo was very hard to get who could make it. Yes black powder can be made ( I did when I was a kid) but that limits you to 1 shot and 60 seconds to reload

This argument could go on for ever but a nut is a nut and will use whatever weapon does the most damage:C
31st August 2009, 04:56 PM
Rossluck

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calm

I dont like the restrictions either

but

think about the poor bank teller/shop assistant with a weapon pointed at them

Do you think they can tell it's not going to kill them - or should they ask "by the way is that a real gun or just a replica" youre pointing at me.:no::no::oo::oo:

But didn't Joh bring in a Law up here stipulating that upon entry to a bank, robbers have to declare whether the gun they are using is real or a replica? Or is this just another one of my dreams that I'm remembering? :?
31st August 2009, 07:43 PM
Grumpy John

Or, it could be another one of Joh's dreams you're remembering :D :rolleyes:.
31st August 2009, 09:35 PM
rrobor

No I think you err R.C. The Brits were tracking terrorists and the guy that got shot was mistaken for a backpack bomber. He was a black African, He was an illegal immigrant and he ran when told to stop. Now the police who caught him in a busy railway station believed he was about to blow himself and others up. In that position, ask yourself what you would do. Very easy to be wise after the fact but remember this was after the London bombing and the slaughter of innocent people. You seem to believe laws are made then people break them. The law reacts to what is, it does not create the problem.
31st August 2009, 10:16 PM
AlexS

Well no, actually, he was a legal Brazilian immigrant and he was just going to work, and he was shot because of a police bungle.
From the Guardian
31st August 2009, 10:41 PM
rrobor

I believe if you check correctly he was on an expired visitors visa so should not be working, that is why he ran from the police. Anyways yes the police got it wrong but so did he, he ran and jumped a barrier. Would you take the risk of him killing a packed carriage of comuters. Its split second judgement and sorry but when he ran he sealed his fate.
31st August 2009, 11:05 PM
.RC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrobor

No I think you err R.C. The Brits were tracking terrorists and the guy that got shot was mistaken for a backpack bomber. He was a black African, He was an illegal immigrant and he ran when told to stop. Now the police who caught him in a busy railway station believed he was about to blow himself and others up.

He jumped no barrier, did not run and the police most likely were not dressed in a uniform making them recognisable as police..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Three surveillance officers, codenamed Hotel 1, Hotel 3 and Hotel 9, followed Menezes on to the train. According to Hotel 3, Menezes sat down with a glass panel to his right about two seats in. Hotel 3 then took a seat on the left with about two or three passengers between Menezes and himself. When the firearms officers arrived on the platform, Hotel 3 moved to the door, blocked it from closing with his left foot, and shouted 'He's here!' to identify the suspect's location.

The firearms officers boarded the train and it was initially claimed they challenged the suspect, though later report indicates he was not challenged.<sup id="cite_ref-Telegraph_August_3_2007_11-0" class="reference">[12]</sup> According to Hotel 3, Menezes then stood up and advanced towards the officers and Hotel 3, at which point Hotel 3 grabbed him, pinned his arms against his torso, and pushed him back into the seat. Although Menezes was being restrained, his body was straight and not in a natural sitting position. Hotel 3 heard a shot close to his ear, and was dragged away on to the floor of the carriage. He shouted 'Police!' and with hands raised was dragged out of the carriage by one of the armed officers who had boarded the train. Hotel 3 then heard several gunshots while being dragged out.<sup id="cite_ref-Dispatch_August_23_2005_12-0" class="reference">[13]</sup> Two officers fired a total of eleven shots according to the number of empty shell casings found on the floor of the train afterwards. Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder at close range, and died at the scene.

Seems to me they shot him in cold blood..I thought police were there to uphold the law, not break it, it does not matter now as the ones in charge got away with the murder..

Quote:

In that position, ask yourself what you would do. Very easy to be wise after the fact but remember this was after the London bombing and the slaughter of innocent people. You seem to believe laws are made then people break them. The law reacts to what is, it does not create the problem.

So you create state sponsored terror yourself thereby letting the terrorists win..You are not going to die from a terrorist bombing...1463 people died on the roads alone last year, yet the public say that is acceptable...0 die from terrorism and we have to give up lots of things we used to enjoy..
1st September 2009, 06:00 PM
rrobor

Terrorists rely on the law being fair. they play on the inability civilised countries have of dealing with them. If you once allow people to dictate how your country should be run, then you give in. I was not born in Australia, I chose to come here. If at any time I dont like what Australia is I have a choice, democratically try to change things, or get on a plane at Tullamarine. There will always be mistakes, but when you deal with guys who wished to go into an Army camp in NSW and shoot as many people as they could, because they believed that was the wish of their God, civilised law has to be modified.
1st September 2009, 09:21 PM
weaver

I remember that school in Dunblane and the gym in which that horrible incident took place because I am a former student. I also remember the troubles in Belfast in the late seventies because I lived in Whitehead (near Belfast) for two and a half years. Two extreme examples perhaps but they happen. Indeed one of the foremost reason we have the laws we currently have in Australia is because of various incidents that have occurred within our borders. The Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania and a spate of attacks with samurai swords in Victoria (probably stuff in the rest of Australia as well) are good examples.

Yet despite these laws there are still so many illegal weapons in the community. I know of one individual that has a number of unregisterd and illegal weapons for which he has made silencers and uses them for "sport". Now I doubt he will ever rob a bank but his sport includes taking pot shots at the local wildlife. Which is bad enough except since he is not a great shot he dosn't tend to kill many of them out right. He told me of one time that he took six shots at a wallaby without scoring a hit. I don't know how many animals he has managed to hit and left wounded in the bush.

These laws are often inacted as knee jerk reactions to events but they fail to deal appropriately with the events thats they are trying to control. For example the spate of incicdents involving Katanas and marchettes in Melbourne resulted in new laws to control swords and knives. Things is that the definition in the act decribes swords as having a hilt. Katanas don't have hilt and neither do marchettes. However, my wooden training swords are covered by the act since they have hilts. That means that I need a "reason" to own them (belong to a appropriate sporting club) and I am meant to have the equivilent of a gun safe to store them.

We deifinitely need good laws but I'm pretty sure that the laws we have are not up to the task.