Following the revelations that the Liberal Party website had advertised the possibility of:

(a)    Dismantling our gun laws by removing the national compulsory gun registration scheme and the ban on semi automatic rifles and shotguns, and,

(b)   Permitting people to carry concealed, loaded semi automatic pistols.

GCA wrote to Liberal Party shadow ministers Tony Abbott (Leader), George Brandis (Attorney General) and Jason Wood (Justice and Public Security) asking them to assure us that the 1996 National Firearm Agreement (NFA) would not be weakened if the Coalition was elected. We wanted the NFA to remain as a base for these reasons:

The great improvements to our gun laws following the two major gun massacre years of 1987 (six gun massacres, 32 murdered) and 1996 (two gun massacres, 41 murdered) have resulted in great reductions in the number of gun homicides and gun suicides. In our letters to each of Shadow Ministers Abbott, Brandis and Wood, we included graphs to show that the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for the yearly rate of gun suicide and gun homicide for the years 1915 through to 2006 showed that these death rates had dropped to approx one third of what they were on average for the long period prior to the implementation of the new gun laws.

Based on Australia’s current population of 22 million, this means that each year since 2004 about 90 fewer Australians die in gun homicides and 440 fewer die in gun suicides. If the three weak areas of the NFA (handgun availability, poor long gun training, poor gun storage) were rectified, the gun death rate would almost certainly be reduced even further. Surely this is desirable.

Mr Jason Wood MP, as shadow minister for Justice and Public Security replied to (b) saying that Liberal Party policy does not include the carrying of concealed weapons, and that he believed there should be fewer guns not more guns on our streets.

On the surface this looks encouraging, but it appears to us that Mr Wood may well be covering-up the true position of the Liberal Party on the future of our gun laws. In taking this stance we rely upon the following information:

1. Mr Wood made personal comments only, ie, he spoke only for himself. He made no commitment for future Liberal Party gun policy, despite the fact that he spoke as shadow minister.
2. Mr Wood made it clear that he was happy to send this new idea of the public being allowed to carry concealed handguns onto his colleagues who were interested in new ideas.
3. Our letter and graphs, appealing for the Liberal Party to commit to the retention of the existing gun laws has not been answered by any of the three Liberal Party politicians, and, despite providing our email address, we have received no indication that the Liberal Party intends to retain the 1996 National Firearm Agreement.10 days is ample time for any of the three shadow ministers to send us a 50 word email declaring that the intention of the Liberal Party is to retain the strength of the NFA.
4. Why allow gun extremists to utilize the authority of the Liberal Party website to publicise and vote on their ideas if they are meaningless to the Liberal Party?
5. Why now bar the public from examining the extremist gun law material which was publicised on the Liberal Party website because GCA complained?
6. Why say the Liberal Party represents such gun extremists?
7. President of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA) Bob Green at the moment is using his club’s website to advise the members that:

We have always had significant support from individuals within the Liberal and National parties too, but we have yet to witness a change in policy regarding private firearms ownership. Shooters have long memories, but with the benefit of hindsight after two very expensive firearms buy-backs and an influx of new ideas in the conservative ranks, we can only be hopeful of more enlightened policies on our chosen recreations in the future.

All these leave us with a good degree of uncertainty about an Abbott government.

We must hope that the Hawke/Howard legacy of stricter gun laws is not compromised, but enhanced. We must also hope that, should Mr Abbott win government, Jason Wood MP helps plug the three loopholes in the NFA and makes Australia even safer from the selfish desires of the gun extremists.

Recently the Sydney Morning Herald (19.6.10) carried comments by ex-NSW Game Council CEO David Dixon. Mr Dixon’s comments are a useful insight into the workings of the NSW Game Council, so for educational purposes we record them on our website. Mr Dixon notes that:

Game Council NSW is not a modern government agency dispassionately fulfilling its statutory object: ”To provide for the effective management of introduced species of game animals, and to promote responsible and orderly hunting of those game animals on public and private land and of certain pest animals on public land.” It is a deeply flawed, quasi-public gift to the Shooters Party, compromised by hunting factions, jobs for hunters, dominant personalities and profound and unsolvable conflicts of interests.

Which is a tragedy of sorts, because its raison d’etre – to educate, train and regulate recreational hunters to ”remove” feral animals from state forests – does have merit from a coldly objective point of view.

But allowing a government agency that is supposed to regulate hunting legislation to be dominated by representatives of hunting clubs does not exactly endow it with a clear and unambiguous field of action.

What other NSW agency, for instance, spends tens of thousands of dollars on ads featuring the chairman, who also happened to be the chairman of the Shooters Party, and a political candidate at the next state election?

Or was it when I found myself watching with the renowned American deer expert Brian Murphy – flown over, wined and dined by the council for a lecture to a half-filled auditorium of paid attendees – a home video of an old, crippled stag barely able to walk, being shot in fast and slo-mo replay to the strains of Another One Bites the Dust?

Was it when my boss told me a number of times that our greatest public relations disaster – the exposure of the lurid details of a boastful hunt of an African elephant by our chairman Robert Borsak – was, in Robert’s eyes, “our greatest triumph”?

Or when I saw potential licensed hunters directed to the answers for the council’s “world-class licensing system” test, or heard them being told “if you have any problems, I’ll help you out”?

Or was it when our expensive compliance team – equipped with four-wheel drives, satellite phones, all-terrain tyres, inspectorial powers, quad bikes, and seemingly unlimited expense accounts – did not make one arrest at a huge illegal pig-dog hunting event in a southern NSW forest? Despite a number of our game managers being present, the illegal hunters were let off with warnings.

Also on 19.6.10 SMH journalist Rick Feneley commented on Mr Dixon’s experiences and examined the Game Council’s response. Readers should refer to Mr Feneley’s article in the SMH on 19.6.10 to see the Game Council’s defence. Mr Feneley also noted that:

Three other sacked Game Council employees have backed some of Mr Dixon’s claims, particularly that jobs are given to recreational hunters while they, with their backgrounds in environmental science and feral animal control, have been forced out.

One told the Herald it is a privileged ”boys’ club of trophy deer hunters” which – rather than trying to eradicate the animals from state forests – limits the number of bucks that may be shot to preserve the sport and its prized targets, the stags with their antlers.

We in Gun Control Australia believe that it is profoundly unwise to be associated with organizations that preach the possibility of insurrection against an elected government. We are worried, therefore, that some shooter groups in Australia remain associated with such extremist American groups. We introduced our concern about this matter in our 3 January 2010 website entry.

The Washington based ‘Violence Policy Center’ examined the dangers of gun extremism in an April 2010 report titled:

Lessons Unlearned – The Gun Lobby and the Siren song of Anti-Government Rhetoric

This 21 page report can be downloaded from the Violence Policy Center’s website, www.vpc.org

In the interest of community education, we reprint portions of the Introduction to this report.

Introduction

On April 19, 1995, former National Rifle Association (NRA) member Timothy McVeigh blew up the Alfred P.Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168, including 19 children at a daycare center in the building. Until the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Oklahoma City bombing stood as the worst terrorist attack to ever occur on U.S. soil. It remains the most deadly attack in our nation by domestic terrorists.

McVeigh had been an NRA member for at least four years prior to the bombing, an unprecedented period in the organization’s history during which it began catering to increasing anti-government sentiment.(1) This animus was evidenced by a growing militia movement spurred by the election of President Bill Clinton, the subsequent passage of federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill and Federal assault weapons ban, and lethal high-profile confrontations between civilians and federal law enforcement at Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

During this period, the NRA adopted the anti-government language of the militias and other components of the “Patriot movement,” a loose coalition whose adherents are “animated by a view of the federal government as the primary enemy, along with a fondness for antigovernment conspiracy theories.”(2) Offering a soft embrace to many of the conspiracy theories that drove the anger and fear of the Patriot movement, the NRA declared in its official publications that “The Final War Has Begun,” equated Federal Bureau of Investigation agents with goose-stepping Nazis, labeled other federal agents “jack-booted government thugs” in its direct mail, and repeatedly warned of conspiracies—allegedly concocted by forces ranging from the Clinton administration to the United Nations—to disarm American gun owners. Presumably undertaken initially to engage and activate its membership while opening the door to a new strata of potential supporters, the NRA’s shift in rhetoric and action—as seen in the organization’s magazines, public statements, and nascent on-line efforts during this period—had the ancillary effect of validating the most paranoid fears of the most extreme elements of American gun owner. Eventually, the NRA found itself exploring potential partnerships with militia leaders.

After the Oklahoma City bombing and stung by widespread public criticism including the resignation of Life Member President George H.W. Bush, the NRA acted quickly to make its public face appear more moderate. The anti-government “Final War” trumpeted in the NRA’s publications prior to the bombing metamorphosed into the values-based “culture war” as articulated by eventual NRA President Charlton Heston. Through this rhetorical shift, the NRA sought to maintain its ability to tap into the same societal and anti-government anger that often drove the political engagement of many of those concerned with gun rights while appearing to distance itself from attacks on government itself.

……

Now, 15 years after the Oklahoma City bombing, it appears that the National Rifle Association and other members of the gun lobby are once again enticed by the grassroots potential represented by anti-government sentiment spurred by the economic collapse of 2008, the election of Barack Obama, and the perceived threat of a Congress controlled by the Democratic party. The gun lobby is once again embracing—and, equally important, validating—the anti-government rhetoric being offered by activists that range from Tea Party members, through pro-gun advocates, to members of the militia movement.

And as was the case with Timothy McVeigh, the risk lies not so much with the organized members of these groups, but with the “lone wolves” who not only embrace their rhetoric, but are willing to act on it with violence.

1.  “NRA becomes militia’s beacon: Gun lobby seen as nexus for paramilitarists, hate groups,” The Boston Globe, August 13, 1995, P.1.

2.   Southern Poverty Law Center, Intelligence Report. Spring 2010, Issue Number: 137,

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/spring/rage-on-the-right.

A month ago the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) released its latest report on gun theft, titled, Firearm theft in Australia 2007-08. The number of guns stolen in that 12 month period increased to 1712. One quarter of gun owners breached the gun laws. In Victoria 332 guns were stolen – this is an increase of about one third on the average of the two previous years. It is obvious that the AIC report shows that many shooters behave carelessly and unlawfully. The report also indicates that sheds and garages are poor places to safely store guns.

Shooter Carelessness

The AIC say:

…many owners continued to demonstrate carelessness and negligence in securing unattended firearms, leaving them in unlocked or easily penetrated storage arrangements or making no perceived effort to conceal or safeguard the firearm at all.

The Victorian Police Minister, Bob Cameron, has shown no interest whatsoever in helping Gun Control Australia improve the training of would-be gun owners, so we appeal directly to all Victorian parliamentarians:

 * What is being done about shooter misbehaviour regarding gun storage?

* When will a thorough training course and demanding exams on all aspects of gun safety be brought into practice?

* Why are shooter groups and gun traders so highly involved in what training and testing is given to those who want to own a device which has been specifically designed to cheaply and easily kill?

Ineffective Gun Storage in Outbuildings

Sheds and garages are shown to be high risk places to store guns, so why are Premier John Brumby and Police Minister Bob Cameron not taking action to reduce this risk. Do we have to remind them that a good proportion of stolen guns probably get into criminal hands? When will outbuilding storage of guns be banned?

We ask all responsible parliamentarians to bring pressure to bear on the Brumby/Cameron government so that:

 * Shooters are properly trained by independent institutions such as TAFE Colleges for several months, so that responsible behaviour is inculcated

 * gun storage in sheds and garages is prohibited

 * stricter gun storage within homes becomes mandatory.