Australia's stance on firearm laws is very different... Different history, different perspective.
As I was re-reading some of my favourite Zane Grey novels, I mused upon the evident difference in law, historically speaking, between Australia and America. America had its wild west, where law hadn't yet come to certain states or areas, and where people would take justice into their own hands. Cattle rustling, mavericking - or going west and changing one's name while there to hide a more disreputable past... the gun was a practical symbol of backing up an accusation, and a lynching was a practical symbol of handing out summary justice to a rustler. Gunmen with their assiduously practised fast draw would come to be not only individuals, but symbols of something to be beaten by eager youths who thought that they could outdraw the gunman they'd tracked down to confront.
And when sheriffs were finally beginning to be appointed in wild west counties, it was against the background of men and women already being accustomed to justice self-service style.
America's laws began with British law, but because of America's early turning against England in its fight for independence, and its victory (with French help) ratified in the Treaty of Paris in 1782, there was a profound sense of deliberately establishing new law for America. The United States Declaration of Indepdence had already been adopted during the struggle against Great Britain, in 1776, so this is a Declaration agreed upon and established in a time when political and philosophical difference to that of Britain was at its highest. America's Constitution (est. 1787) flowered out of the drawing together of separate states with their own concerns, and the battle against Britain for independence.
Some historical background - Terra Australis, New Holland, Terra Australia (again), Australia!Click to read:
In Australia, from the time of colonisation by Great Britain, there wasn't that fight for independence. Remember, Australia was first used for penal colonies, and it was seen as land to be appropriated by Great Britain in the wake of American independence and the subsequent loss of British territory. There weren't areas and states with their own very territorial perspectives. Originally the whole of
Terra Australis was called New Holland, and then in 1788, after Cook sailed along the eastern coast of New Holland (aka Australia) and claimed it as British territory (calling it New Wales and then changing it to New South Wales), the British divided New Holland (Australia) up into two parts. There was the western territory which retained the name of New Holland, and the eastern territory newly dubbed New South Wales; the boundary was pretty much split down the middle of Australia. There was some confusion in name, because the whole of Australia was still called New Holland at this time... There was a proposal by Matthew Flinders to revert back to the "original name" of Terra Australis in 1804, and this was finally agreed upon by Britain in 1824. The boundary moved west to increase New South Wales' area in 1825 (and to pre-empt French settlement), while New Holland correspondingly shrank.
New Holland was renamed Western Australia 1832 (Swan River Colony).
With further settlement, New South Wales became progressively more divided up, and it wasn't until 1851 that we had Victoria officially become a colony distinct from the rest of New South Wales.
The colonies were six in number at the time of Federation in 1901 when the Commonwealth of Australia was proclaimed.
Australia's ties to the UK are still very real. The colonies of Australia operated under British law, (Australian Courts Act 1828 (UK) demonstrates this) and Federation was based upon the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) which came into effect, of course, in 1901. This Act was actually an Act of the UK Parliament.
Law in Australia is for the most part derived from English law. Federal law applies to all States and Territories, and if a State law is inconsistent with Federal law, Federal law preponderates.
The history of Australia has not required armed civilians to rise up against Britain; colonies were controlled by British regular troops - at first marines, then a special colonial unit, then infantry, engineer and artillery units. It wasn't until the 1850s that local forces were actively recruited and began forming colonial police forces, and about 20 years later (when the last British regiment left - there was a great need for more troops to fight in the Anglo-Maori wars), there was no choice BUT to have local forces. Admittedly local militia did form earlielr than that; I am reasonably sure that the earliest reference is in December 1788 when Lieutenant Philip King (stationed on Norfolk Island) was worried that the balance of power between his marines and the convicts on that small island settlement was dangerously inclined towards the convicts because they outnumbered the marines (who were only six in number).
So it made sense for Lt King to make use of the six free men and get them trained up in the use of muskets, ready to be added to the defence force.
Having Six Musquets,
besides the Marines
Arms, I judge it proper
to instruct all the Free
people on the Island
(being Six) In the use of
Fire arms In case of the
Marines being sick or
any other exigency
wherefore I gave orders
to the Serjeant &
Corporal of Marines to
exercise them regularly
every Saty Morning As
well as the Marines —
when the former are
tolerable expert, I mean
that they shall fire half a
dozen rounds once a
Month — which is
putting the Island In the
best state of defence in
my power —
—
The Journal of Philip Gidley King, Lieutenant, R.N. 1787-1790Another reason for free settlers being roped in in this fashion may have been due to the British troops being highly reluctant to perform what they thought of as "extra duties". They didn't seem to realise that upon landing in New Holland (Terra Australis), they were required to do far more than simple garrison duty. Here's a letter written in May 1788 by Governor Arthur Phillip to the Secretary of Colonies (Lord Sydney) about it:
I have in my first letter had the honour of observing to Your Lordship the great want of proper persons to superintend the convicts. The officers who compose the detachment are not only few in number, but most of them have declined any interference with the convicts, except when they are employed for their own particular service. I requested soon after we landed that the officers would encourage such (people) they saw diligent, and point out for punishment such as they saw idle or straggling in the woods. This was all I desired, but the officers did not understand any interference with the convicts was expected, and that they were not sent out to do more than the duty of soldiers. The consequence must be obvious to Your Lordship. Here are only convicts to attend to the convicts, and who in general fear to exert any authority, and very little labour is drawn from them in a country which requires the greatest exertions. In this declaration, I do not mean to include the Lieutenant-Governor. who has shown every attention that could be expected from him, and the Judge-Advocate, acting as a Justice of the Peace with a diligence which does him the greatest of credit, they are under as good order as our present situation permit.
The sitting as members of Criminal Courts is thought a hardship by the officers, and of which they say they were not informed before they left England. It is necessary to mention this circumstance to your Lordship, that officers coming out may know that a young colony requires something more from the officers than garrison duty.
The not having the power of immediately granting lands the officers likewise feel as a hardship. They say they shall be obliged to to make up their minds as to staying in the country or returning before they know what the bounty of Government intends them.
As it is, My Lord, impossible for the Commissary to attend to the issuing of provisions without some person of confidence to assist and to be charged with the details, I have appointed the person who was charged with the victualing of the convicts from England. There is, likewise, a person who acts as Provost-Marshall (the one appointed in England not having come out) and who likewise superintends the different works going on. Two people, who are farmers, and the clerk of the Sirius are employed cultivating ground and in the store, as likewise a smith that superintends the convict smith. As the granting of these people any land would at present draw their attention from the public service, I have promised that their situation should be represented to Your Lordship.
Ownership of firearms and access to them was controlled from the time when the first penal colonies were set up; obviously convicts had to be prevented from wielding firearms against the British troops and free settlers. Occasionally convicts in vulnerable locations were given firearms to defend themselves and the settlers to whom they were indentured, against aboriginal uprisings, but it's not surprising that the privilege was abused, as the following quotation, referring to an incident in 1790, demonstrates:
It having been found that the arms and ammunition which were entrusted to the convicts residing at the distant farms for their protection against the natives, were made a very different use of, an order was given recalling them, and prohibiting any convicts from going out with arms, except McIntire, Burn, and Randall, who were licensed game-killers.
—
An Account of the English Colony of NSW Vol 1, by David Collins, Esquire. 1798In the same work, Collins speaks of an accidental death by gunshot (in 1792), which illustrates that free men were using firearms for hunting at that time.
On Friday the 13th died Mr. David Burton, of a gunshot wound which he received on the preceding Saturday. This young man, on account of the talents he possessed as a botanist, and the services which he was capable of rendering in the surveying line, could be but ill spared in this settlement. His loss was occasioned by one of those accidents which too frequently happen to persons who are inexperienced in the use of fire-arms. Mr. Burton had been out with Ensign Beckwith, and some soldiers of the New South Wales corps, intending to kill ducks on the Nepean. With that sensation of the mind which is called presentiment he is said to have set out, having more than once observed, that he feared some accident would happen before his return; and he did not cease to be tormented with this unpleasant idea, until his gun, which he carried rather awkwardly, went off, and lodged its contents in the ground within a few inches of the feet of the person who immediately preceded him in the walk through the woods. Considering this as the accident which his mind foreboded, he went on afterwards perfectly freed from any apprehension. But he was deceived. Reaching the banks of the river, they found on its surface innumerable flocks of those fowl of which they were in search. Mr. Burton, in order to have a better view of them, got upon the stump of a tree, and, resting his hand upon the muzzle of his piece, raised himself by its assistance as high as he was able. The butt of the piece rested on the ground, which was thickly covered with long grass, shrubs, and weeds. No one saw the danger of such a situation in time to prevent what followed. By some motion of this unfortunate young man the piece went off, and the contents, entering at his wrist, forced their way up between the two bones of his right arm, which were much shattered, to the elbow. Mr. Beckwith, by a very happy presence of mind, applying bandages torn from a shirt, succeeded in stopping the vast effusion of blood which ensued, or his patient must soon have bled to death. This accident happened at five in the afternoon, and it was not till ten o'clock at night of the following day that Mr. Burton was brought into Parramatta. The consequence was, such a violent fever and inflammation had taken place that any attempt to save life by amputation would only have hastened his end. In the night of the 12th the mortification came on, and he died the following morning, leaving behind him, what he universally enjoyed while living, the esteem and respect of all who knew him.
The settlers were also expected to defend not only their own settlements/farms, but to give each other assistance, if under attack. This was not to be taken as freedom to shoot/kill aboriginals wantonly; anyone who could be proved to murder an aboriginal would be held accountable under the law for the act of murder. The 1796 excerpt below is also from Collins'
Account.
The frequent attacks and depredations to which the settlers situated on the banks of the Hawkesbury, and other places, were exposed from the natives, called upon them, for the protection of their families, and the preservation of their crops, mutually to afford each other their assistance upon every occasion of alarm, by assembling without delay whenever any numerous bodies of natives were reported to be lurking about their grounds; but they seldom or never showed the smallest disposition to assist each other. Indolent and improvident even for their own safety and interest, they in general neglected the means by which either could be secured. This disposition being soon manifested to the governor, he thought it necessary to issue a public order, stating his expectations and directions, that all the people residing in the different districts of the settlemerits, whether the alarm was on their own farms, or on the farm of any other person, should upon such occasions immediately render to each other such assistance as each man if attacked would himself wish to receive; and he assured them, that if it should be hereafter proved, that any settlers or other persons withdrew or kept back their assistance from those who might be threatened, or who might be in danger of being attacked, they would be proceeded against as persons disobeying the rules and orders of the settlement. Such as had fire-arms were also positively enjoined not wantonly to fire at, or take the lives of any of the natives, as such an act would be considered a deliberate murder, and subject the offender to such punishment as (if proved) the law might direct to be inflicted.
In 1796, misuse of firearms was causing sufficient problems that it was thought necessary to regulate the possession of them. Non-military individuals who owned firearms were directed to register their firearms and get certificates signed by the commissary, permitting them to carry these arms. There were quite a number of men who didn't want their weapons to be registered.
Several attempts had been made by the commissary to ascertain the number of arms in the possession of individuals; it being feared, that, instead of their being properly distributed among the settlers for their protection, many were to be found in the hands of persons who used them in shooting, or in committing depredations. It was once more attempted to discover their number, by directing all persons (the military excepted) who were in possession of arms to bring them to the commissary's office, where, after registering them, they were to receive certificates signed by him, of their being permitted to carry such arms.
Some few settlers, who valued their arms as necessary to their defence against the natives and against thieves, hastened to the office for their certificate; but of between two and three hundred stands of arms which belonged to the crown not fifty were accounted for.
There were undoubtedly those who have bought guns in Australia without registering them. That continues to the present day, although several firearm amnesties have seen a good number of unregistered firearms handed in.
Australia's gun laws are regulated by each State or Territory, as at a Federal level the government doesn't have constitutional authority over gun ownership/firearms. However, in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre, which was the final straw in Australia in terms of there needing to be tighter control over who can own a gun, then Prime Minister John Howard convinced each state to adopt the proposals of the National Firearms Agreement - even Queensland, which had some very resistant MPs in the Liberal government, and even in the teeth of the powerful gun lobby in Australia.
To this day, the overwhelming majority of Australians are in agreement with current gun regulation, although a significant number would like the current laws to be tightened further.
The gun laws in Australia prevent a prohibited person from owning a gun. (Prohibited persons vary from state to state, but in general anyone convicted of terrorism, violence/assaults, robbery, sexual offences, etc., would be a prohibited person.) A gun-owner must have a firearm licence; to be issued a firearm licence, the person must have a genuine reason (other than self-defence) for holding the licence. Firearms are required to be registered to their licenced owner. Firearms are required to be properly secured/stored. There are tighter prohibitions for semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons. There are some contentions state by state, in particular in terms of minors using guns... and no doubt gun control in Australia is still developing. Full compliance with the National Firearms Agreement hasn't been reached in ANY state, but it's an ongoing process.
