The Forum > General Discussion > Washington shooting (last year)
Washington shooting (last year)
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Page 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- ...
- 15
- 16
- 17
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
Syndicate RSS/XML |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
There are drought affected farmer who are having to shoot their stock and most of these would appreciate a silencer, both for their benefit, the benefit of family members who may not want to hear the gunfire and last, but not least to stop the stock from panicking (to whatever degree that is possible).
A silencer is a prohibited weapon and the firearm to which it is attached becomes a prohibited weapon regardless of its normal categorization.
The applicant then, if successful, becomes a prohibited weapon holder with much more stringent laws to observe.
How is putting a person in a stricter category weakening the law?
The Commissioner of Police is the authority under whom the licence is issued, and few Silencer licences have been issued.
http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/online_services/firearms/permits/prohibited_weapon_permits/silencer
A law that is seen to be more rational and fairer is a strengthened law.
Of course, if you are more competent than the NSW Parliament and the Commissioner then go right ahead.
You are strangely silent about the strengthening examples that I've given.