Steven Mace
07-02-2002, 01:53 AM
Tough stand on gun licences
By PETER MICKELBUROUGH
02jul02
MORE than 650 gun licences were cancelled in Victoria last year after the holders committed criminal offences -- a 75 per cent jump in two years.
And fearful partners, relatives or acquaintances took out intervention orders against more than 400 licensed shooters -- up 80 per cent.
In all, more than 3300 permits were cancelled last year for reasons including unfitness to hold a licence, failure to pay annual fees, and voluntary surrender of licences.
Permit applications fell by almost half from a post-Olympics high of 15,100 in 2000 to 8230.
Supt David Dettmann, of the firearms registry, said the completion of a three-year police effort to check all guns listed on the registry added to the fall in licence renewals.
Supt Dettmann said the assistance of gun owners and gun clubs and associations in reviewing the data showed the majority of firearm owners wanted to comply with the new laws.
Of the 8230 licence applications last year, 616 were refused because the applicants did not meet licence requirements.
The 7614 licences granted brought the number of legal shooters to 193,838 -- up 5 per cent on the post-Port Arthur low of 184,646 in March 2000.
Sporting Shooters Association president Sebastian Ziccone said the high level of cancellations reflected tougher gun laws and the more rigid enforcement of those laws, weeding out problem individuals.
Mr Ziccone said the laws were too punitive and called on police to be given a greater discretion in applying them, as was the case with speeding fines.
"I could lose my licence for having one (shotgun) cartridge outside of the locked storage simply because I forgot it was in my pocket and left it on the mantelpiece," he said.
Mr Ziccone said the removal of guns through intervention orders should also be reviewed, because the orders were often used in divorce proceedings by lawyers trying to lever a settlement rather than out of a fear of any real threat.
"I'm sure there are real threats, and those intervention orders are appropriately applied, but the vast majority of them come from spiteful, nasty divorces or separations," he said.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,4618302%255E2862,00.html
Steve Mace
By PETER MICKELBUROUGH
02jul02
MORE than 650 gun licences were cancelled in Victoria last year after the holders committed criminal offences -- a 75 per cent jump in two years.
And fearful partners, relatives or acquaintances took out intervention orders against more than 400 licensed shooters -- up 80 per cent.
In all, more than 3300 permits were cancelled last year for reasons including unfitness to hold a licence, failure to pay annual fees, and voluntary surrender of licences.
Permit applications fell by almost half from a post-Olympics high of 15,100 in 2000 to 8230.
Supt David Dettmann, of the firearms registry, said the completion of a three-year police effort to check all guns listed on the registry added to the fall in licence renewals.
Supt Dettmann said the assistance of gun owners and gun clubs and associations in reviewing the data showed the majority of firearm owners wanted to comply with the new laws.
Of the 8230 licence applications last year, 616 were refused because the applicants did not meet licence requirements.
The 7614 licences granted brought the number of legal shooters to 193,838 -- up 5 per cent on the post-Port Arthur low of 184,646 in March 2000.
Sporting Shooters Association president Sebastian Ziccone said the high level of cancellations reflected tougher gun laws and the more rigid enforcement of those laws, weeding out problem individuals.
Mr Ziccone said the laws were too punitive and called on police to be given a greater discretion in applying them, as was the case with speeding fines.
"I could lose my licence for having one (shotgun) cartridge outside of the locked storage simply because I forgot it was in my pocket and left it on the mantelpiece," he said.
Mr Ziccone said the removal of guns through intervention orders should also be reviewed, because the orders were often used in divorce proceedings by lawyers trying to lever a settlement rather than out of a fear of any real threat.
"I'm sure there are real threats, and those intervention orders are appropriately applied, but the vast majority of them come from spiteful, nasty divorces or separations," he said.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,4618302%255E2862,00.html
Steve Mace