Tell 'em where the guns are...then they know where to go to get them when they want them!!

Unfortunately that is exactly how things are here in Australia...the gun owner must have a Firearms Licence and every..EVERY...gun must be registered.

Cheers, Vince

You are right Vince.
i am not sure about QLD but over here the firearms licence number is the same as our drivers licence number.

the rifle i was talking about in my first post is going take forever to get why i here heard somebody ask?

well even though i own or have co licenced guns, they wont let me put it on as an addition OH! no i have to justify why i want this caliber, i need another letter from a property owner who has more than 100 acres plus (they already have 4 on file), what type of vermin i am going to shoot and why.:whip:
Try explaining to them that i want travel to another state to shoot deer, buffalo, camels etc and they behave like i just farted in there face talk about making me jump thru hoops but i will perserver Oh! not to mention the 28 day cooling off period and the 10 day background check yet again.
But nothing worth having ever comes easy!!!!!!!!!

just having a whinge phil

Not a lot different over here mate, although they accept your original "reason for ownership" for any others you wish to purchase.

One thing that does concern me greatly is an idea they were kicking around for "justification of ownership". If you said that you wanted a particular firearm for target shooting, then that is all it could be used for. If you said "hunting", then again, you could only use that firearm for hunting. What this means is that rifles "justified" for target shooting could not be taken hunting and firearms "justified" for hunting could not be taken to the range.

As one of my mates says....death by a thousand cuts....they will nibble away at our firearm ownership laws until they can say..no more firearms because you cannot justify ownership in any way!!!

Cheers, Vince

One thing that does concern me greatly is an idea they were kicking around for "justification of ownership". If you said that you wanted a particular firearm for target shooting, then that is all it could be used for. If you said "hunting", then again, you could only use that firearm for hunting. What this means is that rifles "justified" for target shooting could not be taken hunting and firearms "justified" for hunting could not be taken to the range.

You know Vince i hadn't thought of it that way!


phil

Bushy - Notice that Missouri on the list of 13 states!!

SPECIAL REPORT
By Chris W. Cox,
NRA-ILA Executive Director
All gun owners are familiar with the 17th century maxim, "Keep your powder dry.” But if we expect to be gun owners in the 21st century, we have to update that to read, “Keep your powder—and all the rest of your ammunition—at all.” That’s because politicians who want to ban guns, but who don’t have the votes in Congress and state legislatures, are trying to achieve the same effect by banning the manufacture, importation, sale and possession of as much ammunition as possible, and severely restricting the rest.
In the last year, so-called “encoded” or “serialized” ammunition bills have been introduced in 13 states—Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Washington. Their goal: Destroy our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
All of these bills would prohibit the manufacture and sale of ammunition, unless the bullets and cartridge cases are marked with a code and registered to the owners in a computerized database. Most would also require gun owners to forfeit any non-coded ammunition they possess. For example, Arizonas bill says, “Beginning January 1, 2011, a private citizen or a retail vendor shall dispose of all noncoded ammunition that is owned or held by the citizen or vendor.” Tennessee’s says, “All non-coded ammunition . . . shall be disposed.” And in Pennsylvania, “An owner of ammunition . . . not encoded by the manufacturer . . . shall dispose of the ammunition.”
These bills include no compensation for the loss of millions of rounds of privately owned ammunition. But that’s not the point. Nor is the fact that ammunition encoding hasn’t been tested, let alone proven. Nor is the fact that criminals would easily figure out the numerous, obvious ways to beat ammunition registration.
The point of these bills is to prevent gun owners from having ammunition for defense, practice, sport and hunting. The fact that these bills are not gun bans is a mere technicality because, in practical terms, ammo bans are gun bans.
That isn’t the end of the anti-gunners’ attacks on ammunition in the current Congress and state legislative sessions. Ammunition bans are taking almost as many legislative and regulatory forms as there are types of ammunition to outlaw.
In October, the California legislature banned center-fire ammunition containing more than trace amounts of lead, when hunting big game and coyotes in the area inhabited by the California condor. And within two months, the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife adopted a regulation going further, banning any sort of lead ammunition when hunting any game or non-game animal in the condor’s area. Now a lead bullet ban is being pushed in Arizona, too, even though there is still no solid evidence that condors anywhere are dying because they have ingested fragments of traditional hunting bullets.
In Congress, a handful of members of the House (all rated “F” by the NRA Political Victory Fund) have introduced an “armor-piercing ammunition” bill to ban any handgun that can fire a bullet that, if fired from any rifle or handgun, could penetrate a protective vest. Given the number of rifle calibers that use the same diameter bullets as handguns, and the number of handguns that use rifle ammunition, all or virtually all handguns would be banned if this bill became law. Another bill proposes to reinstate the former Clinton Gun Ban’s prohibition on the manufacture and possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Ammunition bans are taking almost as many legislative and regulatory forms as there are types of ammunition to outlaw.
Anti-gunners’ current focus on ammunition is unmistakable, but going after guns by going after ammunition is not a new idea. As far back as the 1930s, during the debate over national gun owner licensing and handgun registration, it was proposed to implant a small tape bearing a serial number in every bullet, and require people to register ammunition purchases with their names and fingerprints.
This bullet coding idea lay dormant until 1969, when President Lyndon B. Johnson’s National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence recommended a law that would require manufacturers “to implant an identifying capsule with a distinctive number in each bullet and require firearms dealers who sell the ammunition to maintain records of the persons who buy all such numbered ammunition.”
Today, ammunition registration is back on the front burner because a company that claims to have the technology to turn the 80-year-old concept into reality is eager for profits at the expense of our rights. Calling itself “Ammunition Accountability,” the company is trying to market ammo registration by portraying itself as a “group of gun crime victims, industry representatives, law enforcement, public officials, public policy experts, and more.”
Meanwhile, another of the LBJ-era commission’s recommendations, “a system of giving each gun a number and the development of some device to imprint this number on each bullet fired from the gun”—known today as “micro-stamping”—was mandated in California at the end of 2007, to take effect in 2010, and has been proposed in several other states.
California’s law had been urged by Washington’s undisputed gun control crusader for more than 30 years, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. And on February 7, only a week after endorsing Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., for president, Kennedy introduced a bill in Congress to mandate micro-stamping nationwide. Kennedy claimed that his bill “provides law enforcement with a much-needed resource in solving crimes.” But even if micro-stamping worked, it would be relevant only to new guns acquired from retail dealers, while 88 percent of guns used in crime are acquired through unregulated channels.
To say the least, Obama didn’t get Kennedy’s support only because he made the keynote speech at the Democratic Party’s 2004 national convention in Massachusetts. When it comes to ammunition and guns, Kennedy, Obama and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.—whom the 2004 Democratic convention nominated for president, and who has also endorsed Obama this year—are cut from the same cloth.
Longtime NRA members will remember that in the 1990s, Kerry sponsored legislation to prohibit mail order sales of ammunition, require a criminal background check to purchase ammunition and ban conventional ammunition as “armor piercing.”
At the time, Obama was a state senator in Illinois, where he supported increasing federal excise taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent, banning compact handguns, limiting the frequency of gun purchases, banning the sale of guns (except antiques) at gun shows, charging a person with a felony offense if his gun were stolen and used in a crime, prohibiting people under age 21 from possessing guns, increasing the gun dealer licensing fee, prohibiting dealers from conducting business at gun shows or within five miles of a school or park, and banning police agencies from selling old service firearms to generate funds to buy new firearms for their officers.

Yup...Read that in American Rifleman...Most of what is written was shot down in flames and the rest just can't seem to get any traction this time. But we are watching...

We have a rather strong pro gun society here. "Red necks"... A lot of them open carry and a large number, like me, conceal carry and open carry.

Good to know that, in case we have to fall back and re-group we'll have a place. Notice how this gun ban stuff is being phased in from both coasts and the UN, we may have only the Rockies and Midwest to fight from.

Big cities only...We have the rest...

It's pretty difficult to get a conceal carry permit In Md . I had one when I lived in PA for ten years. I wish MD was more open to conceal carry.
Joe

Joe...It is nice to be trusted by your state legislators [sic] and be able to exersize your GOD GIVEN RIGHT to carry both open carry and concealed carry...I hope we don't have to fight for it again. We here in Missouri have been impoving on the carry laws and no longer have to get permision from the sheriff to buy a firearm anymore. All we have to do now is go to the gun store, pick out a handgun, run NICS, pay for the pistol and take it home with us... We are working on the right to carry on mass transit at this time...Gettin' there...

As I've said many times, if you don't trust me to be armed for my own defense I sure as hell can't trust you!

"Ballistic fingerprinting" has proven to be a failure. Encoded ammo has also been shown to be unsupportable. "Smart guns" aren't smart. That won't keep those seeking to control the people from pushing them. Again, educating those who are on the fence is the key here.

Dust54,

Don't forget Texas!!!! We'll stand to the last man for our rights!

Cary

I will not forget Texas, Cary. I lived in El Paso for a few years, enjoyed it a lot!!

UPDATE


Heller Files New Lawsuit vs. District of Columbia (filed Monday)

Seems that DC can't acept the fact they lost, so now they are attempting to circumvent the law !!!

salute of the day goes to Heller and his team !!!

SALUTE!!!! I aim to follow this as it goes through the paces. I am sending NRA, and Second Amendment Foundation donations to help support this move. I often wonder who these politicians think they are representing, most folks I speak to do not want guns banned. I admit that I have come across several who do support gun control, but after a short discussion they agree that we (human beings) have a right to self defense given to us from a higher authority than the government.

Hope Heller wins this one.