ACT NOW ON GUN LAWS!

Watch our video below about our thoughts and what you can do. We also include our letter to MP below that you can use or edit yourself, or edit using ChatGTP or GROK. Shooters, Fishers, Farmers Party has created an easy-to-use link that you can use to find and email or call your local MP, no matter what party they are with. You should ACT on this NOW!! Not tomorrow, not next week, it will be too late. The States are meeting next week to rush through laws, and once they are committed, it’s unlikely changes will occur unless the government changes and even then, if it’s the wrong party or even a soft coalition party, nothing will change.

SHOOTERS, FISHERS, FARMERS EMAIL MP LINK
https://www.shootersfishersandfarmers.org.au/fix_your_faults

Comprehensive Submission to [MP Name] MP

Re: Proposed Firearms Law Changes, Due Process, and Evidence-Based Public Safety

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Electorate]
[Date]

[MP Name] MP
[Office Address]

Dear [MP Name],

I am writing as a law‑abiding Australian constituent, firearms licence holder, and participant in lawful hunting, sport shooting, and pest‑management activities.

This correspondence is intended not only to express concern about proposed firearms law changes, but also to share information, context, and on‑the‑ground realities that may not be fully visible in public debate or high‑level briefings.

The issues surrounding firearms regulation, hunting, and public safety are complex. They intersect with intelligence and enforcement capability, environmental management, regional economies, democratic participation, and long‑established lawful activities. My intention is to contribute constructively to that discussion by outlining evidence, practical consequences, and systemic considerations that warrant careful attention before irreversible decisions are made.

I want to be clear at the outset that I unequivocally condemn terrorism, antisemitism, and violent extremism in all forms. Public safety must always be the priority. However, effective policy requires accurate understanding of how current laws operate, where recent failures have occurred, and what measures genuinely improve safety versus those that merely appear to do so.

The sections below address:

• Why the Bondi attack reflects enforcement and intelligence failures rather than lawful firearms ownership
• The historical, environmental, economic, and democratic importance of hunting
• Why arbitrary firearm caps do not improve public safety
• How firearms licensing already operates in NSW, Queensland, and Victoria
• The environmental consequences of undermining lawful pest control
• The rule‑of‑law implications of removing appeal rights

My hope is that this submission is received in the spirit intended: as a good‑faith, evidence‑based contribution to an issue of national importance, rather than as opposition for its own sake.

1. The Bondi attack was a terrorism and enforcement failure — not a hunting or firearms ownership failure

The Bondi attack was an act of terrorism. It was not caused by hunting culture, rural firearm ownership, sport shooting, or pest control activities.

The necessary and unavoidable question is this: how did a person with known security concerns and terror associations obtain access to firearms at all?

Publicly available information already points to multiple failure points that sit squarely within government and agency responsibility, not with lawful firearms owners.

Known and apparent failure points

Based on information already in the public domain, the Bondi attack highlights serious deficiencies in:

• Intelligence identification and escalation — where individuals with known extremist views, terror associations, or prior intelligence interest were not escalated to an appropriate risk category.
• Information‑sharing between agencies — including gaps between federal intelligence bodies, state police, and licensing authorities.
• Background check integration — where relevant intelligence, behavioural indicators, or security concerns did not translate into licensing refusal, suspension, or enhanced monitoring.
• Ongoing suitability assessment — firearms licensing relies heavily on static checks at point of application, rather than continuous, intelligence‑informed risk assessment.
• Enforcement prioritisation — resources appear to have been misdirected toward compliant licence holders rather than individuals presenting genuine risk indicators.

These are systemic enforcement and governance failures. They cannot be corrected by restricting lawful hunting, imposing arbitrary firearm caps, or removing appeal rights.

Why proposed reforms miss the actual risk

None of the measures currently being discussed — including removing hunting as a genuine reason, limiting firearm numbers, or capping firearms per household or per individual — address the failures outlined above.

Before any new restrictions are imposed, Parliament must honestly ask:

Would the proposed changes have prevented what occurred at Bondi?

It is important not to leave this question abstract or theoretical. History demonstrates clearly that where individuals are intent on committing acts of violence or terrorism, the removal of one method does not remove intent — it merely changes the method.

Australia itself provides relevant context. Bondi Junction has previously experienced serious knife attacks in public spaces. Internationally and domestically, terrorist attacks have been carried out using:

• Knives in crowded public areas
• Vehicles deliberately driven into crowds
• Improvised explosive devices
• Illegally obtained weapons

If firearms had been entirely unavailable in this instance, there is no credible basis to assume the outcome would have been prevented rather than manifesting through an alternative means, as has occurred repeatedly in comparable attacks.

There is therefore no evidence that limits on firearm numbers, removal of hunting as a genuine reason, or stripping appeal rights would have altered the outcome. Such measures risk focusing on the tool rather than addressing the root causes of radicalisation, intelligence failure, and enforcement breakdowns.

If the objective is public safety, then reform must focus on:

• Better intelligence sharing and escalation
• Real‑time suitability monitoring
• Targeted enforcement against high‑risk individuals
• restricting licensing to Australian Citizens only

Punishing compliant Australians for failures elsewhere in government does not improve safety — it obscures the real problem and delays meaningful reform.nt does not improve safety — it obscures the real problem and delays meaningful reform.

2. Hunting is a legitimate, ancient, and ongoing human activity — with clear environmental and economic benefits

Hunting is not a modern invention. Humans have hunted for food, survival, and land stewardship for hundreds of thousands of years. This is not a cultural fringe activity — it is a foundational human behaviour tied to food security, land management, and ecological balance.

In Australia today, hunting is:

• A legitimate means of sourcing food
• Essential for pest and feral animal control
• A cornerstone of rural and regional life
• A critical environmental management tool
• A significant contributor to regional and rural economies

The suggestion that hunting should cease to be a genuine reason for firearm ownership is not only unreasonable — it represents a profound disconnect from biology, history, rural reality, and environmental science.

Environmental reality: feral animals do not manage themselves

Feral animals — particularly feral pigs — are widely recognised by governments and environmental agencies as among Australia’s most destructive invasive species. They cause extensive damage to waterways and wetlands, predate native wildlife, spread disease, destroy crops and pasture, and undermine biosecurity efforts. When control pressure is reduced, populations rebound rapidly and damage escalates exponentially.

National economic and pest‑control data (2024)

Source: Australian Pig Doggers & Hunters Association (APDHA)
Period: 1 January – 31 December 2024

• Estimated feral pigs removed nationally: 5,387,412
• Direct economic input by hunters: $326,882,615
• Average cost borne by hunters: $60.67 per pig
• Average pigs removed per hunter per month: 15.61

This represents voluntary, privately funded pest control carried out at no cost to government, while injecting over $326 million directly into regional and rural economies through fuel, accommodation, equipment, food, and local services.

Queensland and New South Wales account for a substantial proportion of this effort due to their large feral pig populations and extensive private landholdings where government‑only control programs are neither practical nor affordable.

If lawful hunting is restricted or removed, governments face two unavoidable outcomes:

• Either accept rapidly escalating feral animal populations with severe environmental and agricultural damage, or
• Attempt to replace this work through publicly funded programs at vastly greater cost

There is currently no credible plan explaining how the removal of over 5.3 million feral pigs per year would be replaced operationally or financially.

In this context, hunting is not a recreational luxury — it is an essential environmental service and an economic asset. Treating it as illegitimate would impose real, measurable costs on the environment, agriculture, and taxpayers.

Democratic and electoral impact: the scale of voter disenfranchisement

It is also critical to recognise the democratic and electoral consequences of proposals that target lawful firearms ownership and hunting.

Firearms licence holders are not a fringe or marginal group. Based on publicly available licensing data, Australia has close to one million licensed firearms holders nationally.

Conservatively estimated breakdowns are:

• New South Wales: approximately 240,000–260,000 licensed firearms holders
• Queensland: approximately 220,000–230,000 licensed firearms holders
• Nationally: approximately 900,000–1,000,000 licensed firearms holders

These are individual voters — each independently licensed, vetted, and regulated.

However, the political impact extends well beyond licence holders themselves. Firearms owners are overwhelmingly embedded in families, rural communities, sporting clubs, and agricultural networks. Many Australians who do not personally hold a firearms licence nonetheless support lawful hunting, pest control, and sport shooting due to family involvement, land access, food sourcing, or environmental necessity.

Using a conservative multiplier of two additional supporters per licence holder (partners, adult family members, landholders, or community members), the number of voters who may feel directly or indirectly targeted by these reforms plausibly extends to:

• NSW: in excess of 700,000–750,000 voters
• Queensland: in excess of 650,000–700,000 voters
• Nationally: 2–3 million Australians

These are not abstract numbers. They represent real constituents — many in regional and outer‑metropolitan electorates — who view lawful hunting and firearms ownership as legitimate, necessary, and culturally embedded activities.

Policies that remove hunting as a genuine reason, impose arbitrary firearm caps, or strip appeal rights risk alienating a substantial and geographically concentrated voting base without delivering demonstrable public safety benefits.

3. Firearm number limits do not correlate with public safety

There is no credible evidence that the number of firearms owned by a licensed individual correlates with criminal behaviour, violent intent, or public safety risk.

Firearm ownership in Australia is purpose-specific, and different lawful activities require different firearms. This applies to hunting, sport shooting, and collecting alike.

Hunting and pest control

Hunters and landholders legitimately require different firearms for different purposes, including:

• Air rifles and rimfire firearms for small pests such as rats, rabbits, and pigeons
• Medium calibres for foxes and general vermin control
• Larger calibres for feral pigs, deer, and other large invasive species

One firearm cannot safely or humanely perform all roles.

Target and sport shooting

Target and sport shooters require multiple firearms because different disciplines mandate:

• Specific calibres
• Specific action types
• Different barrel lengths, weights, and configurations

Competitive shooting disciplines do not allow “one-size-fits-all” firearms. Athletes often own multiple firearms to compete lawfully and safely across disciplines, all under strict licensing, storage, and club oversight.

Firearm collectors

Licensed collectors are subject to:

• Additional vetting
• More stringent storage requirements
• Restrictions on use

Collectors preserve historically significant firearms, many of which are non-operational or rarely fired, and pose no public safety risk.

The flaw in numerical caps

Arbitrary firearm caps are fundamentally flawed and unsupported by evidence.

Most importantly, a person can only use one firearm at a time. Firearms are not cumulative in their effect. Owning multiple firearms does not increase a person’s capacity for harm, because only a single firearm can be operated by an individual at any given moment. The presence of additional, securely stored firearms has no bearing on immediate public safety.

Numerical caps therefore do not address risk; they merely limit lawful capability.

Such caps also ignore the reality that firearm ownership in Australia is:

• Individually licensed, not household-based
• Subject to individual background checks, suitability assessments, and ongoing monitoring
• Governed by strict, audited storage and security requirements

A household limit is particularly irrational where multiple licensed adults live together, each independently vetted, trained, and approved by police. Treating a household as a single risk unit disregards how the law already operates and collapses individual accountability into an arbitrary number.

Proposals to impose single‑digit limits on firearms ownership are especially outrageous given the lawful purposes already recognised under existing legislation. Such limits would:

• Prevent hunters, sport shooters, and collectors from lawfully participating in their activities
• Force individuals to surrender legally owned property without safety justification
• Create administrative chaos without measurable public benefit

Public safety is determined by behaviour, intelligence, enforcement, and compliance — not by counting inanimate objects secured in approved safes.

Counting locked tools does not reduce crime. Identifying risk and enforcing the law does.

4. Law-abiding firearms owners are already heavily regulated

Australia already operates one of the most restrictive civilian firearms frameworks in the democratic world. Law-abiding licence holders are subject to constant scrutiny, while licences are increasingly revoked on administrative or subjective grounds.

At the same time, individuals with genuine risk profiles have slipped through enforcement gaps. This imbalance erodes trust and does not improve safety.

5. What firearms law ACTUALLY requires in NSW, Queensland, and Victoria

Public commentary has suggested firearms are easy to obtain or poorly regulated. This is false.

Across NSW, QLD, and VIC, a lawful firearm owner must already:

Licensing

• Provide verified identity and residency
• Pass national police criminal history checks
• Be assessed for violence, domestic violence, AVOs, and suitability
• Demonstrate a recognised genuine reason

Licensing is discretionary and may be refused without criminal conviction.

Safety training

• Completion of an accredited firearms safety course
• Practical and theoretical assessment

Waiting periods

• Minimum 28-day waiting period for first-time applicants
• Additional scrutiny during assessment

Permit to Acquire (PTA)

• Every firearm requires a separate PTA
• Justification must match calibre and purpose
• Cooling-off periods apply
• Applications may be refused without explanation

Storage and compliance

• Approved safes bolted to structure
• Ammunition storage requirements
• Police inspections (announced or unannounced)
• Severe penalties for technical breaches

Ongoing monitoring

• Licences may be suspended or cancelled without conviction
• Firearms may be seized immediately
• Appeals are difficult and slow

Proposals to remove NCAT review in NSW would further strip procedural fairness and oversight.

6. NSW Premier public statements contain factual inaccuracies and risk misleading Parliament and the public

Recent public statements by the NSW Premier regarding firearms ownership and proposed reforms contain factual inaccuracies and omissions that materially misrepresent how firearms law operates in Australia.

In particular, references have been made to extreme or implausible examples of civilian firearms ownership, including so‑called “belt‑fed shotguns”.

To be clear:

• There are no belt‑fed shotguns legally available to civilians in Australia
• Belt‑fed firearms are military‑style weapons that are prohibited outright
• Such firearms cannot be licensed, imported, manufactured, or possessed by civilians under any state or federal framework

Referencing prohibited or imaginary weapons in the context of lawful civilian ownership creates unnecessary fear and undermines informed public debate. It suggests either a fundamental misunderstanding of existing law or an attempt to justify reform using scenarios that simply do not exist.

More broadly, public commentary from senior leaders has failed to acknowledge the already extensive licensing, training, monitoring, storage, and enforcement regime that applies to lawful firearm owners. When inaccurate claims are made from the highest offices, they risk misleading Parliament, the media, and the broader public, and they weaken confidence that proposed reforms are being developed on an evidence‑based footing.

Major legislative change should not be driven by rhetoric or worst‑case hypotheticals. It must be grounded in factual accuracy, proportionality, and a clear understanding of the system already in place.

7. Removal of NCAT appeal rights is a serious rule-of-law concern

The proposal to remove or restrict NCAT review for firearms licence cancellations is deeply troubling.

Removing appeal rights would mean:

• Police decisions with no independent oversight
• Loss of property and livelihood without due process
• No proportionality or accountability

This is not a safety measure. It is the removal of procedural fairness.

8. Environmental consequences cannot be ignored

The environmental consequences of restricting or effectively criminalising lawful hunting would be severe, predictable, and largely irreversible.

Australia’s most damaging invasive species — feral pigs, foxes, feral cats, and rabbits — are already recognised by state and federal governments as major drivers of biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation, and species extinction. These animals do not self-regulate, and their populations expand rapidly when consistent control pressure is removed.

Feral pigs

Feral pigs cause widespread destruction of:

• Wetlands, riverbanks, and riparian zones
• Turtle nesting sites and eggs (including freshwater and coastal turtle species)
• Native ground-nesting birds and small mammals
• Cropping land and pasture

They uproot vegetation, destroy native flora, spread disease, and create erosion pathways that permanently damage waterways. Pig populations can double in as little as 12 months under favourable conditions.

Foxes and feral cats

Foxes and feral cats are among the leading causes of native fauna decline and extinction in Australia. They are responsible for the decimation of:

• Small marsupials
• Ground-dwelling birds
• Reptiles
• Native rodents

Many threatened species exist only in fragmented or vulnerable populations. Ongoing predation pressure from foxes and cats pushes these species closer to extinction each year.

Rabbits

Rabbits cause extensive damage to:

• Native vegetation
• Regeneration of trees and shrubs
• Soil stability
• Agricultural productivity

Their grazing pressure prevents natural regeneration, contributing to desertification and long-term habitat loss for native fauna.

Why lawful hunting is essential

No government pest-control program has ever proven to be as effective, continuous, or cost-efficient as lawful, ongoing culling by hunters.

Government-led programs are:

• Periodic and reactive
• Expensive to operate
• Limited by funding cycles, staffing, and geography

By contrast, hunters provide:

• Constant, year-round population pressure
• Coverage across vast areas of private land inaccessible to government programs
• Control at zero cost to the taxpayer

If hunting is made unlawful or no longer recognised as a genuine reason for firearm ownership, the inevitable result will be:

• Rapid increases in feral animal populations
• Accelerated decline and potential extinction of native species
• Greater environmental damage to waterways, forests, and grasslands
• Substantially higher costs shifted onto taxpayers

In effect, policies that undermine lawful hunting actively support the conditions that lead to native species decline and extinction, while removing the most effective, proven, and economical control mechanism currently available.

Environmental protection requires sustained, practical action — not symbolic legislation that ignores ecological reality.

Final questions for Parliament

Before supporting any of these proposals, I respectfully ask Parliament to consider the following questions in full, and in light of the evidence and consequences outlined above:

1. Causation and effectiveness
   Would any of the proposed changes — including firearm caps, removal of hunting as a genuine reason, or the stripping of appeal rights — have actually prevented the Bondi terrorist attack, or do they fail to address the identified intelligence and enforcement breakdowns?History shows that individuals intent on causing harm will use whatever means are available to them — whether firearms (legal or illegal), knives, vehicles driven into crowds, or improvised weapons. Legislation cannot remove malicious intent; it can only alter the method by which harm is attempted. If reforms do not directly address intelligence failures, risk identification, and enforcement capability, they risk changing tactics rather than preventing violence.
2. Risk‑based policy versus symbolic action
   Are these reforms genuinely targeting high‑risk individuals and behaviours, or are they primarily symbolic measures that burden compliant citizens while leaving systemic enforcement failures unaddressed?
3. Rule of law and procedural fairness
   Is it appropriate in a democratic society to remove independent appeal mechanisms such as NCAT, allowing licences, property, and livelihoods to be cancelled without meaningful external review or proportionality?
4. Environmental responsibility
   If lawful hunting is restricted or made untenable, how does Parliament intend to prevent the accelerated decline and potential extinction of native species caused by unchecked feral pigs, foxes, feral cats, and rabbits?
5. Economic accountability
   Who will fund and operationally replace the removal of millions of invasive animals each year currently achieved at no cost to government, and what is the projected financial burden on taxpayers if this work is shifted to public programs?
6. Democratic impact
   Has Parliament properly considered the effect of these proposals on the millions of Australians — licence holders, families, rural communities, and supporters — who view lawful hunting and firearms ownership as legitimate, necessary, and culturally embedded activities?
7. Proportionality and precedent
   Are we prepared to set a precedent where lawful, highly regulated activities are progressively eliminated not because they are unsafe, but because they are politically convenient to restrict following unrelated acts of violence?

These are not rhetorical questions. They go to the heart of public safety, environmental stewardship, democratic accountability, and trust in government.

I urge you to approach this issue with evidence, restraint, and integrity, and to engage with rural communities, sport shooters, collectors, landholders, environmental managers, and lawful firearms owners before supporting irreversible changes.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]