The current version of the Weapons Act 1990 (Qld) (the Act) aims to summarise and detail the laws regarding carrying, possessing and selling weapons. The purpose of the act is to prevent misuse of the weapons and related purposes. The legislation intends to enforce safe weapon use and emphasis that possession of weapons is a danger to individual safety. In addition to this, the legislation aims to place strict controls on the storage of weapons to ensure greater safety. As this legislation has been in fruition for a long period of time the legislation has had numerous amendments as new knowledge and views begin to surface regarding weapons and their use(ref).
The act is divided into 8 parts which sets out the legislation in depth, as titled:
…show more content…
The part includes tht a person is only allowed to purchase a weapon if they are a licence holder, weapons cannot be disposed of, firearms must not be advertised, and firearms must be registered. If these laws are violated, then punishments will apply. This section is important as it means that those that have access to weapons are only allowed to use the weapon and that weapons cannot be exchanged to others. In effect, the government is aware of the number of weapons in Queensland and holds citizens responsible for keeping any weapons safe and out of the reach of those not authorised to handle …show more content…
This part is highly relevant to the purpose of the act as it concerns the laws which restrain people from dangerous conduct when owning and using weapons. Of this part an important section is 49 A, which provides that only when a person has a gun licence does it give them authority to use it, within the perimeters of regulation. Another important component to part is section 50 B, which provides that it is unlawful to supply a weapon to others, if this law is broken penalties apply. Through these legal principles, the use and procession of weapons is attached to responsibility as citizens must uphold the law in order to use and possess. By placing legal barriers around these topics, it enables for a safer environment as the law dictates that those who have been shown to be of inappropriate capacity to use and process weapon will not be granted access. As highlighted in the second reading speech of the weapons Bill 1990, where Mr. Mackenroth, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services presents that violent gun crimes and homicide involving weapons warranted concern, thereby restricting possession and use of weapons a safer environment will be provided as it will lessen access to weapons. This further makes the purpose of the act clear as it is established through the law and second reading speech that the intention was to ensure harm is minimised and that weapons will be used in a safe
Since Martin Bryant’s massacre on Port Arthur, the legal system in Australia is amended and reformed gun laws to create a more effective legislation. Gun-related deaths have since been drawn to more efficient attention in Australian psyche, whilst the issue of gun-laws on a global level still remains as a conspiracy in many countries. The massacre left the Australian nation in shock, with a heavily involved attitude on behalf of local and national police, and thousands devastated at the aftermath. The legislation of gun-laws and amendments continues to be controversial, with punishments including Bryant’s being one of popular debate, and the general ownership and use of guns causing conflict within the interrelationship of the legal system and society.
A growing number of publicized tragedies caused by gun violence have caused a great stir in the American community. Recently, President Barack Obama has made proposals to tighten the regulation of and the restrictions on the possession of weapons in America to lessen these tragedies. Should the legislative branch decide in favor of his proposals, all American citizens who do or wish to own the type of weapons in question or who use current loopholes in existing policy would be directly affected. His proposals, which are to “require background checks for all gun sales, strengthen the background check system for gun sales, pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons, limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets, give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime, end the freeze on gun violence research, make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates, [and] ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people,” have been cause for a large amount of recent debate (whitehouse.gov).
There has been considerable debate recently in Canada over the issue of gun control. The Canadian parliament enacted the Firearms Act to enforce gun control by requiring gun owners to register their firearms. Just recently, the government of Alberta lead in a charge, including five other provinces and numerous pro-gun groups, complaining that the law is unconstitutional and intrudes on provincial jurisdiction. They also claim that the act infringes on property and civil rights that are guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Parliament contends that the government of Canada is within its rights to protect public safety. Pro-gun control organizations, police chiefs and the City of Toronto also back the Firearms Act. The enacting of the Firearms Act by the government of Canada is legitimately constitutional and is within the jurisdiction of Parliament as it only seeks to protect the well being of Canadians. Furthermore, this legislation does not intrude on provincial jurisdiction because it is a representation of all Canadian’s rights.
He demonstrates when guns are found in every household, gun control can do little to restrict access to guns from potential criminals. (McMahan, 3) So, McMahan’s main premises comes into play, either everyone has guns, including criminals, or nobody has guns. “Gun advocates prefer for both rather than neither to have them” McMahan remarks, but ultimately that will just leave the country open to more violence and tragedies. “As more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, personal security becomes a matter of self help, and the unarmed have an incentive to get guns.” (McMahan, 2) Now everyone is armed, and everyone has the ability to kill anyone in an instant, making everyone less secure. Just as all the states would be safer if nobody were to possess the nuclear weapons, our country would be safer if guns were banned from private individuals and criminals.
Opposing sides have for years fought over the laws that govern firearms. For the purposes of this paper "Gun Control" is defined as policies enacted by the government that limit the legal rights of gun owners to own, carry, or use firearms, with the intent of reducing gun crimes such as murder, armed robbery, aggravated rape, and the like. So defined, gun control understandably brings favorable responses from some, and angry objections from others. The gun control debate is generally publicized because of the efforts of the Pro-Gun Lobby or the Anti-Gun Lobby.
Society’s concerns about protection from violent crimes involving firearms have encouraged Canadian Parliament to pass tougher gun control legislation. The Federal Government responded by passing Bill C-68 that created the Firearms Act, which came into effect in December of 1998. This is by far the strictest gun control law to date. Many Canadians objected to this legislation and wanted it repealed because they believe it is an unnecessary waste of tax dollars to further license and monitor law abiding gun owners. Firearm laws have become an extensive debate in society and also politics.
The controversy over assault rifles is one of the most problematic issues related to the contributions of gangs, drug traffickers, and most criminal activity. More often than not, criminals have access to the weapons of their choice more easily than it should be. Getting them from licensed dealers, black markets, and family members’ homes, the availability of these militia weapons has become to effortless to obtain. The rise of criminal activity is part of the reason more than one-third of high school students have easy access to a weapon or gun. “Four out of five guns brought to school are actually brought from their own homes” (Page par 2). This is one of the biggest problems when faced with where criminals get their guns. They either steal them from relative’s homes, ask to borrow them, or steal them from licensed sellers. There are a lot of ways people can get guns. People who should not be able to purchase a firearm are allowed to, and illegal transactions are also a huge issue with criminals getting their guns. For all these reasons that is why Government should require restricted gun ownership to protect society, prevent crime, and allow for recreational use.
The right to bear arms protects “The Individual” rights from owing a firearm. The modern federal government easily accepted the 2nd Amendment with a widespread agreement that power of the federal government to infringe the Amendment that gives people the right to bear arms. If the government should not have the power to abbreviate from the free right to exercise of religion, than the government should not have the power to abridge the 2nd Amendment right (Lund & Winkler, n.d.). Over the past century, many restriction were supported to prevent criminal from possessing firearms as the law also limits the law-abiding people who respect the law also known as “Honest
The Web. The Web. 5 June 2015. Flynn, Michael W. “Handgun Laws.” quickanddirtytips.com. 2008.
The author has made an insightful contribution to the grey areas of gun licensing that is part of a wider encompassing debate on gun control and violence. It is a well-researched piece that presents
Due to the alarmingly large number of public massacres, gun reform has yet again become a highly debated issue in America. In the past, laws were enacted that were meant to restrict ammunition and military classes of weapons from resale in the United States. Due to strong lobbying efforts of the National Rifle
Frates, Chris. “The Gun Debate Isn’t Over Yet.” National Journal (2013): Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Web. 31 Oct. 2013.
43 of 50 states do not require permits in order for individuals to purchase guns. However, statistics show that these states have higher rates of firearm assaults (Pappas). In addition, proper background checks are not conducted on those making the purchase (Teen Vogue). This is significant because perpetrators look for the easiest way to let out their aggression, and complete the task efficiently. With a majority of states providing such easy access to this weapon, the main method of attack can easily be established. If the American Government improves this single factor, it is guaranteed that there will be improvement. In fact, this adjustment has been proved successful in Australia. In the 18 years before the Port Arthur tragedy of 1996, there were 13 gun massacres that occurred (Datz). The Government recognized that there was a fault in the system, and so, a mandatory buyback of all semi-automatic long guns was ordered. Alongside, laws regarding purchase of firearms were modified to be more effective (Datz). In the 20 years since then, there have been zero mass shootings. However, this is an action the American Government is unable to perform, resulting in more frequent reoccurrences. In conclusion, mass murders are rising, and will continue to rise, because of insufficient implementation of gun safety
Every day some news related to gun violence are being heard all over the world. Shooting in driveway, public places, schools, homicide and suicide are some of different types of gun violence. Shooting on people and killing them is a big issue in the world and different comments are provided about that. One of the most important of them is about gun control laws. Stingl (2013) says “The term gun control as it is used in the United States refers to any action taken by the federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens.” According to this idea gun control laws should be stricter and people should not be able to have access to guns easily. However, there are many other people who believe this idea is not a good solution and never help. This essay will demonstrate for and against views about the topic. People who agree with this idea consider: firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence and gun control means crime control. Secondly, some research shows people with gun are more at risks of getting shot. Thirdly, guns can always be misused by their owners and finally, stricter law is the best and the faster way to control crime and make community safe. While opponents say first of all, guns are necessary for people safety and protection. Secondly, guns are not the only tools for killing and violence; there are other weapons too and finally, gun ownership is human rights.
The development of arguments surrounding gun control corresponds to the increased violence and problems related to weapons and firearms use. This then prompted the expansion of gun control initiatives and has shapes public opinion particularly in the promotion of increased regulation to banning. Due to this, it became controversial as it split the opinions of the citizenry particularly in their stance to advance different objectives. Arguably, the process of developing gun control remains to be detrimental due to its capacity to challenge individual rights and liberty, undermine the value of guns and firearms in the promotion of deterrence and self-defense and inability to recognize the commitment of existing reasonable gun management and control initiatives already in place.