Call for submissions for APP firearms policy

Our criminal justice system is based on the premise that a person is ‘innocent’ under the law, until proven guilty. On that premise alone, the current National Firearms Policy is flawed – as anyone wishing to possess a firearm is now treated as having a criminal tendency, and to be generally considered, a danger to society. Under current firearms legislation there is now a presumption of guilt against the innocent gun owner. Not only is this legislation unconstitutional, draconian and oppressive, it also negates the right to self-defence under Common Law, by which we are all entitled to defend ourselves. National Firearms Legislation, which – in part – was also designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, may also be seen in this regard to be an abject failure.

It is not the role of government to restrict the individual citizen’s access to weaponry. All citizens under constitutional and common law are entitled to procure for their own self-defence those weapons that they feel most comfortable with. While there is an expectation that a properly functioning government is to uphold the people’s welfare and safety, self-defence issues must be a citizen’s choice.

Therefore, the Australian Protectionist Party (APP) believes that a non-political body, consisting of firearms experts and criminal defence lawyers, be temporarily appointed for the sole purpose of formulating National Firearms Legislation designed to be less intrusive on personal liberty and privacy. We also envisage recommendations by that appointed body to introduce self-defence legislation, via criminal statute codes, into parliaments, state and federal. We believe a citizen’s right to self-defence, by whatever means that are appropriate at the time, are paramount to the safety and liberty of all citizens. For far too long, the ambiguous phrase, “use of reasonable force” has been the cornerstone when dealing with issues of self-defence matters and has remained within the preserve of the legal fraternity, which some could argue does not have the individual citizen’s rights at heart. The APP demands an unambiguous law that clearly states the unalienable right of a citizen to self-defence. We also believe that in times of crisis, whereby governments or their appointed law enforcement agents are no longer able to protect the citizen, it is the individuals right to have the means to be able to protect themselves.

We have prepared guidelines for consultation into APP policy. We envisage the following:

1. All applicants for firearms licenses to be thoroughly instructed in firearms safety via a mandatory course through accredited Gun Clubs or Licensed Firearms Dealers. All applicants to undergo a criminal history/cultural background check prior to obtaining gun license. Purchase of firearms/ammunition may only be made with a current shooters license.

2. Storage of firearms to be an individual owner’s responsibility. However, the onus will be on the individual owner to make safe his/her weaponry and ammunition, failure to do so may result in criminal prosecution.

3. There is to be no firearms registration requirement. NSW is currently considering abandoning firearms registration for the very same reasons. Given that our society has become more violent in recent years and criminals/gangs now employ prohibited firearms, which are easily obtained on the black market, we can safely assume that any gun registration only penalizes the ‘honest’ citizen.

4. Those individuals or companies choosing to use firearms in the course of conducting business i.e., store owners, security guards, financial institutions etc, will be supervised and checked by police at least once per year, as this issue is also a public safety concern. Proficiency in the use of available weaponry by the user to be of paramount importance here.

5. Proscribed weapons lists under current legislation, which specifically targets firearms, will be reviewed for future consideration. Some firearms on these lists need not be there, e.g. pellet guns. Self-loading rifles, as opposed to Assault type firearms, to also be considered.

6. Strong penalties to those licensing officials who issue to individuals or groups, who do not meet license requirements. Licensing branch police to adequately inspect license registrations and enforce guidelines.

7. Police to issue, or to revoke, special permits for hand held firearms carried by individuals in the course of their business, or for self protection. This is also a public safety issue whereby local police would be better suited to enforcing the permits.

The APP wishes to invite any constructive suggestions from individuals, Gun Clubs, Law Enforcement agencies or government instruments and political parties, if they feel they may be able to contribute ideas or knowledge which could further expand and enhance future legislation.


  1. Slave Nation says

    Your number 1 point seems to negate the idea of have no registration. If you are going to do this you need to go all the way. The government should NOT be involved in the rights of the people in any way and that includes the right to keep and bear arms with which ALL are born and predating all governments and all forms thereof. Stop trying to be reasonable. You won’t appease a crocodile.

    Government CAN’T decide who should and who should not have a gun and it’s not its job anyway. The police are useless altogether and have no business even being consulted.

    Some people here think that the police should be consulted. Well, I’ve got news for them. Police are people too and they can be as bad and evil as anyone else on this planet, and often are.

    The government’s primary job is to protect our freedoms, not decide who gets freedom.

    Background checks are a fool’s errand. You can’t background check private sales of guns and neither should you. It’s a Right to buy swap, sell and gift weapons.

    Australian society needs to be terra-formed into thinking and acting in a different way concerning their Rights and about who they are, for this to work. Immigration reform can help that. Putting our families first and our Right to self determination can help even more.

    “Those who expect to be both ignorant and free expect what never was and never will be.”

  2. George Debski says

    Very interesting website!!!
    I live in the state of South Carolina (USA) and we here are extremely protective of our God given right of self-protection. I thought I would share the Castle Doctrine which is the law we abide by here:
    The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which
    recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an
    occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business……… bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if (1) the
    person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person’s place of business, (2)
    the person is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and (3) the use of deadly force is necessary
    to prevent death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a violent crime.

    A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action……..

    H.4301 (R412) was signed by the Governor on June 9, 2006.

    As we are fond of saying here about gun rights: OUT OF MY COLD DEAD HANDS…..

  3. I have been a registered firearms user since I was 12 years old and overall this policy looks good, however I think registration of firearms is a good idea so I’m not a fan of no 3, it doesn’t hurt to know who has what in case it goes missing. To be honest I don’t think the current laws on firearms are that bad anyway.

  4. If you have no criminal record you’re entitled to own a firearm and you should be proud of that.
    I myself own 4 shotguns and shoot regular competition and have a great time doing it. The government know that all these drive-by shootings we see on the news all the time is not by registered gun owners or registered firearms.

  5. I am a Firearms Instructor by profession. I am a decorated veteran of the South African Defence Force having seen extensive operational combat during the Bush/Border War in the mid to late 1980’s. I also served as a Staff Sergeant with the SAP serving in elite units such as Special Riot Unit 19, Durban Dog Unit and others. I have trained students from beginner to elite professionals and have decades of both knowledge and experience in firearms handling techniques and training standards. To say I was shocked when I realised just how out-dated and irrelevant accredited Firearms handling training is here in Australia is an understatement. Current training of police officers and armed guards is all range marksmanship training, a standard of training required only for absolute beginners on the international standard. For a short while I held the position of Firearms Instructor for an iconic Cash-in-Transit company. I was responsible for deeming all armed guards here in Qld and in the NT as competent to carry .357 Magnum revolvers. The officers receive only four hours of training per year. Two in a classroom and two on the range shooting at static targets. I could not, in my professional capacity, deem the guards competent so I quit the role. I have contacted the Minister of Police here in Qld and expressed my concerns but get the usual we have everything under control response. Bullshit! You don’t. Your frontline officers are taught to rely on a Tactical Response Group that on any good day can arrive at any serious incident within 20 minutes. We in the know know that most shootings are over within 3 seconds so how does a TRG arriving 19 minutes later help the officers or the public for that matter?And they talk about Duty of Care? They have no idea. In my training sessions I always give more than is required, particularly to those that need additional expertise. I am all for private gun ownership, including handguns, and believe in the right to protect oneself. And I am ex South African Police where I have had three separate shoot-outs in one twelve hour shift! I served for 8 years. I was never once shot at by a legal gun owner. Only by criminals.
    I agree that training needs to be extensively upgraded and it pleases me to read some of the above comments that this is truly a necessity if we are going to allow people the right to defend themselves. I guess it helps that I am already a supporter of the APP and strongly support the APP firearms policy. Anyone wishing to discuss world class firearms handling please feel free to drop me a line at Vote APP on the 7th!

  6. I think that rifles, shotguns and handguns should be widely avalible via strong training programs and mental screening and lesser non lethal forms of weaponry like air rifels pellet guns BB guns paintball guns and slingshots should be freely avalible but age restricted to 18+ with harsh laws for providing under the age with them and also things like asult rifles crossbows and up should be restricted to military and law enforcement where applicable

  7. Terry Odgers says

    Neil, the APP is not aligned with any other political party, however, we will from time to time recommend voting for other similar party's where the APP is not in a position to represent a particular constituency.

    Yes, there are other political parties out there with similar views to the APP, but we believe the APP is the only party that has the right balance of policy, goals and patriotic determination to get this nation back onto its feet.

    The APP is the only Australian political party that holds the good citizen's ability to self defence as an unalienable right.

    Thank you for your comment.

  8. First time I've heard of this party. Was just googling about "Australian Guns Laws unconstitutional" and this came up …

    Are you aligned or affiliated with any other political parties such as Shooters and Fishers Party, Katter's Australia Party or the Liberal Democratic Party?

    All three of these want to limit government power – it's just that some are more narrowly focussed than others.

    I'm asking because I believe that there is a relatively large proportion of the population out there who are sick to death of the nanny state's so-called laws. However the ones (Gun Control laws) which effectively take away the option/means from a citizen to effectively defend his own life as well as those of his family is to me the most despicable and reprehensible abuse of government power in Australia today.

    Will be interesting to see if i get a reply to this post as it does not look like a "well worn" site…

  9. Randell Underwod says

    Sorry, there is a factual error in this discussion piece. Canada has NOT repealed its Firearms Registration laws. An attempt was made in the national parliament to repeal this legislation, but it failed by a very few votes. However, in Canada, it is widely recognised that registration is an expensive, useless exercise.

    Having said that, I don't think there has been ANY crime solved in Australia with the use of firearms registration data. I've been audited on several occasions and the police data is ALWAYS wrong, and I must correct it for them. No record of firearms I have, but I have a reg cert; firearms that I have sold, legally, still registered to me. Time it was scrapped.

    • Thank you Randell for pointing out the error. It will be corrected by blog admin. The info the author of this policy had at the time of writing was that the legislation had been repealed. Apologies to anyone the error may have misled.

  10. jacob gray says

    i think we should scrap registraiton processwaste of money and time, keep the criminal history check and mental health records,legal firearm owner’s are the most law abiding ciizens,they have to be to obtain a firearms licence, yet we are treated as crims the police need a warrant to search some junkie thief’s home but can walk into your home unannounced if u are a legal firearms owner,now i also think the ban on semi-auto rimfires and shotguns should be lifted and semi auto centre fire bans relaxed with say a 10rnd capacity on mags,i as a shooter and firearm enthuisiast put far to much money into the gov coffers and i get nothing in return every time i get a pta or renew a licence the price has risen again any way i’m joining the app

  11. AllowMe... says

    Overall I like it. However I think applicants for a gun license also need to undergo a psychological evaluation before being given a license.

    Also, what would the party’s stance be on using lethal force defending one’s home from intruders? More specifically I mean the “shoot first, ask questions later” type laws they have in some parts of the US that allow citizens to shoot to kill any intruder onto their own private property under the justification that the intruder may be armed himself and may intend to do harm to you and yours rather than just wanting to rob you?

    • The only problem with having a mandatory psych test is that it doesn't factor into account the psychologists prejudices. On face value, I agree that a mental health check sounds like a sound idea, but no doubt, some left wing, Che Guevara, National Flag burning, Uni Student come Psychologist out there will permanently bugger up some poor bastards hopes of ever being able to pusue his chosen sport and hobby by giving him/her a negative psych test. I believe a review of someones mental health records is probably a safer option, though by no means fool proof.

  12. Bob Wigley says

    I have bee the holder of a firearm licence for fourty years and now it seems that with the recent W.A.Firearm Revue I will be required to re justify my need to own a firearm every five years. I wrote a submission to the Revue raising several points the above was one of them. I stated that in my opinion this was just a backdoor way of taking more firearms off law abiding citizens as was the gun buyback scheme and would not have any effect in any way whatsoever of reducing the number of illegal firearms in society.Glad to hear that you are raising the matter.

  13. Nicholas Folkes says


    “Cultural check can be construed as victimisation… must undergo a criminal check”…….to be frank there are some ethnic groups that should never have access to firearms as they are criminally minded and the weapons end up being used against innocent civilians. Howard’s pathetc ‘gun buyback’ did not rid the streets of criminals or gun related deaths but took away homeowners defence against the criminals.

    • You're going to need to be specific when it comes up to election time, Nick. Which cultural groups will and won't be allowed access to guns? And why?

      And of course, the inevitable question, how would a cultural check have prevented the Port Arthur Massacre?

      • Terry Odgers says

        JM….Islam is the culture that needs to be banned from owning firearms. And it doesn't matter from which Islamic culture the Muslim hails from, Islam is the problem.

  14. By and large, looks good. Of two minds on registration though. So far as preventing criminals and terrorists obtaining guns illegally it’s a waste of time, doesn’t work, never has, never will. On the other hand society has a right to expect that criminals, persons with a history of violence, drug or alcohol abuse etc, should be deprived of legal access to firearms and registration does help here. (Unless someone out there can suggest an effective alternative)

  15. Yousoof Savant says

    A few comments;
    point 1; All applicants to undergo a criminal history/cultural background check prior to obtaining gun license.. Cultural check can be construed as victimisation… must undergo a criminal check.
    point 2; Gun owners must have Gun safes at home to secure the firearms… if the owners are negligent, they WILL be criminally prosecuted.
    Point 6; Do not agree with strong penalties.. should be criminally prosecuted..

    I’m a gun owner for more than 30 years and I do believe that each application requires an interview by a senior Police Officer. The interview can include a Psychological profile for alcohol abuse, history of abusing spouse etc..
    Some form of registration or serial number database is important… I know it expensive, but will help the Police forensics in any investigation.
    Firearms should be concealed when carried.

    • They've proven registration is a good way to waste alot of money though mate. Perhaps we could compromise and have a system like the Kiwi's have, where what would be A and B class firearms in Australia, are not registered, but firearms that require a C, D or H class licence are. It would be alot easier to police, as I don't know about your personal experiences, but whenever the Police come around to inspect my firearms, their records are always wrong, which makes me wonder what the point registering my firearms was in the first place.

  16. Looks good to me.

    Gun owners have been vilified by lefty politicians and lefty bureaucrats for years.

    We need a political party that is willing to stand up for our rights.

Leave a Reply to Ian Cancel reply