The NSC has written to all law institutes (and societies) about the inappropriate uses of intervention and domestic violence orders against shooters.

WHILE IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN if they heed our advice, we have highlighted that IVOs and DVOs are sometimes used by spouses for no reason other than to cause inconvenience and cost to shooters by having police seize their firearms.

Shooting is more than a hobby to most shooters.

It is the activity that many of us look forward to, especially to get to the range or out in the bush.

Most of us are shooters for life – which is why it is so important to us.

Unfortunately when things go sour in our relationships, IVOs and DVOs are sometimes used by spouses to disrupt this enjoyment for personal satisfaction rather than preventing violence

That’s because having one issued against you often results in the police taking your guns away from you because of the way various state gun laws are written. 

Sometimes lawyers create the problem

WE RECENTLY PROMOTED stories about this, including one where a lawyer’s advice to a spouse actually changed when she heard that the partner has firearms.

Her response was then “Oh, then you need to get an IVO”.  

The point we have made to the institutes is that police already have the power to suspend or revoke licences where they deem a person to no longer be fit and proper to hold the licence.

In other words, there is already a safeguard in place that relies on significantly more expertise to make these sorts of judgements, than any suburban lawyer might have.

That’s why we have now written to every law institute and society in Australia – because that’s a clear abuse of a system that is there to provide protection from violence, rather than provide someone with the means to seek revenge.

The NSC’s advice

OUR RECOMMENDATION to the institutes is to issue a ‘practice note’ for their members to point out that it is inappropriate and unprofessional to use an IVO or DVO because someone has a shooters licence.

Our advice is that the proper way to deal with any concerns about firearms is to report the matter to the police.

That way the police can then decide what the appropriate course of action should be, including the requirement of evidence to support the claim of a threat of violence.

What is a practice note?

Practice notes are used to provide information to parties in proceedings in the Court and their lawyers on particular aspects of the Court’s practice and procedure.

Practice notes are not legal requirements, but are effectively ‘codes of conduct’ that lawyers are expected to follow.

If we are able to have a practice note issued on this matter, it would help change the way lawyers approach this.

We’re not holding our breath for responses, but as always, the NSC will keep looking for solutions to our problems, even if it is done a bit at a time.

Think you'll get an IVO or DVO?

You’ll need a lawyer to deal with the order, but one thing you can do to protect your guns from being ‘thrown in the back of the divvy van’ if an order is on it’s way, is to have them transferred to someone you can trust for safekeeping. 

Obviously that person needs to hold the appropriate licence for the guns and ammo they might be holding for you, or alternatively your local gun dealer might be able to help.

You still own the guns so they remain your property even if you can’t physically have them with you at some point in time.

9 thoughts on “NSC seeks ‘practice notes’ for better behaviour from lawyers

    • Trevor Pollock says:

      Well said!
      My son’s friend went through this BS & transferred all his firearm into my son’s name.
      You don’t need a firearm to harm someone,you only have to look at recent domestic violence went wrong & someone was stabbed,the worst one I have seen is were a husband set fire to his wife & kids,al died.Sometimes taking the firearms of a licenced shooter just makes things worse & things become more bitter.Lawyers are the worst to have involved in a divorce,best to sort it out amicably if possible,best outcome from all involved & the lawyer is not prolonging the process to make more money.Remember the lawyer doesn’t care about you he just wants the $$$$$$.It is a sad legal system we have in Australia.

  1. John says:

    This happened to me. Corrupt Wangaratta Barrister XXXXXXX deliberately abused the process to take my firearms and has committed a litany of crimes and abuses. The Magistrates Courts response was to promote her to Judicial Registrar. An ex NSW Senior cop has exposed the DVO rort in this interview with Bettina Ardnt…..

  2. Faarreak says:

    Is there a way to appeal or apply to have the temporary/permanent removal of firearms and licence?
    With Victorian IVO it is a mandatory 5 year wait before you can apply for a licence again.

  3. Mark Gozzard says:

    In my case the AVO has instigated by the police, not my ex. My lawyer was livid, basically they had zero evidence against me and used the AVO to get me to fight it in court, where they could question me under oath. Maybe a practice note to the police would be in order.
    Also the 10 year ban in NSW is counter productive as they want people to accept an AVO but any shooter is going to fight an AVO. Better that they (or a dealer) hold the firearms while the AVO is in place. Even better to pervent AVOs being used as weapons.

  4. Peter says:

    Until an IVO or a DVO is provan to be needed by a Court, it is nothing more than Rumour,Opininion and Hearsay..

    Iff the Police Sieze a licenced owners firearms based on the above, then use the local Police station as a storage facility for the owners firearms, then hand them back to owner when the case has no merit, it just shows the mentality of the Goverments who pay thier wages.

    God help all of us!

  5. Nate Dewar says:

    I have to pull the NSC up on this, the police are absolutely not the entity that should determine who is fit and proper. They’re not health carers so they can’t determine “fit” in any sensible or logical way. They’re not ethicists and lawyers so they can’t determine “proper” in any sensible or logical way. They’re essentially not competent at anything other than “stick” which is what they do. What they are is a bureaucratic institution who is legally empowered to be abusive. They do that with relatively little oversight and too much self-regulation. They undermine data and informatics that show just how much social damage they do. In the context of firearms regulation, they’re essentially an horrific state based scam that is doing as much to put the public at risk as they are to protect it.

  6. Ron says:

    Been here before. The advice given to me at the time from my lawyer was:

    “First things first, transfer all firearms to a licensed dealer, not a mates place. This has paperwork to prove where they are and you’ll need to sign more paperwork to get them out of the dealers lock up. If you store them with a mate, the police can claim that you borrowed your firearm back and there is no paperwork to prove anything that could back you up.”
    “Secondly, give absolutely no reason for an IVO to be placed against you. Dot every I and cross every T that you do. Never show any signs of aggression verbally or physically.”

    I followed suit with my lawyers advice. This advice is the only reason that I still hold my licenses and the only reason I’m not a restricted individual. My ex made the claim that I’d threatened her with a rifle and I laughed. The police officer questioned me as to why I found it amusing. I stated “I pre-empted her trying this and locked up all my guns, then sold them off through my dealer months ago. Would you like to see the paperwork?”
    We promptly went inside and checked the paperwork. The office then contacted LRD and confirmed the details. Then he asked if it was ok for him to show my ex the paperwork, I agreed. He walked back to her, held up the paperwork and asked if she wished to change her story. She stared down at the concrete. He then asked if I wished to file a complaint of false accusation.
    I still ended up in court for an interim IVO, yet because of all of this, the judge dismissed it. I count myself incredibly lucky.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *