Thread: Warning To All Shooters

Originally Posted by joel_nicholson

Of course, its very subjective. I am certain all those who have replied on this thread having had AVOs placed against them was for no good or legal reason. But there also must be hundreds of people who have AVOs for valid reasons of public safety and certainly shouldn't be allowed to retain their firearms/ firearms licence.

If you've done nothing wrong... then as you say you are in the right and it can be repealed.

True enough, Joel, but if it requires you to keep 300m away from some low-life it also requires him to keep that far away from you - why contest it? Many don't.

The process in Qld involves a temporary, uncontested, order being placed and then confirmed (or not) at a hearing. But that first, uncontested bit can make a difference.

Same thing (but a little different context) can happen with working with children here (and I think elsewhere) where being charged with an offence against children but having the charge dropped before court could still go against you.

The "normal" way these things works would be fine, but nasty people can use them against you.

As has already been said, the answer is to (politely, of course) contest everything you think is unfair or unreasonable.

Originally Posted by joel_nicholson

If a person has an AVO placed against them then maybe it is in the publics best interest for them not to have a gun? Hence why the law was probably invented... boom boom.

Joel, I don't think anyone doubts that there are some situations where AVOs taken out for legitimate reasons could help ensure someone's safety.
The original post and most of the responses have been making the point that they are open to abuse.
There is no doubt that some AVO's are taken out for malicious rather than genuine reasons.
I realise that it is hard to apply the same presumption of innocence that we like to think applies to the rest of our legal system, but surely there could be better communication with the subject of the AVO and better systems of appeal.
Unfortunately when it comes to guns, the lawmakers are so busy trying to be seen to make the world safe that they completely lose sight of what is sensible, reasonable and just. Consequently we have had some quite ridiculous laws lately relating to gun ownership.
AVOs can serve a purpose, but the abuse of AVOs presents a major problem.

A bloke that used to shoot on my ex girlfriends dads place had criminal charges layed against him for a pub brawl which he didnt start he simply got involved by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the police tried to take his guns, instead he signed them over to my ex's dad and he took care of them. They suspended his gun licence and he contested it and got his licence back by having several respected community members who knew him to write character references pertaining to the fact that he wasnt in anyway violent and that they had known him or years. This was enough to have him get his guns back. matt

Originally Posted by joel_nicholson

If you've done nothing wrong... then as you say you are in the right and it can be repealed.

... and one of the points made in the first post is that the AVO was placed on him 3.5 years ago and he didn't contest it - for whatever reason. How many times have you done something 3+ years ago and wish you hadn't - or had, as the case may be.

The problem is the AVO has expired, it's no longer valid and there's nothing to contest or repeal - but the black mark from the AVO is still on his record and stopping him from doing something he wants to.

So it's a bit of a loophole, the AVO has expired so there's nothing to contest yet the effects of the AVO are still being felt and will be for another 6+ years.

This is not fair. Once something has expired then it has expired and that should be the end of the matter.

Do you understand what I (and others) are trying to say now?

Originally Posted by lokka

This warnig is for all shooters or thse who wish to obtain a shooters licence it concerns A.V.O's (apprehended violence orders)

I have just found out that i can no longer have the choice to have a friearms licence they tell me its because of an AVO that was placed on me 3.5 years ago and expired 1.5 years ago because of this i now cannot hold a shooters licence until 10years after the expiary of the AVO this means i cannot apply for a licence until jan 2016 which i think is a f@rkin joke the twit that put the AVO on me is a convicted criminal and he now resides in tasmania ......

Tho the worst bit is my right to appeal is no longer available because there is no longer a current AVO only the legislation that states that i cannot have a licence until 2016 tho if i had of applyed to have the matter nullafied whilst the order was current it could have been nullafied as the b@stard who put the AVO on me lived far enough away from me .....

I think that this is a joke as i was not informed that this would happen as there was little or no information at all given to me if i had of known this was goin to happen i would have done something about it and had the AVO nullafied ......

So be warned if someone puts an AVO on you make sure you understand the whole thing i spoke to a solicitor who deals with this stuff and he has told me that i have no chance and will only waste my money trying he also said tell all your mates who shoot that if somthing like an AVO or any sort of court proceedings go against you to contact the sporting shooters association and they will put you in touch with some one in their area who can help and give advice to stop these people loosing or not having the right to have a shooters licence ......

Another case of the extremes with AVO's how were you to know at the time you may be applying for a F/A licence years later, it has been common knowledge amongst those licenced , for a few years of the ramifications of AVO's. The Act and some portions of the NSW Firearms act are very ambiguous. There are also some sections that are downright ridiculous, a 10 year ban on an unfounded avo.
With roy smith now up top with robert brown changes are in the wind. i would suggest you get intouch with either of them,or even john tingle state your case, and be guided by their advice.
You can get onto Robert Brown MLC( Shooters Party ) at NSw Parliament on 92303059 or via there website www.shootersparty.org.au
Shooting and gunsports does offend some people on here, but you learn to roll with the punches.

best of luck,


john

Originally Posted by Grizzly_Adams

... and one of the points made in the first post is that the AVO was placed on him 3.5 years ago and he didn't contest it - for whatever reason. How many times have you done something 3+ years ago and wish you hadn't - or had, as the case may be.

The problem is the AVO has expired, it's no longer valid and there's nothing to contest or repeal - but the black mark from the AVO is still on his record and stopping him from doing something he wants to.

So it's a bit of a loophole, the AVO has expired so there's nothing to contest yet the effects of the AVO are still being felt and will be for another 6+ years.

This is not fair. Once something has expired then it has expired and that should be the end of the matter.

Do you understand what I (and others) are trying to say now?

Yes, I realise the terms of the situation and I agree that it is very unfortunate that the applicant cannot get a firearms license because of the conditions of the expired AVO. A similar situation would be the age of consent and closeness of age laws, which could potentially prevent a person from ever working with children and being on the sex offenders register. The only real reason I can think of for not contesting an AVO would be if the defendant believed that they weren't going to assault the applicant. Damn straight it isn't fair! It's not fair that an 18yo. uni student studying to become a teacher can never work with children, because of his relationship with a 15 year old girl that turned nasty... rather a similar situation. I don't dispute the unfairness of the matter at all.

I do however maintain that AVOs are genuinely needed and if you've unfairly been the subject of one, why be submissive and not repeal it if its going to have consequences in the future?

I am very strongly opposed to shooting and recreation gun sport, I can't see the point in it and having had a cousin brutally killed by a "duck" shooter, I'll never be changing my stance on this.

I don't want to argue or create tensions with anybody, I've been kicked off one 4wding forum and I don't intend to get kicked off another. No hard feelings. These are just my views, and I do wish lokka all the best in working a way around the issue, I'm quite certain the right solicitor could find a way of resolving the issue.

you'll survive without a shooters license Lokka. take up darts or something like that.
it's not a bad law, unfortunately it doesn't decide on a case by case basis of who's a violent nutter and who isn't. which is bad news for you, because you are the one that is being persecuted for potentially nothing.
since the port arthur massacre, the gun laws have been tightening all the time.
the real shame is that the violent nutters who really want to kill someone, are going to go out and get a gun illegally anyway, all this law achieves is to take the possibility of a crazed nutbag, in the heat of anger, grabbing a gun. if there's no gun there, maybe no-one will get shot.

Originally Posted by joel_nicholson

I do however maintain that AVOs are genuinely needed and if you've unfairly been the subject of one, why be submissive and not repeal it if its going to have consequences in the future?

Don't get me wrong Joel - I have no problems and never said they were not needed, even if others did. It just appeared in the messages written before that there was very little sympathy for Lokka's issue and that is why I was trying to explain it as I did.

Originally Posted by joel_nicholson

I am very strongly opposed to shooting and recreation gun sport, I can't see the point in it and having had a cousin brutally killed by a "duck" shooter, I'll never be changing my stance on this.

That's your right and I'm not trying to dispute it.

To be honest I can see the validity in both this argument and at least 1 other. I lived in Switzerland for a few years and national service is still required over there. It was nothing unusual to see 18=>40 yo's getting off trains with their fully-automatic weapons slung over their shoulders (they are required to take their weapons home and maintain them).

Sounds scary? To a foreigner it was, having said that everyone was professionally trained in the use of a gun and everyone knew that almost every household had one and the people willing and able to safely use it.

The argument against removing all guns is that then only criminals will have guns - which if they wanted to get them then they will anyway.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, and the biggest thing I have ever fired is an air-rifle but I am trying to see more than 1 sides of the equation and evaluate as best I can. From what I have seen removing guns does not necessarily remove the problem, just hides it and / or moves it elsewhere - and that is my opinion based on the information and experiences I have had