HOME AFFAIRS MINISTER, KAREN ANDREWS, is responsible for why we have ‘appearance laws’ in the National Firearms Agreement.
However her bureaucracy has been caught out making up a story to back why we have appearance laws.
In this article:
- The NSC asked Minister Andrews, to remove the appearance laws from the NFA after no jurisdiction was able to provide evidence supporting the need for it;
- Her response stated there were ‘numerous incidents’ that justified the law;
- We challenged the minister to provide just one example of such an incident;
- The deadline for a reply has passed. Not one government has been able to provide evidence of why the law exists
Could, May, Potential and Assumption
Readers might recall our previous article where we revealed reasons our respective police ministers gave for having the laws which are in the National Firearms Agreement.
The explanations were based on things that ‘could’, ‘may’ or had the ‘potential’ to happen and an ‘assumption’, rather than incidents that had happened.
We were curious about how Minister Andrews, would react knowing this – so we wrote to her in April asking her to explain why the law was in the National Firearms Agreement.
NSC asks minister to remove appearance law
To make our case out, we provided the Minister Andrews with copies of the responses from the jurisdiction. We then asked her to lead a:
“process to have the provision removed and obtain the specific agreement of the jurisdictions to reflect this in their respective statutes by a common date.”
Feds say there were “numerous incidents”
Our letter was referred to the Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs, Jason Wood MP turn referred the matter to the Department of Home Affairs.
In their response, Assistant Secretary of Strategy and Law Enforcement, Daniel Mossop, stated:
The fact that Mr Mossop asserts were ‘numerous incidents’ suggests there is evidence that supports the need for the law. Or so you would think.
So we wrote back to Minister Andrews asking her to provide “any examples that support the assertion of there being “numerous incidents” and involving “fully automatic firearms”.
Just one would be a good start.
No incidents. No evidence.
We asked the minister to provide a response with a month of our latest approach – and sent a polite follow up letter on 17 May that was acknowledged. We also offered to fly someone to her to discuss the matter further.
More than a month on, we are still waiting. In fact two months after first raising this with the minister, we are still yet to see anything that explains why the law is needed.
It remains a policy based on nothing more than a fabrication – and we hold Minister Andrews responsible for failing to take this matter seriously.
The problem we have is that she is in a safe seat, so we are working on our next plan to target two of her colleagues in more marginal seats.