Firearms Owners United says do not vote for One Nation

from Firearm Owners United

A section of One Nation firearms policy for NSW

Firearms Consultative Committee

NSW One Nation supports the establishment of a Firearms Consultative Committee as proposed by the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (NSW). This would assist Government in developing legislation that is evidence-based, supports law-abiding firearm owners, is in the public interest and targets the criminal use of firearms.

Firearm Owners United say Pauline Hanson and Mark Latham have lost their way with gun laws and do not vote for One Nation

One Nation strongly supports law-abiding firearm owners who deserve greater public recognition for their role in storing their guns as safely as possible, keeping them out of the wrong hands. Our four priorities are to:

  1. Recognise that as a matter of principle, licensed firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens for legitimate business purposes (such as farming) and recreational pursuits is a right in a free society.
  2. Maintain the 1996 national gun laws that have played a role in preventing public massacres in Australia for 23 years, allowing shooters to get on with their sport without constant calls in parliament for gun law tightening and increasingly Draconian restrictions on gun ownership.
  3. Crack down on the illegal importation of guns into Australia as a vital public safety measure.
  4. Minimise the chance of radical Islamic terrorists getting hold of weaponry in Australia for their evil purposes.

When you open with the usual false binary comparison about “USA vs Australia” you know it’s only going one way.

Stating that firearm ownership is a right but first prefacing it as licenced is contradictory – it’s either a right or it’s not. Cracking down on extremists and illegal imports are vanilla statements and plain old common sense.

In fairness, supporting development of shooting facilities and pest control in regional NSW is a good thing, but how they go about this (particularly with the current debacle) is another matter. David Leyonhjelm was able to secure a long-term lease for Malabar in Sydney while also advocating for getting rid of the NFA.

There’s nothing in the policy about self-defence, castle doctrine, eliminating appearance laws, reining in NSW Police’s rampant authoritarian stupidity on firearms and a whole slew of important firearm issues.

To be quite honest, this policy just reads as the usual token nod to firearm owners but maintaining business as usual – explicitly stated with the “maintain the 1996 national gun laws” which aren’t national anyway.

To Latham’s credit, he did go to SSAA Sydney and try out shooting to see the other side of the argument. However, the gun-grabbing elements of the current Labor Party are on display here. The Labor Party of old would never have stood for this, but the Labor Party died long ago.

PHON forget their history and their roots of being elected in 1998 on the back of the 1996 laws in Queensland, as part of the wipe-out of the Nationals in response to the NFA. Now they’ve gone full circle and become Liberal-lite.

Note to political parties trying to capture the shooting vote: any reference to status quo or upholding Australia’s gun laws won’t win you votes, unless they’re Nationals fudds.

Liberal Democrats, SFFP, Fraser Anning’s National Conservative Party and Katter’s Australian Party are the only ones with the track record and subsequently, worth voting for in this space. It’s not worth splitting the vote further.

If PHON are serious about firearm owners then they’re going about it the wrong way – the policy needs a serious rewrite. It’s better than the major parties’ but not by much at all.

You can’t claim to advocate for the working class of NSW while disarming them PHON.

Katters Australian Party has never wavered on removing the registration of long arms.-Editor

Advertisements

About Editor, cairnsnews

One of the few patriots left who understands the system and how it has been totally subverted under every citizen's nose. If we can help to turn it around we will, otherwise our children will have nothing. Our investigations show there is no 'government' of the people for the people of Australia. The removal of the Crown from Australian Parliaments, followed by the incorporation of Parliaments aided by the Australia Act 1987 has left us with corporate government with policies not laws, that apply only to members of political parties and the public service. There is no law, other than the Common Law. This fact will be borne out in the near future as numerous legal challenges in place now, come to a head soon.

Posted on March 3, 2019, in One Nation, Pauline Hanson, Roland Browne, SSAA and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. Yes indeed,…Yahweh the Christ said, sell your jacket and buy a sword/gun,…be armed ! …a wonderful deterrent.

    Sent from my iPad

    >

  2. Why am I not surprised. I gave up on PHON some time ago. The only thing consistent about ON is the turmoil within the party.

  3. My first Question to these two would be….Do you own Firearms ? Have you ever been Licenced ? And who is going to Police the Government Corporate Body that will administer this.? ( maybe the same one that administered Port Arthur ? )

  4. The reason for an armed people was to protect us from tyrannical governments.

    It was from this Bill that Jefferson framed the USA 2nd amendment.

    Laurence Heal

    Preamble to 1689 Bill of Rights

    Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

    By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

    This was countered by the following section

    That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

    The following quote is from——

    HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

    FRENCH CJ,

    GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ

    PORT OF PORTLAND PTY LTD APPELLANT

    AND

    STATE OF VICTORIA RESPONDENT

    Port of Portland Pty Ltd v Victoria [2010] HCA 44

    8 December 2010

    M62/2010

    (Footnote continues on next page) French CJ Gummow J Hayne J Heydon J Crennan J Kiefel J Bell J 6.

    13 The Bill of Rights is one of the “transcribed enactments” set out in s 8 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 (Vic) and by force of s 3 thereof continues “to have in Victoria … such force and effect, if any, as [it] had at the commencement of this Act”. The preferable view is that these provisions in the Victorian statute at best serve only to reinforce what are settled constitutional principles. From the grundnorm represented by the constitutional settlement by the Convention Parliament there was to be no turning back in England, or thereafter in the United Kingdom. In Australia the absence of a power of executive dispensation of statute law, what Dixon CJ called a “general constitutional principle”16, became an aspect of the rule of law and, as Wild CJ put it with respect to New Zealand, is “a graphic illustration of the depth of our legal heritage”17. Such a power is absent from the Constitutions of the States which are identified in s 106 of the Constitution

  5. It was obvious to me several years ago that Hanson had never even pondered the thought of self defense rights. …She is actually a bit of a bimbo.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.