After a stupid statement by the silly old fart Bob Katter stating that every school should have an armoury in which each child could store their rifles, I wrote a piece about him and the reason he was so keen to sell more guns to Australians. That reason was that his son-in-law owns a large supplier of arms, ammunition and accessories1. Ever the spiv.
Ever since the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) was signed into law after the Port Arthur massacre, there have been persistent efforts to undermine, weaken and circumvent its provisions by various groups, including the gun lobby and, in some cases, state and territory governments. For instance, audits and reports by gun control advocates and academics have found that no jurisdiction in Australia fully complies with the original NFA standards2. Examples of this include New South Wales allowing wider use of prohibited firearms than other jurisdictions and loosening the 28-day cooling-off period for a second gun purchase2. Similarly, NSW, Victoria, and the Northern Territory, do not consistently require a “genuine need” for certain license categories2.
The gun lobby is active in Australia and has mobilised to influence policy, focusing on sympathetic politicians and pushing against the limits of the NFA. They have won some legislative battles as the number of legal guns in Australia has almost doubled since the NFA was introduced3. The gun lobby also uses the old US National Rifle Association (NRA) chestnuts, that any control of legal gun ownership penalises law-abiding citizens, that the focus should be on illegal gun ownership, and that it should be a right to own firearms4.
Even more disturbing is that a key part of the original NFA, a fully integrated National Firearms Register (NFR), still has not been completed nearly three decades later, a point of significant concern for gun safety advocates as inconsistent state systems hamper information sharing. In 2023, National Cabinet finally decided to implement it. It is expected to be completed by the middle of 20285.
The most recent attempt at weakening gun laws is by the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party (SFF) which is actively trying to get the NSW government to relax certain aspects of gun laws through proposed legislation, primarily the Game and Feral Animal Legislation Amendment (Conservation Hunting) Bill 20256. Advocacy groups and other political parties argue this bill, while presented as a conservation measure, is a “Trojan horse” for the gun lobby designed to undermine the state’s existing gun control framework7.
The specific measures the SFF Party is advocating for include:
- Enshrining a “right to hunt” in NSW law, which critics say contradicts the current legal principle that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right.
- Establishing a new “Conservation Hunting Authority” that would be controlled by hunting organisations and the gun lobby, effectively reviving the previous Game Council which was disbanded due to governance failures.
- Legalising certain prohibited accessories such as silencers and expanding access to night-vision equipment for hunting.
- Opening more public lands, including Crown and forestry land, to recreational shooting and hunting.
- Introducing legislation for family and home protection as a genuine reason to own a firearm, and removing the recording of ammunition sales7.
The current Minns Labor government has faced significant pressure over perceived deals with the SFF Party to secure support for the legislation. Premier Chris Minns has publicly stated that he will not support the weakening of NSW’s gun laws and reportedly deleted the specific “right to hunt” clause from the bill in September 2025 following public backlash8. The bill recently failed to pass through parliament in late 2025, representing a temporary win for groups advocating for strong gun laws.
The Bondi beach atrocity has changed all this collusion to weaken gun laws. The ‘penalising law-abiding gun owners’ has been shown to be bullshit, because the guns used in the mass murder were legally owned. In fact, the older gunman had six legally owned guns9, and was a member of a gun club10.
New South Wales premier, Chris Minns has said that under the proposed post Bondi tightening of gun laws, recreational licence holders will be able to possess a maximum of four firearms, and owners will need to have their licence reviewed every two years. He also said: “There are other elements of the gun bill that will take a bit of time, but we have to set up and fund the buyback registry, and I’m aiming to do it as soon as possible. But it’s going to take a bit of time”11.
It goes without saying that the SFF Party are ropable that their lovely little plan in cahoots with the NSW Labor government to weaken gun laws has been torpedoed by the very people, law-abiding gun owners, they say are penalised by tighter gun controls. However, that didn’t stop the SSF trying to blame radicalisation and the inability of the ‘authorities’ to pick this up12.
Although firearm deaths had been declining in Australia, after the implementation of the NFA, the rate of decline doubled. In addition, in the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the first 10 years afterwards. Furthermore, total homicide rates have also declined. This indicates that removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides13.
Will Minns, Albanese and the other premiers and chief ministers have the guts to follow this through, or will they succumb to the whining of the gun nuts and the Murdoch media once the raw horror of this massacre has subsided? That is the question.
The constant problem with legislation like the NFA, is the constant white-anting, lobbying, attempts at subversion which, coupled with the gutlessness of politicians, allows such legislation to be weakened over time, such that atrocities like that at Bondi eventually become more likely to happen.
Sources
- https://blotreport.com/2023/05/22/we-have-our-own-gun-nuts/
- https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/05/gun-control-audit-finds-states-failed-to-fully-comply-with-1996-agreement
- https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/aug/25/australias-gun-lobby-says-its-winning-the-fight-against-firearm-control-as-numbers-surge
- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-24/nsw-parliament-passes-gun-reforms-after-bondi-beach-attack/106176054
- https://federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/agreements/national-firearms-register
- https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bills/Pages/bill-details.aspx?pk=18752
- https://biodiversitycouncil.org.au/news/the-nsw-government-s-proposed-conservation-hunting-bill-risks-harming-wildlife-and-public-safety
- https://greens.org.au/nsw/news/media-release/minns-drops-right-hunt-clause-labors-gun-lobby-bill-must-be-stopped
- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-16/bondi-shooter-legally-had-many-guns-australian-laws-explained/106145624
- https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/dec/22/its-understandable-the-minns-government-wants-to-take-action-but-taking-a-pause-might-be-wiser
- https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-24/bondi-massacre-nsw-premier-chris-minns-reforms-will-continue/106176748
- https://www.shootersfishersandfarmers.org.au/fix_your_faults
- https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365
I doubt stupidity expalins such attitudes. More likely egomaniacal (“my wants are sovereign, to hell with society’s needs”), ethically bankrupt and socially irresponsible views are at play. I suspect the number of firearm owners who actually NEED guns for practical purposes (mostly farmers and professional shooters) is far smaller than those who need them to sate their need for power and blood lust. There needs to be an in-depth psych test for firearm ownership and anyone who gets satisfaction from killing animals, whether feral or otherwise, should have their cards permanently marked.
The usual delusion on “rights”. Everything is a privilege, with responsibilities, that those have not been fulfilled erodes the privilege, with whingeing following. It takes both the gun, and the nut pulling the trigger, so a matter of doing as much as possible to keep them apart. Since it is not possible to adequately identify the nuts, limiting the guns is effective, if unpopular in some quarters.
Farmers, and professional shooters dealing with vermin and the like, a suitable measure is a very secure gun locker in vehicles, but also consider requiring two people, with distinct separate keys, for access. Then can have the guns available at real need, if a bit inconvenient. A farmer out alone, having to put down a beast, has some valid points, but to be balanced with security for the rest of us. There was an Inspector murdered by a farmer who felt unduly targeted, but also found to have done the wrong thing on land clearing, from memory.
I know rural people with a small gun for snakes. I can understand, but there can be better ways of coping, partially clothing, partially time of access to places, also an awareness of what is around them. The snakes do serve us in other ways, they can provide a measure of control on rodents, much as other predators do as well. Rodent poisons also kill predators, extending the plague conditions. I also know some who have problems with birds on crops, and the netting is expensive, and not so durable, and other issues, but either shooting or scaring also have issues.
There can be legitimate needs for a larger number of guns, but the gun owners need to consider being seen to reduce risks, make it possible to have immediate access to limited guns at the one time, with a suitable delay between putting one set away, and accessing the next set. This addresses the issues with competitive shooting participants who need a variety of guns for the different disciplines within the “sport” of target shooting.
Another issue would be to put some form of liability on the gun clubs that they have to be a member of, the Bondi father was a club member, and legal gun ownership, for most. Better initial vetting, and adequate reviews, sometimes as frequent as every six months, maybe less in some cases, and better watching for extremism, and something stirring up an otherwise peaceable individual.
I do agree with Jon on an in depth assessment for firearm ownership, but reviewed at reasonable intervals, as defined by looking after the community, it would be part of the price of gun ownership.
Maybe also some form of preliminary license, to handle, and fire, a gun, in the company of a suitable “trainer” who is also watching to assess whether they can move to full ownership.