Shooters Party Policies

The Shooters Party brochure for the NSW election campaign includes a dot point list of policies. Although few shooters would quarrel with what is there, what is not there is startling.

Here is the list:

  • 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.

Most of these relate to certain types of hunting and appears to reflect the interests of Robert Brown. Roy Smith, who is the candidate up for election, is more interested in target shooting than hunting.

Here are a few policies the party could have adopted, but didn’t:

  • Remove the ban on pistol calibres over .38.
  • Abandon registration of rifles and shotguns.
  • Re-legalise semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and pump action shotguns.
  • Remove some of the irrelevant limitations on who may be granted a firearms licence.
  • Abandon the compulsory attendance requirements.
  • Abolish the ‘type of firearm’ attendance requirement for pistol shooters.
  • Modify the safe storage requirements to make them practical.
  • Liberalise the ‘try shooting’ rules so that non-shooters can have a go.
  • Include self-defence as a genuine reason for owning a firearm.

The question for shooters is, can the Shooters Party be expected to pursue these aims in parliament?

It would be nice to have some sort of assurance that it would seek to do better in the future than it has in the past.


16 Responses to Shooters Party Policies

  1. Michael Sutcliffe says:

    That is a terrific list of realistic, practical changes that could be made to our current laws with no increase in risk to public safety. Maybe the Shooters Party feels they are too controversial.

  2. Josh says:

    I think we have to remember that the majority of people out there are not as enthusiastic about shooting as we may be. I completely agree with the policies that have been suggested but trying to convince the public that they should be voting for such is a task that is too fraught with political danger. If the shooters party receive support with the current proposals, then they could well broaden the spectrum in the future. To try to go in ‘boots and all’ may just scare too many marginal voters to other parties.

  3. Doubletap says:

    The shooters party is not trying to get the votes of the majority of people, just shooters.
    I reckon their policies are too weak to do that

  4. Josh says:

    The policies suggested would align our gun laws with those of the US. That would be fantastic! However, this country is still an attempted democracy, however hypocritical at times.
    If the type of legislation suggested makes it into the pulic spectacle, marginal voters will vote for parties that condemn the Shooters Party. Could you imagine what the likes of A Current Affair and Today Tonight would do to such policies, not to mention mainstream news sources. The last thing we need is people agressivly voting to keep The Shooters Party out of the Upper House in retaliation to a sensationalist media campaign. We all saw what that did in 1996. It will take years and years to undo what was done then and the only way to get there is to not attract the wrath of public opinion. This is a time that calls for realistically attainable goals, not idealism that will only reverse any chance of progress.

  5. Doubletap says:

    Nobody changes their vote because of opposition to guns. The gun issue only affects those who support gun ownership.

    The NRA is a much more successful pro shooting organisation than anything in Australia (including the Shooters Party, which has achieved nothing in 12 years). It never fusses about “the wrath of public opinion”. It is not idealist, but it does not compromise or take a backward step. Ever.

    You can finesse your tactics, but you should never compromise your goals.

  6. Belle Star says:

    Doubletap, you got it right man, in the past the shooters party parliamentry member was more interested in his own ego than the lot of shooters, the labour mob said they only had to send the premier [rubber lips] or a minister around to tickle him on the tummy and we had him on side, none of these polocies will come to anything, we will get more Game Council and very little else. In the past when the south coast wanted a range and the greens and labour stopped it Brown told the people in that area to get over it. As the little man used to say, they haven’t got the balls to do it, it might upset someone.

  7. john luvaro says:

    Im a former Australian resident, (US Citizen), who would love to move back to Australia to retire, but would not do so with your current gun laws, as I own an extensive collection of semi automatic rifles and hand guns. Anyone have a guess at the chances for an amendment to your constitution within the next 10 years, similar to our 2ed amendment, granting Australians an Unconditional Right to own and carry weapons for “Self Defense”? When I worked in your country, I carried a Glock .45 despite the law, and risked imprisonment for this “crime”. I would not care to take such a risk again if I moved back.

  8. Robbity Bob The Nob says:

    I feel there is too much old history and baggage on this topic to usefully comment upon some of the misunderstandings and gossip exhibited here.

    The Fishing Party president is the most recent to attack the SP in regional areas with similar ant-Tingle and SP propaganda I understand from a contact in Inverell.

    Tingle’s reply is worth reading.

    Let’s all stop bickering and get another 2 SP members into the NSW Upper House!

    Even some SSAA lifetime members who disliked Roy Smith have “buried the hatchet” and support him now.

    If the Red Greens and Green Greens get another 2 in the Upper House each they may have the balance of power. You think things are bad now…well – just wait!

    Often us shooters are our own worst ememies.

    Dis-unity just plays right into the hands of our protagonist gun-grabbers.

  9. […] to shooters is that they should vote Shooters Party in order to prevent that occurring. As shown in another post, its positive policies are pretty […]

  10. Mark Hill says:

    I don’t think I udnerstand the current rules.

    I can’t get a .40 SW sub compact (pretty much designed for self defence) but I can get a .357 magnum, revolver or semi-auto?

  11. In 2002 pistols over .38 calibre were prohibited along with all pistols having barrel lengths of less than 5 in (semi-autos) or 4 in (revolvers).

    So yes, you can have a .357 mag revolver provided the barrel length is at least 4 in long. (I don’t think there is such as thing as a .357 semi-auto.) You can also have a .38 Super semi-auto provided the barrel is 5 in.

    Both are fine for self defence. They are a little more difficult to conceal than a sub compact but considerably more accurate. Neither may be owned for self defence, but both may be used for self defence.

    Don’t look for a rational reasons – there are none.

  12. Michael Sutcliffe says:

    The .38 restrictions are good examples of laws designed with no real intention of increasing public safetly but to:

    1. Make the government look like it’s doing something about the terrible, horrific gun situation in order to get some positive press from a media who have no desire for factual information; and

    2. Slowly errode private gun ownership bit by bit until it can be eradicated.

    People can still own larger calibre handguns for disciplines like metallic silhouette and western action. The next ban will be on firearms over .50 calibre, again with no rational basis but for the reasons listed above.

  13. Aubrey Sonnenberg says:

    I’m manning a TSP voting station on Saturday, and I though I may print off some of the Greens’ policies from their website. They have withdrawn all their policies off their site!!! A week before the election you cannot see their policies……idiots, what are they hiding?

  14. Doubletap says:

    If you are referring to Greens NSW policies, they can be found here:

    The federal Greens are apparently revising their policies.

  15. Bruce says:

    What are the shooters party doing apart from promoting the greens, what are they going to do? they have only got two days to tell us.

  16. pete2whelan says:

    From the dozens of coloured brochures I have received from TSP, via my many shooting clubs, the answer to “What are they going to do?” is clear. They are “going to get another shooter into parliament”. After that, I suppose it will be as per past history… shooting sports funding only going to “friendly” shooting clubs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: