The NSC is recommending shooters voting in the 1 May Tasmanian State Election change their vote away from the Liberals.
This year’s election is one of the most important ones that shooters in Tasmania have had for a while. Tasmania has an unfriendly firearms registry, appearance laws which are creating angst uncertainty, an education policy that opposes and denigrates organised school shooting activities and a government that is simply not going to help shooters unless shooters start to change their vote.
The Liberals are running a ‘star’ candidate, Adam Brooks (pictured). Mr Brooks is on firearm charges which sends the wrong signal for us, given his government has been treating shooters so badly.
While he is a shooter – and you might think we should be helping him – Mr Brooks has no record of advocating for shooters. He was part of the Liberal team that turned its back on commitments it made to shooters at the 2018 state election. In our book, any shooter who wants the shooters vote but sticks with the government’s line is in the same boat as Tim Fischer. Politicians who want our help need to do more than say they are our friends if they want our vote: they need to show their support, even if means ‘crossing the floor’ when voting in parliament. Otherwise they are part of the problem.
This isn’t just about Mr Brooks. In the next few days, we’ll have more to say why we’re unhappy with the Liberal Party, so it will become clearer why we’re taking a hard line against them.
We’re unhappy that the government won’t support shooting sports for the schools. We’re unhappy that the Libs broke election promises at the last election and we’re unhappy that the Libs are letting Tasmania Police determine policy – especially on appearance laws. That’s why Brooks needs to decide whose side he’s on.
With Labor not being much of an alternative for shooters, we recommend you look for one of the other options which includes other pro-gun parties such as the SFFP (various seats), Federation Party (Clark), and independents like Will Smith (Windermere).
We don’t trust the Tasmanian Liberals: if you have better candidates to choose from, then that’s who we recommend you vote for.
#Tasvotes #taspol Authorised N Jenkins, National Shooting Council, Melbourne Vic
With the 25th anniversary of the Port Arthur Massacre coming up, the media and other former fading politicians have already started to milk the tragedy that unfolded on the 28/29th April 1996. We have already been treated to a gratuitous double page spread in the local paper reliving the gory detail of the event. Gun prohibitionists have already chimed in with ” helpful” ideas on how to tighten our gun laws. Don’t wait until there are even more restrictive firearms laws and regulations before becoming politically active, it will be too late then.
I humiliated Andrew Leigh ( a Canberra politician) a while ago. He is co-author of a paper claimin the Gun Buyback had led to a progressive decline in gun related deaths. I cornered him on a talkback radio and pointed out guns destroyed five years ago do not now kill more , now, than those destroyed ten or twenty years ago! Therefore the gun buyback was not responsible for the decline which is the same post 96 as pre 96 I had pointed out that both firearms and owners had increased since Port Arthur. Since the he has been silent on gun control.
Good on you John. Andrew Leigh was in the media a while ago spruiking the gun laws. I have read the study he did in the day. He made no mention that one of the victims was his mentor at uni. Biased much? I wonder who he would blame if she had survived Port Arthur and had been one of the 15 victims in the Childers Backpackers when it was firebombed or in the Quakers Hill Nursing Home or staying in Churchill when deliberately fires killed 13 and 10 people respectively? Would he call for a ban on smokers because they use matches?
Point taken but the real issue is the absolute impossibility of the one off buyback leading to a PROGRESSIVE reduction, a gun destroyed ten years ago does not now kill less than one destroyed five years ago? His paper was called ‘ weak tests and strong conclusions’ allegedly a critique of a paper by criminologist Dr, Samara McPhedran which repeated my research showing gun deaths declined at the same rate before Port Arthur as after
Unfortunately we have the liberals that want to make changes yet are forced to back down thanks to media pressure and mainlanders crying fowl …….. OR …….. Labour, Greens and Animal justice party that have outright stated they want ALL GUNS AND HUNTIMG BANNED so what can you do and I absolutely HATE the liberals and unfortunately SFFP preference labour and their policies are extremely tame whit very little push back so I’m no longer willing to follow them which is a shame
In the Tasmanian election, the SFFP have not given any preferences to any other party. I don’t know where you are getting your information Ben.
Well, I would suggest Ben is talking about SFFP’s preferences in pretty much every other election. I appreciate it may not be happening here, but the brand is tarnished. I really do hope SFFP Tas do well and would like to work with them going forward, but Borsak and Bourman are their problems.
So Carlo you can say 110% here and now you are NOT preferencing anyone? So when you don’t win where does your votes go to then? As I understand it in our system those not in the running for a seat have their votes redistributed so you don’t have a say in where your votes go?
Ben, you clearly dont understand the Tasmanian Hare Clark electoral system. The voter has the power, all the power and the power of their choice on their own VOTING preferences, the political parties dont control the voters preferences. For me is SFF all the way, with the extremists at the bottom, not that difficult really if you value your traditional and cultural values
Thanks for the clarification.
Still not 100% on voting for SFFP as normal, I think they have watered down their msg to avoid flack as the “pro gun – weaken the law” party and are playing it too safe just like most Aust gun lobby groups and parties.
Shooters council are about the only ones screaming from the roof tops while the rest keep their heads down.
I was die hard SFFP member and was even going to be one of their candidates but since last election I have found myself disliking more and more of their policies.
The only recommendations I would make is place the AJP and Greens last. As for the rest of the ticket, you have to make your own mind up. Neither of the majors are going to do LAFOs any favours. Voting below the line means that as votes for a candidate are extinguished, their quota goes to the next candidate in line irrespective of which party they belong to. If your concern is firearm freedoms and stopping the march of regulation creep, then your only option is SFFP. My opinion on our gun laws is already in the public domain. We have 40,000 licensed firearm owners, perhaps you can tell me why we don’t have at least one sitting member.
How do you repugnant petty self interested morons explain that we have had no large scale massacre since Howard changed the gun laws? Despite the fact gun ownership and gun club memberships have increased. This logically shows that the existing gun laws deter the wrong type of person from acquiring a gun. You gutter filth whinge and whine despite the fact that every advanced sport comes with tight regulations, fees and licenses. Drones come with licenses. Quad biking and motorbiking come with licenses and fees. You scum are a joke. Get a life and stop expecting everything to be handed to you. You live in a society despite your micro-penis fantasies of “survival of the fittest”. Absolute laughing stock.