Comments on: NSW Coalition Firearms Policy

By: BOBLEE

BOBLEE — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:07:13 +0000

ChrisPer
I disagree, they have paid big time but then so have we. That betrayal especially by the Nats who we regarded as “friendly” is unforgivable and the lesson should never be forgotten.
Especially the words of the HON? T.Fisher weeks before they enacted the Police Ministers recommendations “we will never touch your guns”.
If anybody believes that we would have been treated better under Labour they also believe there are fairies at the bottom of their garden, as they wanted these recommendations implemented years earlier.
What hurt the most was the betrayal by the friendlies but to cut off our noses to spite our face forever is not the answer.
We need to move on and absolutely a united party representing Shooters and hopefully all outdoor sports in the upper houses who have a charter to only protect those sports is a must.
To carry the grudge and penalise sitting members, nats, libs, lab etc is bullshit and will accomplish nothing except make sure we are irrelevant with no backing at all from anyone.
Locally we now have two very supportive members of the shooting, fishing sports etc and while I could go on about all the things that especially Adrian has supported us with, will just mention that both he and John Williams have promised to fight for a return of a legitimate Duck Season, Adrian has fought for fox bounties in parliament, he has publicly sponsored our Fox Hunts and publicly supported hunting many times.
The firearms policy above is not what we want and not what he has called for which is the abolition of the registry as in Canada but it is what was realistically acheivable within the current climate.
What we need to look at is do we want men like Adrian within the party machines Nat, Lab, Lib) or do we want to keep alienating them by not supporting them.
At the end of the day we should never forget that all the major parties have multiple policies and therefore loyalties and they all are bound by varying degrees to party loyalty.
Never forget that Tim the party man said we will never touch your guns and then shafted us.

By: ChrisPer

ChrisPer — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 03:10:13 +0000

Paid enough? They are paying nothing, and have paid nothing.

Betrayal has consequences, but consequences are not ‘payment’.

By: BOBLEE

BOBLEE — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:22:47 +0000

Well for what it’s worth I think Adrian deserves full credit for coming on here.
As a former constituent of his (redistribution) he was always very supportive of our cause but as I have stated many times to him when the crunch came in 96 the Nats showed only token resistence at State level and Tim Fishers absolute betrayel (also local member) which may have gained some reward with the prim monster has cost them dearly.
Adrian will be very aware of the cost to his party after coming here and especially after the election. The State Labour gov’s may have implemented the laws but no one is fooled as to why.
If the truth is known we would have probably been far worse off under a Fed labour govt in 96.
Labour were for years clamouring for the govt to implement the police ministers recommendations and they were almost word for word what we ended up with. Even though they were presented year after year the co alition did not attempt to implement them until that little prick saw that he had a win win situation.
As for the election this weekend my vote will be for TSP in the upper house and then the nats down to the greens last.
If I was in Adrians seat he would definitely get my vote but will have to settle for his successor John Williams who is a real asset and definitely 100% for us.
As to whether they have paid enough for what they did to us in 96 I am still not sure but it’s time to start thinking about giving them a chance.
It will be better with two TSP’s in the upper house to balance the protest vote going to the greens than with one.

By: never again

never again — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:12:34 +0000

Before 1996 I voted Liberal/National at every election, even handed out “pamphlets” on and before voting day and then helped with the vote counting on election night. All was voluntary. After Howard and his gun laws I refuse to have anything to do with any major party till they give me back what they took. Back then I didn’t have kids but now I do and I tell them about what they will miss out on. My point it this: the coalition at any level needs to understand that there are lots of people out there like me.

By: ChrisPer

ChrisPer — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 02:58:09 +0000

Redneck,
I wasn’t putting up a wishlist for US-style RKBA idealism, but an Australian suggestion to roll the laws back from a level of irrational excess to an area where the principles are defensible on grounds of maybe working to some benefit for the community.

I am well aware of Greenwood and New Zealand and the US experience and the level of control deemd appropriate in Arizona vs that in California, and you have solid grounds for your ideas in US circumstances.

My intention is to put something on the table that reflects Australian experience even if it doesn’t get heard. If we work from an Australian basis and developed shooter vision for a realistic alternative to the present regime… that regime may be on the table if political opportunity arises.

By: Sightalignment

Sightalignment — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:19:05 +0000

Sorry Phil, I mixed you up with Willy.

I agree with your voting suggestion although I question whether it will make any difference whether you put the SP first or the Nationals. But whatever, better than most of the others.

By: Phil

Phil — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 09:25:10 +0000

Sightalignment, A few more thoughts. Please read above how I advocate voting, if shooters did that across the board (and it’s a bit late in the day to get the message out now) the coalition might just win. That would be nice. If they carried through with their promises, and a start was made on rolling things back to less onerous and realistic firearms laws. Good luck to Adrian and co. I truly do wish them well.

However, the chances of the coalition winning Saturday are pretty slim. And we should recognise that one of, if not the largest part to the problem is the current resident of The Lodge/Kirribilli.
Maybe it’s too late this election but 4 years is 2 more chances to sack howard – then maybe we can get some movement our way?

By: Phil

Phil — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:52:36 +0000

Sightalignment, you are confusing Willy with myself. I realise it isn’t that simple. Read what I posted last. Like I said, “clear headed and objective thinking”.

They have moved a little. Maybe we should move – a little. I’m advocating preferences 3 onwards in the upper house to the Nat candidates.

By: Redneck

Redneck — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:54:02 +0000

Chris,

I can see some logic in licensing but I really object to gun registration. It’s irrational. The purpose of licensing is to filter out criminals and nutters. Once that is in place, how does gun registration help?

Even registering pistols and semi-auto rifles is ridiculous, although I guess most shooters would go along with it on the grounds it was a lot better than the current situation.

By: Sightalignment

Sightalignment — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:44:43 +0000

“get real about what one or two SP members can do???”
who was it introduced the homeowners bill???? was it a national, or lib member???? I dont bloody think so. and further, that bill is a damn sight more use in a time of need than anything the libs and nats have done for a very long time.

Phil, although the Home Invasion Bill was a private members bill introduced by John Tingle, it got through parliament because both the government and opposition supported it. If the government had opposed it, or the opposition and cross benches in the upper house had opposed it, it would have failed.

Also, don’t overestimate its value. It essentially converted the common law on self defence into statutory law. The only real benefit was in confirming the onus of proof lay with the prosecution. It also applies in NSW only.

For your information, David Oldfield introduced a private members bill to make self defence a genuine reason for a firearms licence. It would have made a huge difference to shooters, but of course it did not get support.

Adrian Piccoli is correct – two SP members in parliament (if that’s what happens) won’t make much difference. There were two shooters previously – Tingle and Oldfield. Tingle got some private members bills through, but they didn’t do much for shooters.