Gun laws of Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Russell E (talk | contribs) at 08:08, 14 March 2006 (reinstate quote. It IS verified and it is a quote, so it is meant to be POV!!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

In Australia, gun politics are subject to rather different considerations and circumstances from gun politics in other countries. High levels of legitimate firearm use for hunting, the control of pests and feral animals, and target shooting, combined with relatively low levels of violent crime have kept levels of Government concern regarding civilian firearm ownership historically low. However, in the last two decades, following several notorious mass killings, both State and Federal Governments have enacted increasingly restrictive firearms legislation.

History

Settlement to 1980s

Australia has a long history of legitimate firearms use, predominantly for the purposes of agriculture, recreational hunting and pest control.

During the early years of the settlement at Hobart Town, Van Diemen's Land (now Hobart, Tasmania) the British colonists were heavily reliant on a diet of kangaroo and wallaby meat for survival. Convicts assigned as servants to free settlers were often issued firearms for hunting purposes. However, the British colonists soon stressed the wildlife around the Hobart area, bringing them into conflict with the indigenous population (the Tasmanian Aborigines) who were also dependent on the wildlife for survival. Firearms used for hunting were now also used in running battles with tribesmen – the Black Line incident was largely fought on the British side by armed colonists supported by professional soldiers. The aboriginal community in Tasmania was decimated almost to extinction over the first hundred years of colonisation. The relative proliferation of firearms is allegedly one of many factors that resulted in Tasmanian bushranging.

During World War I, the Great Depression and World War II, game animals, in particular rabbits, provided an important food supply and source of export income. By the 1980s, the popularity of shooting and hence the prevalence of firearms in society began to drop slightly, perhaps due to ever-increasing urbanisation. Historically, Australia has always had restrictions on handguns (requiring shooters to be members of registered gun clubs, and conducting extensive police checks on pistol shooters), whilst rifles and shotguns were considerably less restricted, with the only real restrictions on fully-automatic rifles and 'military style' weapons, once these became widely available from the early Eighties.

1987 mass killings

In 1987, the Hoddle Street massacre and the Queen Street massacre took place in Melbourne, Victoria. In response, several Australian states required the registration of all guns, and restricted the availability of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. However, firearm laws in several states, including Queensland and Tasmania, remained relatively relaxed.

Port Arthur massacre

The gun control debate was significantly changed after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. Thirty five people lost their lives in this spree killing, when Martin Bryant opened fire on tourists with two military-style semi-automatic rifles: an AR-15 and an L1A1 SLR which he illegally acquired. The event was deeply traumatic for the Australian population, both due to the manner in which the killings were carried out, the sheer number of dead, and the location — the small state of Tasmania, known as the 'Holiday Isle' and a peaceful rural area. For Prime Minister John Howard, who stated that he 'hated guns', it provided an ideal opportunity to introduce sweeping firearms legislation reform, which had already been drafted at a series of Police Minister's meetings from 1990 onwards. Due to the structure of the Australian Constitution, it was not possible for Federal gun legislation to be introduced, thereby requiring each Australian State and Territory to be convinced of the need for tougher laws. Against a background of public outrage and largely weak and ineffectual gun owners' organisations, sweeping laws were introduced in all states, which included mandatory gun licenses and registration of all firearms, and a complete ban on all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and all pump-action shotguns. Some farmers and professional cullers remained eligible for ownership of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

This resulted in a heated public debate, with on one side, those who wished to avoid a repeat of the massacre at any costs, and on the other, those who felt the proposed laws were likely to be ineffective and overly burdensome for the large number of legitimate owners of firearms affected by the ban. The governments of two states, Tasmania (ironically the very state where the massacre occurred) and Queensland, objected to the changes, causing John Howard to threaten them with a constitutional referendum to transfer power over gun laws to the federal government. The Federal Government also threatened to cut off federal funding to the states and territories and retract its offer to help the states extinguish Native Title claims if they didn't support the proposed laws. The American gun rights group, the National Rifle Association, endeavoured to intervene in the issue by supporting gun advocates. Faced with the force of strong national public opinion (which would have likely seen the mooted referendum pass), the two objecting states were forced to agree without any compromises or concessions to the new laws, which were duly enacted.

The Howard Government introduced a 1% levy on income tax for a period of one year to finance the "buy back" confiscation and destruction of all previously legally-held semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. The high cost ($A500 million) of this exercise again raised controversy given claims from groups such as the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia that the "buy back" had failed to improve public safety.

Monash University shootings

Laws remained static until 2002, when a pistol-owning international student killed two fellow students at Monash University in Victoria, prompting a re-examination of existing handgun laws, although some confusion remained over how the non-citizen had legally obtained a license and so many firearms in the short period alleged. As in 1996, the federal government prompted state governments to review handgun laws, and, as a result, amended legislation was adopted in all states and territories. Key changes included a 10-round magazine capacity limit, a calibre limit of not more than .38 inches (9.65 mm), a firearm barrel length limit of not less than 120 mm for semi-automatic pistols and 100 mm for revolvers, and more strict sporting requirements for handgun purchases. Whilst handguns for sporting shooters are nominally restricted to .38 inches as a maximum calibre, it is possible to obtain an endorsement allowing calibres up to .45 inches to be used for Metallic Silhouette or Single Action Shooting matches. These new laws were opposed by sporting shooters groups, arguing that their members were already submitted to sufficiently rigorous controls and restrictions, were overwhelmingly law abiding, and that further restrictions would yield few improvements for law enforcement or public safety.

The new changes had only a small impact on gun ownership in Australia. Due to the universal registration of pistols and their owners, affected shooters were forced to comply, but were often able to change magazines and barrels to comply with the new legislation. The prices paid by the Government were generous, allowing owners to quickly replace their recently-illegal guns with similar, but compliant models, often with improved features over their old guns. One of the government policies was to compensate shooters for giving up the sport, causing some to doubt that criminals were the real target of the Government's actions. Approximately 25% of pistol shooters took this offer, and relinquished their licenses and their right to own pistols for sport. This compensated confiscation was criticised by sporting shooters groups - in the state of Victoria $A21 million was spent "buying back" 18,124 firearms, while in the same period Victorians imported 15,184 firearms to replace their confiscated target pistols.

Firearms and crime in Australia

Historically Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime. Overall levels of homicide and suicide have remained relatively static for several decades, while the proportion of these crimes that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s. For example, between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm related deaths in Australia has declined 47% [1]. The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia argues that there is no evidence that major advances in gun control in 1987, 1996 and 2002 had any impact on this already established trend[2][3]. A similar interpretation of the statistics has been made by the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn[4], who also notes that the level of gun ownership in New South Wales has increased in recent years.

According to government reports, more than 98% of all firearm-related homicides are committed by unregistered firearms. In 1997-1999, more than 80% of the handguns confiscated were never legally purchased or registered in Australia[5]. Knives are used up to 3 times as often as firearms in robberies[6]. The majority of firearm related deaths are committed with hunting rifles[1].

The number of unregistered or uncontrolled firearms continues to increase, with an average of over 4,000 firearms stolen per year, primarily from residences (although one gun-dealer had approximately 600 firearms stolen sometime between 1999 and 2000)[7]. Concern has been raised about the number of smuggled pistols reaching Australia, particularly in New South Wales.

Major players in gun politics in Australia

Howard Government

The Howard Government strongly favours gun control, and under their influence legislation has steadily become more restrictive. Prime Minister John Howard is known to have a personal dislike of legal firearms use and ownership in general, and has stated publicly that he "hates guns", that "ordinary citizens should not have weapons", and that firearm ownership by ordinary citizens is an "American disease" [8]. While addressing a gathering of shooters in Sale, Victoria in June 1996, he raised considerable controversy by wearing a poorly-concealed bullet-proof vest to the rally.

Gun control has been a source of friction between the National Party and the Liberal Party, who together form the coalition federal Government. The National Party has strong support from rural voters, many of whom are strongly opposed to the Howard government's moves towards gun control. The 1996 National Firearms Agreement has been attributed with causing the defeat of the National Party in the 1998 Queensland elections, leading to the rise of the One Nation Party [9].

In 1997, the Prime Minister appointed the Australian Institute of Criminology the 'official umpire' of the effects of the gun buyback. Since then, a number of papers have been published reporting trends and statistics around legal gun ownership and gun crime, which they have found to be mostly related to illegally-held firearms^ ^ . No benefit-cost analysis of the "buyback" has been published[10].

Gun control groups

Gun control groups in Australia are ephemeral, gaining membership in the aftermath of spree killings and shrinking to a few committed people shortly thereafter. While some argument is made to reduce the already small number of accidental deaths associated with shooting activities, the focus of these groups is predominantly aimed at reducing levels of gun ownership. Central to the argument for further gun control is the claim that many violent firearm crimes are committed by licensed firearm owners, prompting a pushing for bans on the legal ownership of certain types, makes, and models of firearms as well as claims that banning certain types, makes, and models of firearms from legal ownership among licensed firearm owners would prevent and reduce the chances of another mass-shooting and make the community safer. The accuracy of these claims are strongly questioned by opponents of the gun control lobby, who argue that statistics consistently indicate the opposite.

Gun control lobbying in Australia is conducted by a small number of individuals under the banner of two main groups: Gun Control Australia and the National Coalition for Gun Control (NCGC). At present (2005), the most active voice appears to be Ms. Samantha Lee, chair and possibly sole member [11] of the NCGC. Lee's main written contribution to gun control debate is the report from her time as a Churchill fellow[12], in which an argument was made that current handgun legislation is not sufficiently restrictive. In support of this argument, Lee cites statistics showing that handgun crime is on the rise, and that handguns of the types used in crime are available legally to suitably-licensed individuals. This work has been strongly criticised by Dr Jeanine Baker of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, who points out that as well as containing numerous factual errors[13], the report ignores Australian Institute of Criminology data indicating that the majority (85%) of firearms homicides are committed with illegally-held firearms[14]. Lee has also argued that police officers who enjoy recreational shooting have a conflict of interest, and that licensed private firearm ownership per se presents a threat to women, and children in particular [15].

The NCGC has no website or public contact details and does not solicit public membership. Gun Control Australia maintains a website and appears to be a membership organisation.

Firearms advocacy groups

While shooting clubs have always existed in Australia, activity in the political arena is generally only made in response to the threat of increasing restrictions on gun owners. In contrast to the United States, Australians have not had an emphasis on a perceived right to bear arms, or the possession of firearms for self-defense. Rather, firearms advocacy is mainly concerned with protecting the viability of hunting and the shooting sports. In Australia, firearm advocacy organisations have never approached the strength of the National Rifle Association in the United States and political sympathisers generally are quite discreet in their support. It is argued that the distribution of the majority of seats in urban areas in Australia is responsible for politicians' support for gun control. It should be noted that while gun control is only periodically a political issue in Australia, each tightening of gun laws has received very considerable majority support in polls conducted on the issue (especially after a mass-shooting has occured and the government is pushing the bans), the distribution of seats reflecting the fact that the vast majority of Australians live in urban areas and do not have historical ties to the shooting sports.

Shooters in Australia typically feel that their sport is under threat due to increasingly restrictive legislation. John Howard in particular is frequently seen as having a vendetta against shooters and legal gun ownership in general (see above), particularly in light of his repeated personal feelings of hatred towards guns. It is often argued that unfair advantage was taken in the situation of moral panic and mass hysteria that followed the major spree shootings at Port Arthur in 1996 and at Monash University in 2002, with licensed firearm owners being made the scapegoats by politicians, the media, and the anti-gun movement for the acts of typically unlicensed criminals, most often committed with illegal firearms. Firearms advocacy groups argue that there is no evidence that increasing restrictions have improved public safety, despite the high financial costs and levels of burden placed on nearly one million shooters. Some firearms ownership advocates have accused politicians and the media of complicity in the campaign for gun control.

The major organisation for firearms owners is the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, with more than 120,000 members (out of an estimated 850,000 to 1 million licensed firearm owners in Australia today). The SSAA is not primarily a lobby group, however it is involved in research into gun control and firearms safety, and its representatives often appear in the media contradicting the claims of the National Coalition for Gun Control and opposing proposed changes to firearms legislation and regulations. The SSAA is also recognised as a Non-Government Organisation (NGO) by the United Nations and the SSAA (along with the National Rifle Association of the United States and other pro gun rights organisations from other countries) that have been involved in many UN summits involving the issue of firearms.

Another major political voice for Australian shooters is the Shooters Party. Its founder, John Tingle, has been an elected member of the upper house of New South Wales parliament, the Legislative Council, since 1995.

References

  1. ^ a Mouzos, Jenny and Rushforth, Catherine (2003). Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 269: Firearm related deaths in Australia, 1991-2001. Australian Institute of Criminology. ISBN 0642538212 ; ISSN: 0817-8542.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Trouble in Paradise, SSAA presentation at Goroka Gun Summit, 2005
  3. ^ The impact of gun-control laws called into question, SSAA media release, November 2004
  4. ^ in Wainwright, Robert. Gun laws fall short in war on crime, Sydney Morning Herald, October 29 2005.
  5. ^ Mouzos, Jenny (2000). Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 151: The licensing and registration status of firearms used in homicide. Australian Institute of Criminology. ISBN 0642241627 ; ISSN 0817-8542.
  6. ^ Ogilvie, Emily (2000). Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 159: Knives and armed robbery. Australian Institute of Criminology. ISBN 0642241759 ; ISSN 0817-8542.
  7. ^ Mouzos, Jenny (2002). Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 230: Firearms theft in Australia. Australian Institute of Criminology. ISBN 0642242658 ; ISSN 0817-8542.
  8. ^ Interview with Philip Clark, Radio 2GB, 17 April 2002
  9. ^ Los Angeles Times Special Report Australia's Answer to Carnage: a Strict Law, Jeff Brazil and Steve Berry, August 27, 1997.
  10. ^ Interview with Lisa Millar, ABC Radio, 24 August 2005
  11. ^ CLASS (2003). "Science in the Service of Politics". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  12. ^ The NGC Does it Again!, in 25 March 2005 Newsletter from the Office of John Tingle MLC.
  13. ^ Template:Citepaper publisher
  14. ^ Gun Prohibitionists Off Target, SSAA media release, April 2005
  15. ^ Churchill Report Briefing paper, SSAA web site
  16. ^ Liverani, Mary Rose (July 2005). "Maintaining a watching brief on gun control – Activist adds law studies to her arsenal". Journal of the Law Society of New South Wales.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_laws_of_Australia&oldid=43699610"