Thank you for the clarification of positions that while not formally documented at least gives an understanding of the party inclinations.
With regards to the first document I suspect that the SFP holds the view that firearms remain regulated by the state primarily because they are a state party first and a federal organization second and they prioritise holding on to their concessions won in NSW.
This is mostly cynical speculation however and there might be a genuine ideological approval for competitive federalism within the party,
The states have lost a degree of their consistency regarding which classification certain firearms should fall under with some states banning certain classes of firearms outright in some cases.
A most vexing and baffling case in point would be the WA ban on crossbows.
This inconsistency makes interstate sales or relocation of firearms a nightmare and the lack of a consistent national license means that any licensed person is essentially bound to their present state or facing a small mountain of unfamiliar import and licensing bureaucracy in any attempt to move between states or even to visit for hunting or competition shooting.
In regards to the second document, I can see a degree of the burden placed on legitimate firearms owners.
Firearms can and have been reclassified or retroactively banned by state governments without informing owners despite having registered contact details thereof effectively eliminating their opportunity to appeal or meet conditional provisions under the law.
Firearms licenses are subject to revocation on some very unusual grounds, failure to attend a jury duty summons? Could disqualify your license and you could lose all firearms and ammunition which considering the exorbitant costs of firearms could easily be in excess of $10,000 of seized goods without compensation, you could be charged with offences in most states you never knew existed and have not seen use in years, the offence does not need to be a violent or reckless offence.
You could lose your firearms license and all firearms without compensation if you admit to any mental health issues which is an obvious disincentive for isolated farmers and land owners to seek help for issues when it may cost them their access to essential farm equipment.
The SFPâs claims that gun crime has increased are contrary to evidence that crime overall is decreasing however the Australian Institute of Criminology report also shows that the largest changes to firearms laws 1996 and 2002 bear no relation to the largest sustained drops in gun violence 2000 and 2005.
Gun violence appears to have followed more generalised trends that could possibly be ascribed to cultural and economic changes rather than specific items of gun control legislation.
There shouldnât be significant issue with registration of firearms even for lower classes with exceptions perhaps being made for less than lethal items like airsoft and painball taggers.
At present spring, electric and gas powered plastic pellet airsoft is effectively banned across Australia as there are no gun clubs that support these classes of shooting and the states have been apparently unwilling to accept any club applications for this purpose.
http://www.airsoftcouncil.com.au/index.php/about-airsoft-81/airsoft-laws#.VhgUUJeli1F
Other class A and B firearms have a very valid reason to be registered and any national register should probably be proposed on the position that it will reduce the complexity of transporting firearms interstate for competitions or permanent relocation.
I have heard two interpretations of the âprotectionâ class of need defined in the US.
Firstly the obvious protection from other citizens, which is a weak argument as there is little evidence that gun ownership has lead to a net increase in safety, guns are usually of greatest risk to their owners as a readily available means of suicide.
The second interpretation is of protection from the tyranny of the state, which seems a possible and reasonable interpretation of the US constitution having civilian ownership of firearms as a crude safeguard against a fascist state, however looking at the US it is clear there is both a deep need for and complete absence of such an effective safeguard against abuse of powers by the police, defence, security and intelligence agencies.
Thus I would agree that âprotectionâ is a bad class of needs argument, however I feel that all needs arguments are contrived hoops to be jumped through as there is no need in life to collect guns, farmers lives would be more difficult but not impossible without guns thus they have no need as a primary means of production and hunters existed before all classes of firearms thus there is no need for pest control, sports are by definition a luxury rather than a necessity so all gun clubs are a contrived need.
Further for a small exchange of cash there is farmers willing to âofficiallyâ give you permission to shoot on their property so that you can obtain a firearm which means the needs assessment is already trivially circumvented and not worth the time.
The needs category for licenses should be removed an in its place more extensive efforts should be made to ascertain that the prospective owner is in a good state of mental health or is actively managing any relevant existing mental health issues such as depression or anxiety.
I thoroughly agree, mandatory sentencing has failed wherever it has been implemented causing more harm than good.
I also agree that veterans while important should not be spared scrutiny when applying for a license due to their history of subsequent mental health issues and also because they should not be afforded different treatment than other law abiding citizens.
In addition I would suggest that there should be less hoops to go through when attempting to purchase additional firearms of equal or lesser calibre, if you have proven you have a safe propery or club to discharge a .
50 cal anti materials rifle there should be little question you have room for a .
22 centre or rim-fire.
Provided your existing storage has capacity and the firearm you wish to acquire is within the same class it should be a streamlined approvals process.
It would definitely be of advantage to see a lowering of restrictions for hunting on crown land potentially only available through a permit process that requires prospectives to go through some form of accreditation and would dissuade the the more cavalier hunters from causing incidents with native wildlife or other users of parks and reserves.
This would also mitigate the immediate response that was seen in the last proposal of this in WA where the counter campaign made claims that it would become a free for all with every man and his dog (in some cases literally)
coming forth to waste ammunition on native flora and fauna between bouts of accidental homicide.
Despite largely successful efforts in NSW and NT (possibly others I havenât checked)
With regards to the spectrum of views held by shooters it could be hoped that some will comment with their views, as the majority of the population will roll on largely unconcerned if there was a free for all on full automatic grenade launchers or a total ban on everything more dangerous than plastic sporks.
Its only the minority of stakeholders that hold strong positions for or against gun control.
There appears to be some easy voter collection to be had in would be greens voters who hold progressive views but happen to be part of the 800,000 strong gun ownership of Australia, there may also be votes that can be lured away from liberal democrats and other nominally pro and simply not anti gun parties.
Most donât seem to have any well fleshed out platform.
No party is ever likely to out anti gun the greens
or out pro gun the SFP who Isuspect are eventually pushing for re-classification of semi-automatic firearms.
Again thank you for your time and extensive responses.
I was very pleased to see such a complete and researched answer on the subject that very closely reflects the most reasonable and desired changes to existing laws.
Should this ever be formalized I would happily spread such news to friends and associates who hunt and target shoot as a progressive party with a reasonable view on gun control is an area in the political spectrum not presently served.