LETTERS OF PROTEST

Hundreds of thousands of people all over this country marched in protest, rang talk-back radio stations and wrote numerous letters to politicians and editors against the ridiculous gun laws that were introduced in Australia using the Port Arthur massacre as an excuse.

Sadly because of our media monopoly only a fraction of the letters written to the major tabloids surfaced but in the smaller unbiased tabloids people like the following writer got the opportunity to voice the opinions of us all and show up the disarmament of a nation for what it really is.........a dangerous debarcle.

Dear Sir
I would like to put a question, through your pages here, to Mr Puppet the state member for XXXX. The question is this; does the new state Labor government intend to honour the life long firearm licences issued to gun owners by the previous Labor government? A simple answer please, we are not interested in political dribble. Are you going to honour the commitments of your fellows or not?

Dear Sir
About the latest violent prison break-out in Queensland. The outside accomplices of the prison inmates used high powered military style semi automatic rifles to shoot at a prison guard during the escape. What more evidence does anyone need to show that the new firearms laws that were forced upon us are a complete failure? All those people who pose a threat to society have still got their guns! The only people to surrender banned weapons were responsible law abiding gun owners who never posed a threat to anyone. In this election year, a message to politicians and would be politicians, gun owners have not gone away, they are still here and they are still angry.

Dear Sir
Some more thoughts on these new firearms laws. In Queensland we were issued with gun licences for LIFE, this is a special situation which does not exist in other states. Now I'm not a solicitor, but I reckon these life long licences represent a legal, binding and enforcible contract between the licence holder and the Queensland Government. Looking through a few legal texts, I find certain factors must exist for a contract to be valid. There must be an offer and acceptance, agreement, genuine consent, consideration (payment), legal capacity and legality of purpose. All these factors were present when we were issued with our life long licences, so surely a valid contract exits? In taking away life long gun licences is the Queensland Government breaching a contract with those licence holders? Perhaps one of the national firearms associations could spend some of the many thousands of dollars that were donated to them to fight these laws on a test case along the lines of breach of contract here in Queensland. If people think that I am harping on about these gun laws, they are right. I want the politicians to realise that gun owners will not go away and at the next election we will still be here and we will still be angry. Dear Sir
I have just receiveded through the mail an application to renew the firearms licence that I was given for life just three years ago. People who recieved these life long licences were told at the time they would never have to renew them. So much for the word of politicians. Along with this renewal application came a 'proof of identity declaration'. This form must be filled out by some who has known the gun licence applicant for at least one year, but it can not be just anyone. On the back of the form is a list of occupations and you may vouch for the applicants identity only if you belong to one of these listed occupations. The Queensland government has divided the population up into those whose word is acceptable and those whose word is not acceptable, or those who can be trusted and those who can not be trusted. On the list of untrustworthy people are all those who are unemployed, this includes all house wives. The word of carpenters, shop assistants, mechanics and ships captains is not acceptable, unless they happen to work for the government, then they can be trusted to fill out a 'proof of identity declaration'. The word of a farmer or a taxi driver is not acceptable, no matter how long they have known the applicant, but the word of a council truck driver can be trusted because he is a public servant. Why is the word of a dentist acceptable, but the word of a bank teller unacceptable? My friend who has known me for twenty years can't vouch for my identity because he is a plant operator, but a friend of a friend who has only met me a couple of times over the last twelve months can because she is a nurse. It is interesting to note that the politicians who told us we could have a life-long firearms licence a couple of years ago are on the list of those whose word can be trusted. This 'proof of identity declaration' is discriminatory and extremely insulting to the vast majority of Queenslanders who the Borbage government as labelled untrustworthy. I call on the Queensland government to withdraw this insulting form immediately.

Dear Sir
I must say that I agree entirely with Fred Nerk’s letter, 23/3/97. The core of the problem he has hi-lighted is politicians who belong to political party's are bound to obey and give consideration to the survival and furtherance of their party before all else. These elected representatives are suppose to serve and represent the people who elected them. In most cases they do not, they serve and represent their political party bosses instead. We have seen graphic evidence of this recently in the new gun laws. When was the last time hundreds of XXXX residents marched through the streets demonstrating against some proposed legislation? Our local member, Mr Puppet, took no notice, he just cast his vote in parliament the way he was told to by his party bosses, regardless of the way his electorate felt on the issue. This same disregard was repeated all over the country, all the way to the top levels of government, when even our own state government just did as they were told by their federal party bosses, making no effort to find out what the people of Queensland wanted. Although you would think that hundreds of thousands of people attending rallies and demonstrating in the streets, all over the State, should have given them some idea. Dear Sir I have just read a transcript of Russell Cooper's Second Reading Speech for the Weapons Amendment Bill. I have difficulty in coming to terms with the incorrect, un-justifiable, ignorant, contradictory and downright absurd statements he makes in this speech. Available space decrees that I can not point out all instances of these statements, so here are just a few samples. Mr Cooper points out in his speech that neither side of this debate is happy with the proposed Bill, that it will be met with hostility and a fair degree of non-compliance and at best, it is a compromise. So why is he introducing it? He claims he has overwhelming public support, but later states that the general public does not have a clear understanding of the contents or implications of this Bill and that it is contentious and divisive. He claims that there has been exhaustive consultation with interested groups. But what worth was this consultation when from the outset he wasn't going to change the basic legislation as it was first proposed, and indeed he hasn't. Why did he waste the time of representatives from those interested groups? He states that personal protection has never, ever been a reason for having a licence. This is a stupid and irrelevant thing to say because in the past we have never needed a reason for having a licence. But probably the most disturbing statement he makes concerns the continued agreement of all State Police Ministers that crimping of some firearms is a worthwhile and acceptable option. But they will not be introducing this option purely because the Prime Minister told them not to. I was not aware that the Prime Minister had personal veto powers over proposed State legislation. Forget the gun debate, by failing to pursue a course of action, any course of action, that they consider to be worthwhile and acceptable means these Police Ministers have turned their back on the Australian people. They should be sacked, the lot of them. Dear Sir About this gun debate. Several years ago I was issued with a long arm licence - for life. The government at the time went to some trouble to inform people that these licences would be issued for life. You had to answer some questions about handling firearms, pay a fee and that was it, a gun licence for life. This licence, of course, could be revoked if a person committed certain offences. I have not committed any offences and yet it seems that my life long licence is to be revoked. Why? Is the word of the Queensland government worth nothing? I am disgusted and angry at being treated with such disdain by politicians who are supposed to be our servants. If some people, however misguided, genuinely feel threatened by semi auto rifles then perhaps we could come to a compromise between them and firearm owners. Why don't we ban just the military style rifles, this means semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips. Tens of thousands of semi-automatic sporting and target rifles have been owned by ordinary people in Australia for decades. They have never posed a threat to public safety before, why now? And what of the thousands of bolt, lever, pump action and single shot rifles which people will have to give up, without compensation, because the owners, according to a handful of politicians, no longer have a 'genuine reason' for owning them? This debate is not about baning semi-automatic rifles, it is about baning all rifles. You will no longer be able to own a rifle simply because you want to own a rifle. This is indeed a lose of freedom. What will be next? Perhaps the desire to mend a puncture will no longer be a genuine reason for owning a tyre lever? Who knows, you may really want to use it to commit break and enters. Dear Sir Drinkers of alcohol will tell you that they have a right to purchase and use this drug and that they should not be denied this right because of the actions of others. They will maintain that they should not be penalised by having to go without their alcoholic drinks simply because drunk drivers kill hundreds of people on our roads every year. Just because alcohol plays a major part in domestic violence and the fact that drunkenness is responsible for thousands of people getting bashed and maimed every year in hotel bars, nite clubs and on the street is not reason to stop the sale of alcohol. They will tell you that they have not done any of these things. They are not responsible for all the crime and senseless destruction of property that is the result of other peoples excessive drinking. Imbibers will justify their continued right of indulgence by saying, you cannot blame alcohol for these problems, it is the fault of those who drink it but cannot handle it. I am innocent! they will cry. I still have the right to drink whatever I want, perhaps these others who cause trouble have lost their right to drink alcohol, punish them, but not me! Many of these same drinkers are now standing up and saying that semi-automatic rifles must be banned and around two million responsible, licensed gun owners must now be punished simply because of the actions of a single unlicensed, maniac in Tasmania. By the same logic being used to ban semi-auto rifles, alcohol must go too.

Dear Sir
It appears that the Prime Minister is really convinced that there is political capital to be made out of firearm laws. I had great hopes for the new coalition government, I thought we would see an end to political correctness and the loss of freedoms which we endured under Labor. However, they have only been in power for a couple of months and already they are taking away another of our freedoms and creating a whole new category of political correctness. Where was the community discussion and consultation? Before bringing in any new legislation isn't it normal to first call for submissions from interested parties? Why hasn't the opposition been doing their job of playing devil's advocate and providing the other side to this debate? I do not believe that the claimed wide spread community support for the banning of self loading rifles exists, there has not been enough consultation for anyone to know. And why should the killing of animals be the only justification for owning a rifle? I reckon that 99% of gun owners never have, and never will point their gun at an animal. Guns are a very popular instrument of leisure, paper targets and empty drink cans are the only things that need fear most gun owners. I should not need any more justification for owning a gun, self loading or not, that for owning a tennis racket. As for the banning of semi automatic rifles making Australia a safer place to live, Mr Howard would have made Australia a lot safer and saved many more lives if he had called the police ministers together and insisted on a country wide zero blood alcohol level for drivers.

Dear Sir
After listening to the gun laws debate it has become apparent that I can no longer be trusted with my semi automatic rifle, and must soon surrender it to some yet to be named authority. However, I can be trusted with, and will not be required to surrender, any bolt, lever or pump action rifle that I may possess. Obviously these firearms must be relatively harmless. But, alas, it looks like my old semi-auto .22 will have to go, because at any moment I may pick it up and start massacring people with it. We all know how dangerous knifes can be, so I had better hand in my carving knife and fishing knife as well, just in case I go mad and use them to stab people. While I'm at it I suppose I should hand over my car keys, who knows when I may start foaming at the mouth and running people down on the street. What of my golf clubs? what lethal potential resides in these innocent implements? Perhaps I will become deranged one morning and take them to town with me, I shudder to think what damage could be done with a few full armed swings of a No 4 iron in a crowded place. If I can not be trusted with my gun, the golf clubs had better go too. And of course the encyclopaedias, I could get an uncontrolable desire to blow something up and learn from them how to make explosives. I had better get rid of the encyclopaedias. What about my chainsaw? One afternoon I could be overcome with blood lust and use this tool to cause all sorts of carnage. Am I being ridiculous? no more ridiculous than the assertion that the activities of mass murderers will somehow be diminished by forcing millions of responsible law abiding Australians to hand in their semi automatic rifles. I don't believe words can adequately describe the horror of that day in Port Arthur, and I do not know what the answer is. But I am sure it does not lay in firearm legislation. Perhaps we should be looking in the direction of the diet of violence which is being fed to our children through television, videos and computer games. The media in particular seems to revel in the reporting of violent acts.

Dear Sir
Why the sudden furore over gun laws following the tragic events at Port Arthur? No matter how strict the gun laws, here or in other countries, criminals and madmen have always been able to obtain firearms to use in their activities. Criminals and madmen to not obey the law! People calling for stricter gun laws, following events at Port Arthur, are making the mistake of blaming the tool instead of the person. Tightening firearm accessibility will not prevent these horrifying massacres from occurring, we only have to look at the Oklahoma Bombers in the United States, they managed to kill over 160 people without firing a single shot. Stricter gun laws will only penalise responsible people who would not use their firearms irresponsibly or illegally in the first place. However, if gun laws remain under the spotlight, then, if anything, they need to be much more lenient, a responsible person with a gun could have saved many lives at Port Arthur.

Hello Ned
I have attached to this email all the letters that I sent to our local paper on the gun issue. I think that I raised some good points and you are welcome to use any of it if you want.
I must praise the local rag for printing all these letters, they gave both sides of the issue a pretty far go. On the other hand, our local members never commented on, or replied to any of them, neither did they bother to put in an appearance at the street march. Their silence was deafening and their absence was conspicous. And of course when it came to the vote in parliament they did what all good political party lap dogs do, they did what they were told and supported the new laws.

Keith