The Attorney-General's Dept, Criminal Justice Division, has issued a "Consultation Paper" titled "Amendments to the Firearms Importation Regime, Regulation 4F and Schedule 6 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956", and has invited comments from interested persons. I believe that the deadline for replies has been extended until the 1st of March 2011.
It covers the regs pertaining to the importation of firearms, parts, magazines, ammunition and components, etc.
CONSULTATION PAPER
Moderator: Mod
-
John E
- Posts: 1015
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:14 pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
-
Gadget
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:40 pm
- Location: Nowra
- Contact:
-
johnk
- Posts: 2211
- Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:55 pm
- Location: Brisbane
OK, I've read it & the only item of concern I found was:
16. Telescopic and collapsible stocks Issue
The terms ‘folding’, ‘detachable’, ‘telescopic’ and ‘collapsible’ are used to describe controlled stocks under the Regulations. However, these terms are not defined, which creates uncertainty about what constitutes a controlled stock. This has primarily been an issue with telescopic stocks, but could equally be raised in relation to collapsible stocks.
The intention of the Regulations is to restrict access to stocks which are able to readily shorten the overall length of a firearm, making them easier to conceal. The intention is not to prohibit access to the type of stocks which allow for ergonomic or other minor adjustments.
Proposal
It is proposed to replace the terms telescopic and collapsible stocks with the term ‘adjustable stock’, defined as a stock which may be adjusted to reduce the length of a firearm by more than 70mm.
It should be noted that an overall length provision, which would regulate firearms based on the overall length of the entire article, cannot be used as the basis for border controls because the majority of stocks are imported as stand-alone items and therefore must be able to be classified under the Regulations as individual articles.
Is 70mm an appropriate length or adjustment to regulate and, if not, what length would be better? Does this proposal make it clear which stocks are controlled under the Regulations?
Would this proposal restrict the import of stocks for which firearm users have a legitimate need?
I checked out my stocks with ergonomic adjustment to them & the range of adjustment was barely 50 mm. In fact the rod that is clamped for adjustment is less than 70 mm gross length (ie without allowing for the section that is clamped within the base on the stock itself.
Has aybody a commercial adjustable butt with a range of more than 70 mm?
I assume that spacers would be exempt by virtue of being innocuous.
There is a more specific ban on the 50 BMG (by reference to its derivatives), but I understand that state laws already cover this to a similar degree.
16. Telescopic and collapsible stocks Issue
The terms ‘folding’, ‘detachable’, ‘telescopic’ and ‘collapsible’ are used to describe controlled stocks under the Regulations. However, these terms are not defined, which creates uncertainty about what constitutes a controlled stock. This has primarily been an issue with telescopic stocks, but could equally be raised in relation to collapsible stocks.
The intention of the Regulations is to restrict access to stocks which are able to readily shorten the overall length of a firearm, making them easier to conceal. The intention is not to prohibit access to the type of stocks which allow for ergonomic or other minor adjustments.
Proposal
It is proposed to replace the terms telescopic and collapsible stocks with the term ‘adjustable stock’, defined as a stock which may be adjusted to reduce the length of a firearm by more than 70mm.
It should be noted that an overall length provision, which would regulate firearms based on the overall length of the entire article, cannot be used as the basis for border controls because the majority of stocks are imported as stand-alone items and therefore must be able to be classified under the Regulations as individual articles.
Is 70mm an appropriate length or adjustment to regulate and, if not, what length would be better? Does this proposal make it clear which stocks are controlled under the Regulations?
Would this proposal restrict the import of stocks for which firearm users have a legitimate need?
I checked out my stocks with ergonomic adjustment to them & the range of adjustment was barely 50 mm. In fact the rod that is clamped for adjustment is less than 70 mm gross length (ie without allowing for the section that is clamped within the base on the stock itself.
Has aybody a commercial adjustable butt with a range of more than 70 mm?
I assume that spacers would be exempt by virtue of being innocuous.
There is a more specific ban on the 50 BMG (by reference to its derivatives), but I understand that state laws already cover this to a similar degree.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 62 guests
Menu
Newest members