Weapons Legislation Sanity---NSW Australia

Jim McDougall · 7th August 2008, 04:28 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, 04:52 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, 05:16 AM

Great News, Alan!

"onerous for both the community and the NSW Police"

A. G. Maisey · 7th August 2008, 06:52 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, 07:37 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, 08:00 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, 09:01 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.

7th August 2008, 07:37 AM	#5
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,802	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, 08:00 AM	#6
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, 04:28 AM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,474	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, 04:52 AM	#2
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, 05:16 AM	#3
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, 06:52 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	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, 09:01 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	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.