Weapons Legislation Sanity---NSW Australia

A. G. Maisey · 7th August 2008, 05:08 AM

Some time ago the NSW Government, in pursuance of the requirements of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 and attendant Regulations, commenced a review of this legislation.
I am aware that many of the people who will read this present post were concerned at the possibility that as a result of this Review, and following certain specific requests of the then Minister for Police, swords would become Prohibited Weapons in the state of NSW. Many of these concerned persons wrote to the Minister for Police and put forth their opposition to the scheduling of swords as Prohibited Weapons, many provided rational argument as to why swords could not, and should not, be so scheduled. I am certain that in the near future those people who wrote to the Minister for Police will receive copies of the report of the Review that I have today received.

In the section of the Review that specifically addresses swords, the closing paragaraph reads:-

"---
The Review considered that although the requirement for public safety is paramount,data showing the use of swords in the commission of crimes does not warrant a heavy handed regulatory approach.Furthermore, due to the prevalence of legitimately used or possessed swords in the community, a regulatory system would prove onerous for both the community and the NSW Police, and could present significant definitional difficulties. The review recommends, therefore,that swords not be included in the Schedule of Prohibited Weapons at this time."

It should be noted that the arguments used against prohibition in the Review are precisely the arguments which were supplied in many of the correctly written and logically presented objections which were lodged prior to the Review being undertaken.

It should also be noted that this Review recommends the actions to be undertaken by the Minister, it is assumed that a determined Minister can always reject such recommendations for reasons of his own.

However, as at this moment, in the state of NSW, Australia, logic and reason have come to the surface and the Review of the Weapons Prohibition Act has resulted in a suite of recommendations that address some of the material risks in our society, and leave untouched the immaterial risk of possession of a sword.

I think that this demonstrates that if a sufficient number of people present a strong argument against certain action being taken by legislators, and if the facts support that argument, the entrenched system will deliver a favourable result.

I imagine that eventually the Report of the Review will appear online, but at the moment I cannot find it there, if and when it does appear I will post a link to it here.

Jim McDougall · 7th August 2008, 05:28 AM

Yay!!!

For once sound thinking has prevailed!!!!
This has restored my confidence in the voice of the public at large, thank you so much for posting this Alan.
Could you either mail or PM a copy of the address we sent the letters to. I would really like to hear from them, but I have since changed address so possibly I could reconfirm.

I would really like to thank you, as I'm sure many others would as well, for your very proactive efforts in this matter, which I suspect were instrumental in this very commendable outcome.

All best regards,
Jim

Jason Anstey · 7th August 2008, 05:52 AM

well done Alan!!!

It is a shame that your advice which mirrors Stephen Hand's approach was not taken by some of the people on other forums that deal with swords, regarding the legislation in the UK.

Cheers mate

Jason

Bill M · 7th August 2008, 06:16 AM

Great News, Alan!

"onerous for both the community and the NSW Police"

A. G. Maisey · 7th August 2008, 07:52 AM

Yes Jim, I was responsible for alerting a few people to this matter, but there were many, many more people involved in submissions than I would have alerted.

The published address of the Ministry for Police is:-

Postal Address:
PO BOX A66, SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1235

kahnjar1 · 7th August 2008, 08:37 AM

Hi Alan and thanks for posting this information. Hopefully other Australian States will look at this sensible approach and follow suit?
As has been previously stated here, the New Zealand approach to arms control in general has been sensible all along, but not however without vigorous lobbying from interested groups.
WELL DONE NSW LEADING THE WAY, AND WELL DONE BY ALL THOSE INVOLVED!

Regards Stuart

Royston · 7th August 2008, 09:00 AM

Alan

Congratulations.

Er, Any chance of you coming over to the UK to sort our lot out ?

As you are probably aware, common sense has now been re-defined as " Rare Sense" over here.

Regards
Royston

A. G. Maisey · 7th August 2008, 10:01 AM

Royston, just to clarify:- this was not a matter of me sorting anybody out.

My only involvement was to alert a small number of people to the fact that a review was to take place, and that our Minister for Police was very concerned about the seeming frequency of the use of swords in crimes.

I myself lodged a lengthy and comprehensive argument against the advisability of scheduling swords, and I am aware that many other individuals and organisations did likewise.

The people who conducted the review of the legislation were thoroughly professional public servants, who called upon statistical evidence, professional opinion, and analysis to gain a balanced picture of exactly what the situation was in respect of sword use in crime, and the position of the sword in the community.

When everything was out on the table, they found that the situation was not nearly so dire as the Minister had been led to believe, probably by flamboyant media reports.

The matter was handled coolly and logically, and the end result was a triumph for dispassionate professionalism.

However, the point should be made, that if the large number of people who lodged arguments against the scheduling of swords had not done so, or had adopted the tactic of abuse, rather than reasoned argument, the result of the review may have been very different.

Those whom we elect to office, and the people who work for them, need to be made aware that some of us care very deeply about some issues.

Mark · 7th August 2008, 04:00 PM

This is very reassuring. Congratulations to everyone involved. It is too often that a very vocal minority sets the political agenda on some extreme or downright silly course. It is nice to see a vocal minority set it straight for a change (minority of citizens, that is, not a minority of sword owners - there may not be many of us, but we are generably reasonable people).

David · 7th August 2008, 08:50 PM

It's reassuring to hear that our actions actually did yield some result here. Good to know that the authorities are sometimes open to listening to common sense.

Rick · 8th August 2008, 01:34 AM

Let's count the chickens after they've hatched , eh ?

Atlantia · 8th August 2008, 01:43 AM

It seems to be a victory for common sense.
Unlike the recent legistlation in the UK which based on (allegedly) around 5 fatalities per year from swords (amonst the many hundreds of murders committed with hand knives) banned anything considered a 'Samurai' type sword! Quite how our government feels this decision will better protect the public when by far the largest number of fatalities from egded weapons are victims of 'kitchen' knives is anyones guess.
I'm glad to see the Oz gov' has a little more common sense.

A. G. Maisey · 8th August 2008, 01:54 AM

Yes Rick, spot on.

It seems I do not write English very clearly, however, I did include this qualifier in my original post:-

"---It should also be noted that this Review recommends the actions to be undertaken by the Minister, it is assumed that a determined Minister can always reject such recommendations for reasons of his own.---"

I have posted on the result of a legislative review carried out by public servants employed by the Ministry for Police.

The Report of this Review is submitted to the Minister, it is then tabled in Parliament.

Somewhere further down the track the amendments are made to the legislation.

We are at the gate, and a key has been provided, but that gate has not yet been unlocked.

7th August 2008, 05:08 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,896	Weapons Legislation Sanity---NSW Australia Some time ago the NSW Government, in pursuance of the requirements of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 and attendant Regulations, commenced a review of this legislation. I am aware that many of the people who will read this present post were concerned at the possibility that as a result of this Review, and following certain specific requests of the then Minister for Police, swords would become Prohibited Weapons in the state of NSW. Many of these concerned persons wrote to the Minister for Police and put forth their opposition to the scheduling of swords as Prohibited Weapons, many provided rational argument as to why swords could not, and should not, be so scheduled. I am certain that in the near future those people who wrote to the Minister for Police will receive copies of the report of the Review that I have today received. In the section of the Review that specifically addresses swords, the closing paragaraph reads:- "--- The Review considered that although the requirement for public safety is paramount,data showing the use of swords in the commission of crimes does not warrant a heavy handed regulatory approach.Furthermore, due to the prevalence of legitimately used or possessed swords in the community, a regulatory system would prove onerous for both the community and the NSW Police, and could present significant definitional difficulties. The review recommends, therefore,that swords not be included in the Schedule of Prohibited Weapons at this time." It should be noted that the arguments used against prohibition in the Review are precisely the arguments which were supplied in many of the correctly written and logically presented objections which were lodged prior to the Review being undertaken. It should also be noted that this Review recommends the actions to be undertaken by the Minister, it is assumed that a determined Minister can always reject such recommendations for reasons of his own. However, as at this moment, in the state of NSW, Australia, logic and reason have come to the surface and the Review of the Weapons Prohibition Act has resulted in a suite of recommendations that address some of the material risks in our society, and leave untouched the immaterial risk of possession of a sword. I think that this demonstrates that if a sufficient number of people present a strong argument against certain action being taken by legislators, and if the facts support that argument, the entrenched system will deliver a favourable result. I imagine that eventually the Report of the Review will appear online, but at the moment I cannot find it there, if and when it does appear I will post a link to it here.

7th August 2008, 08:37 AM	#6
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,741	Great News!! Hi Alan and thanks for posting this information. Hopefully other Australian States will look at this sensible approach and follow suit? As has been previously stated here, the New Zealand approach to arms control in general has been sensible all along, but not however without vigorous lobbying from interested groups. WELL DONE NSW LEADING THE WAY, AND WELL DONE BY ALL THOSE INVOLVED! Regards Stuart

7th August 2008, 09:00 AM	#7
Royston Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Poole England Posts: 443	Well Done Alan Congratulations. Er, Any chance of you coming over to the UK to sort our lot out ? As you are probably aware, common sense has now been re-defined as " Rare Sense" over here. Regards Royston

7th August 2008, 05:28 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,951	Yay!!! For once sound thinking has prevailed!!!! This has restored my confidence in the voice of the public at large, thank you so much for posting this Alan. Could you either mail or PM a copy of the address we sent the letters to. I would really like to hear from them, but I have since changed address so possibly I could reconfirm. I would really like to thank you, as I'm sure many others would as well, for your very proactive efforts in this matter, which I suspect were instrumental in this very commendable outcome. All best regards, Jim

7th August 2008, 05:52 AM	#3
Jason Anstey Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 102	well done Alan!!! It is a shame that your advice which mirrors Stephen Hand's approach was not taken by some of the people on other forums that deal with swords, regarding the legislation in the UK. Cheers mate Jason

7th August 2008, 06:16 AM	#4
Bill M Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Georgia Posts: 1,599	Great News, Alan! "onerous for both the community and the NSW Police"

7th August 2008, 07:52 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,896	Yes Jim, I was responsible for alerting a few people to this matter, but there were many, many more people involved in submissions than I would have alerted. The published address of the Ministry for Police is:- Postal Address: PO BOX A66, SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1235

7th August 2008, 10:01 AM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,896	Royston, just to clarify:- this was not a matter of me sorting anybody out. My only involvement was to alert a small number of people to the fact that a review was to take place, and that our Minister for Police was very concerned about the seeming frequency of the use of swords in crimes. I myself lodged a lengthy and comprehensive argument against the advisability of scheduling swords, and I am aware that many other individuals and organisations did likewise. The people who conducted the review of the legislation were thoroughly professional public servants, who called upon statistical evidence, professional opinion, and analysis to gain a balanced picture of exactly what the situation was in respect of sword use in crime, and the position of the sword in the community. When everything was out on the table, they found that the situation was not nearly so dire as the Minister had been led to believe, probably by flamboyant media reports. The matter was handled coolly and logically, and the end result was a triumph for dispassionate professionalism. However, the point should be made, that if the large number of people who lodged arguments against the scheduling of swords had not done so, or had adopted the tactic of abuse, rather than reasoned argument, the result of the review may have been very different. Those whom we elect to office, and the people who work for them, need to be made aware that some of us care very deeply about some issues.

7th August 2008, 04:00 PM	#9
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	This is very reassuring. Congratulations to everyone involved. It is too often that a very vocal minority sets the political agenda on some extreme or downright silly course. It is nice to see a vocal minority set it straight for a change (minority of citizens, that is, not a minority of sword owners - there may not be many of us, but we are generably reasonable people).

7th August 2008, 08:50 PM	#10
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,127	It's reassuring to hear that our actions actually did yield some result here. Good to know that the authorities are sometimes open to listening to common sense.

8th August 2008, 01:34 AM	#11
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,293	Let's count the chickens after they've hatched , eh ?

8th August 2008, 01:43 AM	#12
Atlantia Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Sharp end Posts: 2,928	It seems to be a victory for common sense. Unlike the recent legistlation in the UK which based on (allegedly) around 5 fatalities per year from swords (amonst the many hundreds of murders committed with hand knives) banned anything considered a 'Samurai' type sword! Quite how our government feels this decision will better protect the public when by far the largest number of fatalities from egded weapons are victims of 'kitchen' knives is anyones guess. I'm glad to see the Oz gov' has a little more common sense.

8th August 2008, 01:54 AM	#13
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,896	Yes Rick, spot on. It seems I do not write English very clearly, however, I did include this qualifier in my original post:- "---It should also be noted that this Review recommends the actions to be undertaken by the Minister, it is assumed that a determined Minister can always reject such recommendations for reasons of his own.---" I have posted on the result of a legislative review carried out by public servants employed by the Ministry for Police. The Report of this Review is submitted to the Minister, it is then tabled in Parliament. Somewhere further down the track the amendments are made to the legislation. We are at the gate, and a key has been provided, but that gate has not yet been unlocked.