Victorian police minister says the ban on bolt-action shotguns was because of ‘innovations’. The legislation says otherwise…
Victoria bans 5+ capacity bolt-action shotguns
VICTORIA’S POLICE MINISTER has responded to a letter we submitted to get more information on why it banned bolt-action shotguns with capacities of more than 5 shots.
Vic Police Minister, Anthony CarbinesDoubling down on bolt-action shotguns
We thank the minister for responding. However, his response confirms that Victoria now has a policy of banning guns for no reason other than the possibility that they could be misused. Here is Carbine’s letter (click each page to see larger versions).
You will note that the minister’s office said:
- The policy is based on ‘innovations’;
- These innovations “enables the user to cycle through ammunition with less manual interaction”
- The ‘innovations’ are the use of buttons and side levers.
… but here’s why the bolt-action claim is a furphy
The minister gives the impression that the ban was because of innovations – such as buttons and side levers. However, when you look at the legislation, does not mention these terms. The change to the law is clearly only about bolt-action shotguns. Buttons and levers have nothing to do with it.The justification
The justification provided by Carbines was that the ‘innovations’: “.. enables the user to cycle through ammunition with less manual interaction than a traditional bolt action shotgun.” Note the comparison to “a traditional bolt action shotgun”. This implies that the government was comfortable with ‘traditional bolt action shotguns’. In the same para, it then states: “Requiring a maximum capacity limit of 5 shots for a detachable magazine when used in combination with a bolt action shotgun is a pro-active response to these potential community safety risks“ So there you have it. Victoria’s new policy is to ban guns when there are “potential community safety risks”, even where there is no record of those risks existing.Your shooting organisation is being used …
The response also notes that the amendment was put to the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee. The response claims feedback “informed the final policy design”.
As we have previously and repeatedly said, the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee was meant to enable government to consult shooting organistions on proposed legislative changes. It has no legal status, which means it has no authority to put issues and concerns to government.
Instead, it has become a forum to enable the government to push new laws and say shooters were consulted. No, they were not.
UNFORTUNATELY, this process means that several of the state’s shooting organisations are allowing their names to be used to pass more restrictions on those they represent.
Shooting organisations need to abandon the committee – and stand up against what they are being used for.
Thanks minister …
The one bit of good news is that the minister did respond, so we are grateful for that. However we’re obviously unimpressed with the basis for the policy used and hope the government ditches this weak policy justification going forward. He should also do the right thing, and reverse the ban as soon as possible.
Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?
Misuse of a firearm when’s the last time there’s been an serous incident from a licence firearm owner ? Why dont they focus on people using knives because that seems to be the biggest threat when it comes to misuse! Stop targeting law abiding licenced gun owners, it’s plain as day they want to disarm the public.
This is happening all over Australia and Gov is pinning Wieambilla and floreat shootings on LAFO’s.
No responsibility placed anywhere else, and I can see the so called investigation on the Floreat shooting’s
being a whitewash. If I were a police minister or commissioner I would be making sure my police force was all over firearms
issues in the community. Particularly when 2 women requested assistance due to fear for their safety. Where were Papalia and Blanch?
Too busy writing spiteful new laws to punish all licensed shooters rather than using the laws already in place which would have prevented
this tragedy!
“Shooting organisations were consulted…”
This is use of weasel words to cover his own backside rather than expose the clear and obvious disinformation that he has relayed.
‘Shooting Organisations’ can also refer to groups that are AGAINST shooters and shooting and base their existence on ending access to guns for any and all excuses possible.
It’s an intentional use of words to make you think that they valued input from shooters when, clearly, they did not.
As for “..potential for misuse..”: What organisation IN THE WORLD that was in favour of shooting sports, hunting, self-defence, or any other aspect of shooting, say such a thing? That is what gives away his intention of disinformation and lack of courtesy and respect by regarding the reader as a fool.
Do we see the Victorian Government ban SUVs because there IS an actual precedent for Victorian Politicians to use them to run over cyclists and intentionally lie about it after the fact and hide and destroy evidence in relation to the case? No. This is because of their smug attitude that they think they know better than everyone else and that, because THEY don’t see a need for THEM to have a gun, then nobody should have that need.
Why do people continue to vote for the lowest common denominator for intellect when it comes to election times?
Where’s the investigation into the Police themselves with multiple requests in multiple states for Royal commissions into Police shootings, and even a double homicide allegedly committed by a NSW policeman. Seems the government and its departments are above the law. Meanwhile being a LAFO also means being automatically guilty.