Our look at the proposed NSW firearm regulations

The NSW government is proposing new firearms regulations which were recently put out for consultation.

While it was up to shooting organisations in that state to respond, we thought we’d go through it to show you what is being proposed. 

Importantly it shows our brethren are having up north are having a major problem with their bureaucracy.  It’s a culture which needs to change. 

The opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations passed on Monday however if you would still like to make your views known, feel free to email them to the NSW Minister for Police, Troy Grant MP, who can be contacted by email at: dubbo@parliament.nsw.gov.au

The proposed changes

Here are some of the changes they are proposing:

Clause 11 proposes the Commissioner of Police can deny the issue of a licence if you have contravened a provision of the Firearms Act or regulations (even if it is trivial) within the previous 10 years whether or not the person was prosecuted or convicted of the offence.  That not only significantly expands the ‘prohibited person’ concept, but removes the need for a finding of guilt.

Clause 13 makes a similar proposal for the issue of a permit.

Clause 17 requires shooters who receive a replacement licence or permit to return the original to a police station within 14 days.  In Victoria you can simply throw them out.

Clause 29 requires government employees who use firearms to have those firearms inspected by a ‘competent person’ every three months and serviced “at least once a year”.  Given that proper care of firearms is a basic competency of firearm ownership and you would hope they would know how to strip them down and reassemble them, these requirements seem excessive.  That’s fine, but guess who pays for it? Yep, you, the taxpayer.  Clause 91 has similar provisions for security companies – which is a cost which matters to small businesses, not to the government.

The same clause requires government employees to not only undertake normal firearm safety training, but annual “continuing firearm safety training courses as may be approved”.  Unless those employees are training to be SOGgies, I would suggest the need for annual continued safety training points to a different problem which the proposed regulations aren’t going to solve!

Clause 31 proposes minimum attendance requirements for Cat A and B target shooters of 4 matches and hunters of 2 club events. Clause 112 requires collectors to attend at least one meeting.   That’s what you call the thin edge of the wedge and why moving to Victoria is a good thing.

Now, get this – clause 38 is a clanger.  It proposes that collectors who have Cat D firearms must render them inoperable by:

  • Welding a rod in the barrel from the muzzle to the chamber
  • Weld the barrel to the receiver
  • Remove the firing pin and weld the firing pin hole closed
  • Remove internal springs
  • Weld the trigger so it can’t move
  • Weld internal components where possible
  • Weld any bolts (on a cat D?) and external hammers closed
  • .. and any other mechanism in a closed position.

Further the welds must be ‘substantial’, not spot.  In other words, any WW2 firearms which might happen to be category D, will need to be welded up to the point they become boat anchors.

Check out this video!

Clause 40 is also a ripper – it will prohibit storing firearms at a residential premise that is not your principle place of residence unless a person is there. It means if you have a holiday home with a safe, you can’t keep your firearms there.

Clause 58 will recognise interstate junior permits but only for ‘approved events’, which means target shooting. It means interstate juniors won’t be able to join their mums and dads on hunting trips.

Clause 60 is one which can’t be right. It authorises a person to get a permit from the Chief Commission to acquire a (non-prohibited) firearm from overseas before departure, but the permit is only valid for 7 days from issue.  So if you plan to buy that shiny new shottie from Italy, you’ll have to make a beeline to the factory then back to Oz!

Clause 84 is one of the provisions covering the storage of firearms by security firms. It says that if the firm has up to 5 firearms, it will need an alarm for the safe and one for the premises – in other words, two separate alarms.

Clause 96 requires air rifles and air pistols used on mobile ranges to be tethered to the range.

Clause 97 provides for unlicensed individuals to shoot at ranges under supervision, however in addition to requiring the recording of the licence number of the person supervising, clause 129 requires the recording of the name, address and DOB of the person under instruction.  In addition, clause 129 which requires a declaration of the person in the following terms:

(a) Have you, in New South Wales or elsewhere:

(i) been refused or prohibited from holding a firearms licence or permit or had a firearms licence or permit suspended, cancelled or revoked?
(ii) been the subject of a firearms prohibition order?
(iii) within the last 10 years, been convicted of an offence involving firearms, weapons, prohibited drugs, robbery, violence or terrorism?
(iv) within the last 10 years, been convicted of an offence of a sexual nature?
(v) within the last 10 years, been the subject of a family law or domestic violence order or an apprehended violence order (other than an order that was revoked)?

(b) Have you ever attempted suicide or self harm?

(c) Have you in the past 12 months been treated for referred for treatment for alcoholism, drug dependence, or a mental illness within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 2007or as a mentally disordered person within the meaning of that Act?

(d) Are you currently, in New South Wales or elsewhere:

(i) subject to a good behaviour bond?
(ii) subject to an interim apprehended violence order?
(iii) suffering from any mental illness or other disorder that may prevent you from using a firearm safely?

Clause 103 proposes new conditions for approved clubs including a requirement to provide not only annual returns, but monthly reports where there are changes in membership or changes in the personal details of any member notified to the club’s secretary.

Clause 104 requires pistol club applicants to have 2 referees. It also requires that any cancellation or suspension of membership be notified to the Chief Commissioner within 7 days.

Clause 115 sets out an extensive range of fees, including an ‘initial application fee’ for any cat A, B, C, D or H licence of $100 for a 2 year licence, or $200 for a five year licence.

Don’t cop it

If you are in NSW, let your Police Minister, Troy Grant, know that these regulations are not on and should not be made.  You can email him at dubbo@parliament.nsw.gov.au

The approach in Victoria

For those of you in Victoria, our own regulations are up for review right now (they expire next April).

Fortunately the process being used is different.  The CFCV has been able to convince an obscure regulator called the Office of the Commissioner for Better Regulation of the need to ensure the shooting community is consulted well before regulations reach the drafting stage. We did this to make sure paranoiac bureaucrats didn’t get the jump on us.

The recommendation we made to the OCBR was to seek early consultation through the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee, which is now happening.

While we aren’t part of the FCC by choice, we’re fairly confident we’ve been able to prevent what happened in SA and NSW, happening here.

Leave a comment ?


  1. Words fail me.

  2. I GOT IT!
    Years ago Bugs Bunny sold Daffy Duck an insurance policy.
    The only real difference between that and the proposed
    new laws for our N.S.W. mates was that a locomotive must
    smash through the house followed by a baby zebra.
    It did. Anyone remember that?
    Sorry, I make light, but this can’t be serious….
    Can it?

  3. Hey Ern,
    Everyone also said this cant be serious when “Jack Boot Johnny” forcibly removed our semi-auto rifles and shot guns from us back in 1996, every time a bureaucrat tries out something ridiculous like this rest assured they wont rest until they get at least some of it passed in to legislation, it seems to me NSW could well do with a CFCV like we do here to seek and destroy this crap before it becomes airborne.

  4. I live in upstate NY, USA,and while NY has some of the worst gun laws in America, they look great compared to what you guys are dealing with. You have my support, and my sympathy. Hang in there.

  5. You’re right of course John. I remember well what “Jack Boot Johnny”
    did. But it seems to be so stupid that nobody in his right mind would
    put his name to a proposal such as this. At least here we have the CFCV
    sticking up for us.

  6. My grandson just got a Vic junior license so he could come piggin with me in NSW. Was this futile. Maybe so

  7. That’s how I read it. Bear in mind though these are proposed regulations which may or may not reflect the current regulations, so you might want to check.

    Also when the regs are made, there may be concessions so no need to panic yet.


  8. The product of a sick and unreasoning mind ,really smells of control freak public servant , someone who cares for themselves more than anything else

  9. All of this nonsense going on at incredible expense for no gain whilst 36,000 child abuse notifications in Australia each year?
    The bureaucrats are really misguided!

  10. How do these people get to hold positions of office when they apparently are so single-minded and clueless?

  11. When any law against guns is passed, how is it backed up? How will the State remove banned weapons from private hands? How will agents of the State disarm the citizenry? Why, by the use of guns, of course! This contradiction has never bothered statists. Why are handguns and assault rifles evil and wicked in the hands of private citizens yet perfectly fine in the hands of employees of the State? If this is truly “government by the people” why do we see the servants disarming their masters by force? What do they fear from us, if theirs is a legitimate, benevolent government? If the State does not seek to control us, why does it want us disarmed? The usual answer – stripped of equivocation – is that “mere citizens” are like half-witted children, incapable of safely handling “dangerous” commodities such as weapons or explosives or medicines or information. And only when some half-witted children pass a civil-service exam or are elected by other half-wits to work for the wise and benevolent State do they magically become smart and honest enough to carry weapons and decide who shall be “allowed” to possess guns and what sort of design, shape, or weight such weapons shall be. Sounds pretty condescending and paternalistic, doesn’t it? That’s how they view us. Sheep for the shearing at tax time, cannon fodder during war time, and dangerous idiots the rest of the time. And they dare ask us to obey their desires? Do you think the same way? Are you one of them?

  12. Well said Major !
    Its also true that our bureaucratic puppets that we think we elected in to office ultimately dance to the tune of the united nations and their evil agenda 21 just as Howard, Hillery and Obama do……nuff said

  13. Neil J– thank you on behalf of all Firearms Owners in Australia and in particular those within the borders of New South Wales.
    By highlighting our NSW proposals with your dissecting ability YOU have shown just how piece meal and uninformed those who believe they have a “Monopoly On Knowledge” really are.
    Where in any of these proposals does it address the REAL PROBLEM here in Australia — REAL CRIMINALS — Not Law Abiding Firearms Owners.
    Thank you Neil Jenkins and The CFCV

  14. Much obliged for the shared information provided. We have our fearless idiots in State Government to thank for these stupid proposals for law abiding citizens….Rod D C S

  15. Most people will just accept things as they are. The average Joe is subjective to firearm legislation but objective when it comes to Muslims. Sad but true! Discrimination hasn’t stopped but changed form!

  16. What I’m not happy about is the requirement to jump through hoops and obtain a license just to own a replica firearm (non action ones) and have them stored in a safe, just the same way you would an authentic firing hand gun. It’s a ridiculous law. Actual firing firearms should be kept in safes, not replicas! Replicas are used for show pieces otherwise why buy a replica if it’s going to be locked away in a safe as you cant put it up for display! I am not interested in an actual firing handguns, it doesn’t interest me. But I have a passion for handguns, rifles and history. Ease up on the state laws NSW!! Change them so non firing replicas can be used for display purposes. Afterall, its less dangerous than having an old genuine WW2 rifle welded up beyond recognition and placed in a frame hung up on a wall. If the old rifles are rendered useless and OK to display, then why not old non action replica handguns that dont have any parts to actually fire a bullet or a ball bearing pellet in the first place? The laws were not thought through very well at all.

  17. clause 31 is already a requirement in nsw

Leave a Comment

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>