A Shooters Party brochure in support of Roy Smith’s NSW election campaign is currently being circulated. It includes a dot point list of policies.
Although few shooters would quarrel with what is there, what is not there is perhaps more significant.
The dot point list is as follows (quoted verbatim):
- Remove the ridiculous 28 day “cooling off” period.
- Expand the highly successful Game Council model to include hunting in National Parks.
- Re-introduce science-based duck and quail seasons.
- Allow farmers to use licensed recreational hunters to cull kangaroos and utilise their skins and meat.
- Reduce over-regulation, costs and red tape.
- Encourage the Government to plan and fund new and upgraded ranges.
- Remove the current difficulties faced by new shooters who wish to try the shooting sports.
- Block any unscientific bans on fishing in Marine Parks.
- Fight public-land lockouts for all legitimate users.
- Re-introduce shooting sports and firearms safety into the public schools curriculum.
The question shooters will be asking is, is that all the Shooters Party really stands for? Most of these relate to certain types of hunting.
What about the ban on pistol calibres over .38?
Does the party support registration of rifles and shotguns?
What about semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and pump action shotguns?
What about the prohibitions on who may be granted a firearms licence?
What about including self-defence as a genuine reason for owning a firearm?
While it likely that the Shooters Party candidates support these and the many others that could be added to the list, why don’t they say so? If they are not prepared to say so now, when they are asking for the votes of shooters, can they be relied on to say it in parliament when it really matters?
NSW shooters have had a representative in parliament since 1995, yet NSW still has the worst gun laws in the country. Could it be that timidity is one of the reasons?