After the fiasco with the change in policy by Australian Post, does anyone know where this is now at? Anyone ordered in gun related bits and pieces from the US?

I need to order a few things and am wondering what can and can't come in now.

I've had no problem getting reloading tools. Sinclair declares them as "measuring tools". I got some scope rings and bases and they were declared as "machine tools". I've imported two scopes since the rules were changed, and they were declared as "scopes".
I think the only thing that will cause problems is gun parts like triggers, firing pins, barrels, etc. You'll need export and import papers. Ship with BAX Global.
I haven't tried importing brass or bullets recently, but I'd use BAX for that too.
Regards
Ben

BB

The Australia Post policy can be found at http://www.auspost.com.au/GAC_File_Metafile/0,,3078_customer_advice,00.pdf

You can see that the focus is on firearms and parts (triggers, barrels etc). You shouldn't have any problems with reloading equipment, rings & bases, scopes etc. I recently imported a stock with no hassles.

Ian

Ian,
What stock did you import and from what source? After a Hogue for a Ruger.
Cheers...
Con

im still getting barrels the same as i was and other firearms parts , brass ,proj ,scopes stocks etc etc .....officially by aust post its out, but customs are still letting gun parts through
my last barrel came a few weeks ago
daniel

Banning of guns in mail caused problems: Aus Post
4:00 PM May 22

Australia Post management has told a Budget estimates committee hearing it could have consulted more widely before deciding to ban guns from its overseas postal services.

Australia Post stopped transporting the weapons from February this year and now people posting or receiving firearms from overseas must use a courier.

The organisation's managers have told the Canberra Senate hearing that on 81 occasions last year the processing of mail had to be interrupted because of security concerns about guns in the post.

Liberal and Labor senators on the committee have criticised the ban, and Australia Post's Michael McCloskey told the hearing the process could have been improved.

"There was no consultation prior to the imposition of the prohibition, with the benefit of hindsight we could perhaps of consulted more widely, however we did keep Customs fully informed," he said.

Furthermore, Federal Communications Minister Helen Coonan says the Government is considering whether to change laws on sending guns through the postal system.

Senator Coonan says she is considering setting up new methods of sending weapons as well as streamlining the different state and territory laws.

"We're having a look at what might be done by way of a separate mail stream," she said.

"I have also, or I'm about to, seek the advice of the Attorney-General as to how there may be complementarity between states."
Source: ABC

Great!! Here we go ... couriers for all "guns" domestically. It's not the "guns" that are the issue ... its primarily components. Barrels, trigger groups, magazine boxes etc etc... from overseas. That ABC report I'm interpreting as a heralding of restriction in domestic carriage via Australia Post.
Cheers...
Con

If you read the Hansard records ... its actually quite interesting. Australia Post is blaming Customs ... for upto 3 hr delays... one minute Australia Post screens 100% mail, next minute they "make available" 100% mail to customs. At the domestic level its State Govt's fault due to different regulations from State to State. According to Australia Post no State actually allows firearms to be "posted in the mail".
I've emailed Vic registry to seek clarification.
Also ... a great quote from Senator Conroy responding to Aust Post: "I do not normally define a grenade as a firearm, unless it is very inefficient"
Cheers...
Con

the whole system is stuffed...this week i recived another barrel....no even opened or inspected by customs
daniel

re is a summary of Australia Post's testimony, regarding their recent banning of the international carriage of firearms in to and out of Australia, given before the Senate Finance Committee on Monday 22 May. Some comments on various aspects of this testimony have been inserted by the people who sent it to me.

It sounds as if all is not yet lost, and at the very least, organisations contemplating similar action may be made aware that they risk looking prejudiced and silly. Note that the main thrust of their argument is that they must do this to comply with international obligations, since their system of containerised mail is excessively disrupted by X-ray scanning for guns. This is another way of saying that they have chosen to set up their procedures so that they can't comply with their international or domestic obligations over drugs and pornography either.


============================================



Monday, 22 May 2006 Senate—Legislation ECITA 19
ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS

…

Senator CONROY—I understand that in January 2006 Post announced that it will no longer accept international mail postings of firearms and firearm parts.

Mr McCloskey—That is correct.

Senator CONROY—Could you explain the rationale for that?

Mr McCloskey—Yes. I probably need to go back a couple of years to 2002, when there started to be 100 per cent X-ray screening of all incoming mail items, by Customs and quarantine. Prior to that, the volume of mail scanned and checked was somewhere in the order of 15 per cent—so it went to 100 per cent. Since then we have experienced an increasing incidence where items identified as firearms, firearm parts and the like have caused interruptions to processing of incoming mail, to the point where last year we had 81 instances in our international gateways where processing was interrupted or stopped for periods of up to three hours following detection, through the X-ray system, of—

Senator RONALDSON—Can you explain what actually occurs in that situation, please.

Senator CONROY—Do they just pull it off when it shows up, or is it a more complicated process?

Mr McCloskey—It depends on the particular item, on what the X-ray actually shows up. It is Customs who do the X-raying, who intercept and, as I understand it, who determine whether or not any immediate action is required, in terms of shutting down what is going on.

Senator RONALDSON—If the X-ray shows up a hand gun, for example, what are the processes that follow? Where does the disruption occur?

Mr McCloskey—It could show up a hand gun or it could show up what looks like a grenade or something like that.

Senator RONALDSON—What are the processes? Once it shows up—

Senator CONROY—I am talking specifically about firearms. I do not normally define a grenade as a firearm, unless it is very inefficient.

Mr McCloskey—The prohibition that we have put in place is on firearms, weaponry, firearm parts and the like.

Senator RONALDSON—So after it shows up on the X-ray what are the processes?

Mr McCloskey—If a suspect item shows up, it is a Customs issue. I am not an operational expert, so I am imagining what may happen. For some reason the processing of that line needs to be brought to a halt while the particular item which has been identified by Customs is dealt with in some way.

Senator RONALDSON—Why can’t that item just be removed?

Senator CONROY—Why can’t it be pulled off?

Mr McCloskey—In some cases I have no doubt that that is what would happen. In other cases for whatever reason—

Senator CONROY—If it is a grenade, I understand. You have got to get a bomb expert in. That is perfectly obvious. It is different if it is just a hand gun or an object that will not possibly explode.

Senator RONALDSON—There must be someone here today who knows. You said there have been 81 disruptions.

Mr McCloskey—There were 81 instances last year where there were interruptions of up to three hours in our international gateways.

Senator RONALDSON—Can someone please tell me what are the processes that are followed that will interrupt for up to three hours?

Senator CONROY—Pulling a package off that clearly contains a gun or a firearm part.

Senator RONALDSON—Why does that take three hours? That is my point.

Mr McCloskey—It is up to three hours.

Mr Newman—I may be able to assist here, even though it has been a little bit of time since I have been in that environment. The processes for safe operating and safe handling of detected firearms are dictated by, obviously, Customs. We screen 100 per cent. Actually, I should say we make available for screening 100 per cent of all articles coming through Post at the moment. Of course Customs and quarantine do that—

Comment ===================================================

1. Whatever is “detectedâ€, surely it should only be a matter of then inspecting the customs declaration affixed to that parcel to ascertain whether or not the item has been accurately and lawfully declared. An accurately declared item would have been accepted for carriage in the other country and may well have bounced half way around the world, and the likelihood of any such parcel actually being dangerous must be extremely remote. What a boring job the x-ray screening of parcels must be; probably the only excitement the operators at Sydney would ever have would be the (only) once-a-week detection of some “potentially†dangerous item. For such an obviously sophisticated system the procedures that follow such a “detection†appear to be decidedly “clunkyâ€.

===========================================================

Senator CONROY—Does that suggest that 100 per cent are not being screened?

Mr Newman—No.

Senator CONROY—You changed your language from ‘we do’ to ‘we make available’.

Mr Newman—First off I said that we screen them but in fact we make them available to Customs to screen 100 per cent. We [sic] X-ray everything. When they detect an X-ray of a firearm or anything else they have a set procedure. I guess it is a product of today’s environment where that set procedure operates irrespective of what the item is if it is potentially dangerous. For example, they do not know whether that firearm would be loaded, cocked or whatever. There is then a procedure that is put in place. People are removed from the general area. The item is then handled in the best way that they see suitable. Then it is removed from the building. It is a bit hard for me to give more detail, because we rely on our friends in Customs to guide us. We do not just pick up the parcel and carry it out the back.

Senator RONALDSON—But it is your processes that are being stopped for up to three hours, isn’t it?

Senator CONROY—Customs are doing the X-ray.

Senator RONALDSON—Customs are pulling it off—

Senator CONROY—It is Customs that say, ‘We need three hours for any object.’

Senator RONALDSON—So what are the processes that could cause a three-hour delay? Do they clear the building?

Mr Newman—In some cases they do, yes.

Senator RONALDSON—With each hand gun? With each firearm?

Mr Newman—That level of detail I would have to take on notice.

Senator RONALDSON—Would someone take it on notice, because it seems to be an extraordinary extension of time. I would like to know exactly what the processes are. These are often legitimate gun dealers and others who are carrying out their business, and no-one can tell me today what the processes are which are so dramatic that they have led to these people not being able to put it through the post.

Comment ===================================================

2. All these inbound parcels have been bounced half way around the world and then even a lawfully imported firearm is presumed to be “potentially dangerous†and the whole place apparently grinds to a standstill – for up to three hours! (Potentially dangerous! It’s potentially dangerous to walk across a road.) I would have thought that Customs x-ray screening of imports was for the purpose of detecting illicit imports; otherwise, if it is for detecting “dangerous†goods, why are we then not x-ray screening all our export parcels for the same such “potentially dangerous†items so as to protect the people traveling in the same outgoing aircraft? And, if Customs now screen 100 percent of inbound mail parcels, what then in the difference between any of the various forms of inbound carriage with respect to such screening?

===========================================================

Mr McCloskey—That was not the only reason. That was what sparked it. These increasing instances caused Australia Post to look at this issue quite seriously because of the implications for and the interruption of our operations. In addition to that, there is also increasing security screening going on internationally, not always in the postal context but just in transit with aircraft and the like. Last year we had an incident where a legitimate firearm in transit was identified in Heathrow. The whole mail dispatch—not just that item but the whole container with the mail dispatch—was removed by the airport security people, and it lay unprocessed for 20 days before it was possible for us to get that moving again. On top of that, when we were looking at it we also got advice from our legal people that there are specific elements of state laws which effectively make it illegal to send or receive firearms, and in some cases also firearm parts, through the post.

Comment ===================================================

3. A legitimate firearm in transit is detected at Heathrow and a whole dispatch of mail is held up for twenty days! If we don’t screen our outgoing parcels, why would anyone else want to screen containers of in transit parcels? Sounds like a classic case of another all-powerful, out-of-control, don’t-care bureaucracy at work. Surely, “hick-ups†such as this are matters for discussion between governments; not reason for the unilateral banning by Australia Post of the international carriage of any particular good.

===========================================================

Senator RONALDSON—What states are they?

Mr McCloskey—All states have different provisions. For example, for outgoing items it is effectively illegal to send a firearm in the post from any state except Queensland. For incoming items, New South Wales prohibits firearms and firearm barrels coming in in the post; Victorian legislation prohibits firearms in the post; Tasmanian and ACT legislation prohibits firearms and all firearm parts in the post. Obviously, from an Australia Post perspective, when we were fully aware of all of these implications we could not knowingly be complicit in any breach of legislation. So that was also a consideration in terms of putting in place this prohibition.

Comment ===================================================

4. Ah, the “uniform†Australian firearms laws! This statement by Mr McCloskey is truly disingenuous. Being a New South Welshman and I have attempted to familiarized myself with the NSW regulations. Clearly, clause 53 of the NSW Firearms Act permits the interstate carriage by mail from a NSW licensed dealer to an interstate licensed dealer (although the inference in clause 52 that he can not receive from an interstate dealer nor send to an intrastate dealer defies all logic). Surely, Australia Post are not seriously arguing that an international “export†is not the equivalent of “sending firearms outside this State†(NSW s.53). Yes, there is plenty of ambiguity; but, surely, it is a nonsense for AP to suggest that the state laws are intended to prohibit DoD-permitted and Customs-declared “exports†and “imports†by persons lawfully entitled to do so.

===========================================================

Senator RONALDSON—Was that the primary consideration?

Mr McCloskey—No, the primary consideration that caused us to look at it in the first instance was the interruption to our operations, but then the whole issue grew as more and more focus went on it.

Senator CONROY—Did you consult with the minister about the decision?

Mr McCloskey—No, there was not any consultation with the minister. The Customs Department was kept fully informed of the thinking as the proposal was developed.

Comment ===================================================

5. Customs were the only people apparently kept informed! Why bother keeping Customs informed (and at what level)? I mean no disrespect to Australian Customs, but, I doubt they could care less; I assume their principal purpose of x-ray screening is to detect illicit imports; they apparently don’t screen outgoing parcels; they have no interest in the efficient operation of the postal service, nor even the efficient workings of international trade. They are, in fact, only ever going to be an added complication to all such things.

===========================================================

Senator CONROY—Did you consult with sporting shooters associations for instance?

Mr McCloskey—No, there was no consultation prior to the imposition of the prohibition. With the benefit of hindsight we could perhaps have consulted more widely. However, we did keep Customs fully informed and equally we had no reason to believe that, in the absence of any—

Senator RONALDSON—They were informed when a package they were expecting did not arrive. That is the level of the consultation.

Mr McCloskey—Not with Customs, Senator.

Senator RONALDSON—You kept them informed after the event, didn’t you?

Mr McCloskey—What I am going on to explain is that in terms of consultation with bodies other than Customs we had no reason to believe—in the absence of any commercial contractual relationship with anybody for sending or receiving firearms and also given the provisions of state legislation—that the use of the post for sending or receiving firearms was other than ad hoc or occasional.

Comment ===================================================

6. What on earth is this statement supposed to mean; do we all have to now engage a solicitor and individually enter into a contractual arrangement with Australia Post to ensure the carriage of our occasional parcels?

===========================================================

Senator Coonan—What I might say, though, is that of course there is some consultation going on. What is being looked at—Mr McCloskey has quite rightly identified the fact that it has thrown up a much broader issue—is whether or not there is any flexibility relating to parts, like screws and small parts of firearms. So the current position is that there is some consultation around what might be done about international carriage of firearms by post. There are some suggestions about it, but I will not go into them all. We are having a look at what might be done by way of a separate mail stream, for example. Also I am about to seek the advice of the Attorney-General as to how there may be complementarity between states. The quite significant issue that Post has now identified of domestic carriage of firearms might well infringe state and territory legislation is another stream to the problem. But we are having a look at it, we are seeking some advice in relation to it, and Post is cooperating with respect to seeing if we can get a better and much more seamless way of dealing with it.

Comment ===================================================

7. “… a separate mail streamâ€. What possible purpose would a separate mail stream serve for international carriage? We don’t x-ray screen outgoing parcels; and licit exports and imports of firearms are already clearly declared as such on the affixed customs declarations. Unfortunately, there is apparently no equivalent of “registered†post for international parcels. And, as far as domestic carriage to and from anywhere in Australia is concerned, if it is a matter only of “securityâ€, what then is wrong with the “person-to-person†registered post service offered by Australia Post?

===========================================================

Senator CONROY—Thank you. Mr McCloskey, you mentioned that some states have different laws. You gave a quick verbal rundown, but is it possible to give us some advice—just a note—outlining all of those different things? You did not mention Tasmania, for instance. Could you take that on notice and supply the committee with that information.

Mr McCloskey—I have some information here that I can refer to.

Senator CONROY—If you could table it with the committee that would be great.

Mr McCloskey—Specifically, if we look at state legislation as between an export effect and an import effect, under the ACT legislation both export and import of firearms and all parts thereof are prohibited through the post; in New South Wales, firearms and firearm barrels both incoming and outgoing are prohibited; and in Victoria firearms both ways are prohibited. In Queensland, the export effect of their legislation is that essentially firearms and major component parts, not including barrel, breech bolt or top slide, are prohibited unless there is a lawful authority justification or excuse; and in terms of incoming items, firearms and major component parts, not including barrel, breech bolt or top slide, are also prohibited in the post unless for a licensed firearms dealer or a person with lawful authority, justification or excuse. In South Australia the export effect of its legislation is to prohibit firearms in the post, while the import of firearms through the post is prohibited unless a licensed firearms dealer or the holder of a permit is the recipient. In Western Australia export of firearms is prohibited in the post, but incoming firearms are not prohibited except in a number of specified circumstances, for example, where a silencer is fitted. As I think I said earlier, both incoming and outgoing firearms and all parts thereof are prohibited under Tasmanian legislation. In the Northern Territory the export effect of its legislation is that firearms and some firearm parts—for example, a rifle or a shotgun action, a pistol or a revolver frame—are all prohibited in the post, and the import effect is that firearms and some firearm parts—for example, a rifle or a shotgun action, a pistol or a revolver frame—are prohibited in the post unless the recipient is a licensed firearms dealer. So it is a very complex and varied series of legislative provisions across the states.

Comment ===================================================

8. See again comment #4.

===========================================================

Senator RONALDSON—Have you communicated this to the National Firearm Dealers Association?

Mr McCloskey—We have communicated this information in the broad to anyone who has made representations to us in relation to this issue, such as the Sporting Shooters Association that Senator Conroy asked about earlier. Also Pistol Australia, I think, and the National Firearm Dealers Association were party to that as well, and a number of others who have made representations.

Senator RONALDSON—Could you take on notice my question before about some details of the processes that follow the detection of a firearm or similar through the x-ray by Customs.

Mr McCloskey—On the operational side, yes, but in the final analysis the point I am seeking to make is that the legislative provisions constrain Australia Post quite significantly in this area in any event.

Comment ===================================================

9. See again comment #4.

===========================================================

Senator RONALDSON—If there was something put in place which would preclude a three-hour delay and there were not the interruptions, you would not send them anyway because of those state requirements?

Mr McCloskey—We are subject to all state legislation, and our belief is that we could not be knowingly complicit in what would in effect be a breach of state law.

Senator CONROY—I understand that Post have advised people aggrieved by this ban that they should use companies that specialise in the handling of the goods. What sort of companies are they—couriers like DHL?

Mr McCloskey—I believe that DHL , TNT, UPS, FedEx and those sorts of companies will carry firearms and firearm parts provided they have been consigned to them through specialist handling companies.

Comment ===================================================

10. Again, disingenuous. In fact, none of these “couriersâ€, who also offer a form of small parcel service, will carry firearms out of Australia. (Or, if they are doing so, they are not taking on any new customers.)

===========================================================

Senator CONROY—But won’t they have the same problems with the state laws that you have just said you have?

Mr McCloskey—No. The state laws to which I refer specifically relate to sending or receiving firearms and firearm parts through the post. They are couriers, and my understanding is that they would not fall under those particular provisions.

Senator CONROY—What about your express courier international service? Would that have those same problems?

Mr McCloskey—I suspect that it would, because it depends on how legislation defines through the post—

Senator CONROY—The couriers are not operating ‘through the post’, but your courier would be ‘through the post’?

Mr McCloskey—I think that the legislation defines ‘through the post’ as going with Australia Post. It is not within our—

Comment ===================================================

11. Once again, disingenuous. The NSW Act refers to “Use of mail for sending firearms and barrelsâ€, “Use of mail for sending firearms outside this State†and the sending and receiving of firearms and firearm barrels “by mailâ€. If the DHL, TNT, UPS and FedEx courier services are not considered to be “by mail†why then would Australia Post’s equivalent international “courier†service not also be so considered? What could be the difference from the point of view of security?

Then, for domestic carriage, if it is only a matter of security, what is wrong with the “person-to-person†registered post service offered by Australia Post? I’m not sure I want to try to understand the logic behind such differentiation; it’s probably the same quality of logic that is being applied by Australia Post to this whole matter now under discussion.

There also presently exists the absurd situation whereby a person is required to provide “identification†(an RTA photo ID will suffice) if their “parcel†is to be carried by air; but, for a nominal premium, a person can send a 20 kg “parcelâ€, (value declared at less than $2000, of course, to avoid the need for a full B957 Customs Declaration), by Australia Post’s Express Courier International airmail service and there is no requirement for them to produce any ID at all ! I am only a simple person, but I always assumed that all those yellow “Express Post†post boxes were for domestic mail; not for international airmail. To quote Australia Post’s own literature:

“Aviation Security

“Under international mail security requirements, Australia Post customers are required to provide identification when lodging international mail. No identification check is required when sending Express Courier International items. Consequently:

“• All items weighing over 500g, except Express Courier International prepaid products, must be lodged at an Australian Post counter.

“• Express Courier International prepaid products may be posted in a GOLD Post Box.â€

Apparently then, according to Australia Post’s interpretation of their obligations under “international mail security requirementsâ€, they don’t consider their Express “Courier†International service to be “mailâ€! And, obviously, this relief from the supplying of ID also applies to domestic Express Post Parcel service parcels which, even if they will ultimately be carried by air, may also be lodged in a yellow Express Post post box. It all comes down to words: “mail/post†or “courierâ€. Oh, dear me, more nonsense.

===========================================================

Senator CONROY—So you are defined as ‘the post’?

Mr McCloskey—I think so, yes.

Senator RONALDSON—So the answer to my earlier question was that even if these processes were refined to the extent where they did not interrupt the day-to-day operations and the 81 that you have had, that you would not authorise it again to go through the post because of the state and territory legislation. Is that your answer?

Mr McCloskey—Our view is that, yes, we cannot be knowingly complicit in any breach of state legislation.

…

Senator ADAMS—I wish to come back to gun parts being sent through the states. I come from Western Australia. For example, if roo shooters up around the Wiluna area were needing gun parts from Perth, would they be allowed to be sent through the post or not?

Comment ===================================================

12. If you lived in NSW, the answer would appear to be a qualified “Yesâ€; you may sent parts (other than barrels). Only the intrastate carriage by mail of “firearms and firearm barrels†is prohibited – not allowed even between dealers, let alone dealer to “shooterâ€. Surely you would appreciate that if it was otherwise, the sky could fall in.

===========================================================

Mr McCloskey—The state legislation applies within Australia as well as to and from Australia. It would depend on what the particular details of the Western Australian legislation was as to whether or not it was legal to send firearms and firearms parts through the post within Western Australia. I do not have that answer off the top of my head. A difference for Australia Post is that with, say, international items coming in we know, because it is declared what the item is, whether or not it is a firearm or firearm part and therefore whether or not it is legal to carry it through the post. Domestically we do not have any way of knowing what it is we are carrying, so the onus is on the individual, the company or the dealer in a particular state who may be considering [sic] items of that sort through the mail to ensure that they are acting legally. We make available through our post guides high-level summaries of what the legal situation is. But we are dependent upon people themselves abiding by that.

Comment ===================================================

13. I still don’t understand what state legislation can have to do with international trade. And, in NSW, the letter of the law does allow the use of the mail, but only by a licensed dealer to send out of the state (to another licensed dealer). The law appears not to allow any intrastate use of the mail (not even between licensed dealers)! A licensed person, other than another dealer, must personally attend a licensed dealer to deliver or take delivery of any firearm or firearm barrel. Intrastate “commercial†carriage between dealers may be done by some form of carriage other than “by mailâ€. Ah, the logic of it all. As these state laws were created at the instigation of the Federal government, maybe someone could make inquiries of the persons involved in those discussions to ascertain the whys and wherefores for the petty detail of these now quite draconian state laws that we legitimate firearm owners/collectors now suffer.

===========================================================

Senator ADAMS—The problem being, of course, that there are no couriers or any other way of getting this sort of thing. So if I could have that on notice.

Mr McCloskey—I would be happy to do that.



Comment ==================================================

14. As a matter of interest, below are reproduced the sections of the Act and Regs that regulate the transporting of firearms in NSW.

Once upon a time Australia Post’s “registered†post items used to be “securely†carried in separate locked containers; this is apparently not now the case. The contents of a domestic post parcel are not required to be noted on the parcel so there is little chance that a firearm being carried by registered post can be identified as such. One would hope that all mail was carried in a “secured locked container secured to the vehicle†(Regs s.100). Why then are we in NSW apparently prohibited from generally utilizing the Australia Post “by mail†security service for the commercial carriage of firearms or firearm barrels? Maybe the s.52 reference to “by mail†is only intended to prohibit the use of “ordinary†mail and is not intended to prohibit the use of “registered†mail; who knows? One might also ask if s.52 in toto is intended to restrict the use of (registered) mail by licensed dealers who are otherwise entitled to deal with firearms, or is it intended to restrict only other persons? What purpose does it serve to prohibit any dealer-to-dealer dealing by registered mail?

Then, if you look at sections 52(3) and 53(d) in combination, and if like clauses exist in the legislation of all the other states, then even this section 53 interstate carriage-by-mail allowance would in effect appear to be prohibited. This dichotomy suggests that the prohibitions on the use of the “mail†have nothing to do with matters of security but are intended simply to make everything as difficult and as expensive as possible for persons dealing with firearms.

This legislation has much petty and irrational and ambiguous detail, the misunderstanding of which can have draconian and costly consequences for a licensee, and I have to wonder if our representatives, who vote these laws into effect, ever read the detail of the legislation that they subject us to.

Certainly, when invited to comment on draft legislation/regulations, no notice has been taken of any of the quite rational comments made thereon (including such as some of those above comments); which indicates to me that the invitation to comment is a sham.

NSW Firearms Act 1996 No 46

52 Use of mail for sending firearms and barrels

(1) A person must not send a firearm or firearm barrel by mail to an address in New South Wales.

(2) A person must not receive a firearm or firearm barrel by mail at an address in New South Wales.

(3) A person must not direct or request another person, whether the other person is within or outside New South Wales when the request is made, to send a firearm or firearm barrel by mail to an address in New South Wales, whether or not the request is made in writing or in connection with the purchase by the person of the firearm or firearm barrel.

(4) A person is taken to have made such a request if the person accepts an offer made by another person within or outside New South Wales to forward a firearm or firearm barrel by mail to an address within New South Wales.

(5) It is a defence to a prosecution under subsection (2) if the defendant proves that the firearm or firearm barrel was sent to the defendant without his or her knowledge or approval.

53 Use of mail for sending firearms outside this State

A person must not send a firearm or firearm barrel to another person by mail unless:

(a) the person sending the firearm or firearm barrel is a licensed firearms dealer, and

(b) the address to which the firearm or firearm barrel is sent is outside New South Wales, and

(c) the firearm or firearm barrel is sent by security mail, and

(d) the other person would not, because of receiving the firearm or firearm barrel or being in possession of it at the place to which it is sent, be guilty of any offence under any law which applies at that place, and

(e) the other person is a licensed firearms dealer under the law of that other place.

56 Commercial transportation of firearms

Any person who is engaged in the business of transporting goods must not transport any firearm unless the firearm is conveyed in accordance with the safety requirements prescribed by the regulations.

Firearms (General) Regulation 1997

100 Commercial transportation of firearms—prescribed safety requirements

For the purposes of section 56 of the Act, the following safety requirements are prescribed:

(a) the firearm must be stored in:

(i) a secured locked container secured to the vehicle, or

(ii) a locked compartment within the vehicle,

and must not be able to be seen while it is being conveyed,

(b) all reasonable precautions must be taken to ensure that the firearm is not lost or stolen while it is being conveyed.

===========================================================

Stolen in it's entirity from gunboards, none of the comments were mine.

http://www.gunboards.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=167549

darwinmauser,
Thanks for that!

Its well worth everyones time to print it out and go through it ... then write to your local member plus the Senators involved. Might be worth pointing out to the Senators that the information they were supplied wasnt 100% correct.

And I'm still confused how International somehow becomes domestic mail ... unless to move a firearm or component from Vic to Qld is an "export"? What a crock of cow chips! And this is for the movement of many goods for which no actual license is required.
Cheers...
Con

Updated in the current "Shooters Journal".

All members of the SSAA should have a copy by now.