NSW Inquiry Submissions

The NSW Legislative Council established a parliamentary inquiry on 20 October 2026 to examine the Firearms Legislation Amendment (Reforms Repeal) Bill 2026. This is great because it will put all its flaws under the magnifying glass, and the people responsible will have to defend their actions.

We can help. Even as Queenslanders or Victorians or wherever you are in Australia! All you have to do is make a "submission". In this submission, you need to write WHY this bill is bad for Australia and how it affects you. If you don't know what to write or how to write, we are here to help. You might think this doesn't affect you; I'm safe in QLD. We believe it affects all Australians financially and in terms of freedoms. This is also the NSW Government's attempt to draw people's attention from the real issues.  This is the link to the page where you can make a submission https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lodge-a-submission...
In Short

Farmers can’t protect their farms adequately Historic firearms will be destroyed for no reason

Treating licensed shooters as though they are the problem stops them from addressing the real problem.

The buy-back is wasting Australians' money that would be better spent on Roads and Hospitals, or vetting people properly before they enter Australia. The Commonwealth will contribute 50 per cent for administration costs and fully fund the destruction costs for surrendered firearms and administration.

They are making it more expensive unnecessarily. Making Licences only last 2 years. Mandatory Club membership even if you only shoot on rural land.

The reclassification will make it hard for people to keep their current firearms even if they are under the caps. (Apparently, the buyback won’t buy them if you are under the caps)

“Following the deadly anti-Semitic terrorist attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025, National Cabinet stood in solidarity and agreed to action to eradicate antisemitism and to strengthen gun laws across the nation. ” How is this eradicating antisemitism? This has nothing to do with antisemitism.

They are also wasting police officers' time by making them responsible for taking these firearms back.
The in-depth version

South Wales Government, particularly the restrictions on firearm ownership, the proposed firearm reclassifications, the National Firearms Buyback Scheme and the increased regulatory and financial burdens placed upon licensed firearm owners.I fully acknowledge the importance of public safety and the responsibility of government to protect Australian communities from violence and criminal activity. However, I strongly believe that effective legislation must be proportionate, evidence-based and directed towards those who present a genuine risk to society.The current reforms raise significant questions about fairness, practicality and whether the intended public safety outcomes justify the considerable consequences for law-abiding Australians.These changes do not affect only recreational shooters. They have implications for farmers, primary producers, sporting organisations, rural communities, firearms collectors, licensed businesses and Australian taxpayers.
  1. The Impact on Farmers and Primary Producers Firearms are essential working tools for many Australian farmers and primary producers. They are used for controlling feral animals, protecting livestock, managing agricultural pests and humanely dispatching injured or suffering animals. The introduction of firearm ownership caps fails to adequately recognise the varied and complex requirements of agricultural operations. A farmer managing a small property may have vastly different requirements from a primary producer operating thousands of hectares, managing multiple types of livestock and dealing with several species of feral animals. Different firearms serve different purposes. A firearm suitable for controlling small agricultural pests may be entirely unsuitable for managing larger feral animals or humanely euthanising livestock.An arbitrary numerical limit does not reflect these practical realities. The consequences of restricting access to appropriate firearms may include increased livestock losses, damage to crops and infrastructure, reduced pest management effectiveness and additional financial pressure on farming families.I ask Parliament to explain how these restrictions will improve public safety without unnecessarily compromising the ability of farmers to protect their livelihoods. Primary producers should not be disadvantaged by legislation that fails to distinguish between legitimate agricultural requirements and criminal misuse of firearms.
  2. The Unnecessary Destruction of Historic and Collectable Firearms Australia has a rich military, agricultural and sporting firearms history. Many legally owned firearms are historically significant, rare, irreplaceable or have been preserved by responsible collectors for generations. These firearms represent important parts of Australia's heritage. The reclassification of firearms and introduction of ownership restrictions may result in historically valuable firearms being surrendered and ultimately destroyed, despite having been legally acquired, securely stored and responsibly maintained. Destroying a historically significant firearm does not simply remove an object from circulation. It can permanently erase an irreplaceable piece of Australia's history, our history is just as important as the destruction of pieces of history in times of war and invasion which are labelled as “War Crimes” yet we are supposed to be thankful for it. I acknowledge that the legislation provides separate arrangements for licensed collectors. However, not every historically significant firearm is held under a collector's licence, and reclassification may create further barriers to lawful ownership and preservation. I strongly urge Parliament to establish meaningful heritage protections, grandfathering provisions and pathways for transfer to licensed collectors, museums and recognised historical institutions. No historically significant firearm should be destroyed merely because legislation has changed its classification, particularly where lawful and secure preservation remains possible.
  3. Treating Licensed Firearm Owners as the Problem Rather Than Addressing the Underlying Causes of Crime Licensed firearm owners are among the most heavily regulated members of the Australian community. They are subject to background checks, licensing requirements, genuine-reason assessments, firearm registration, secure storage obligations and ongoing regulatory oversight. The overwhelming majority undertake these responsibilities lawfully and without incident. It is therefore deeply concerning that legislative responses to acts of violence increasingly impose broad restrictions upon the entire licensed firearms community. While governments must respond decisively to criminal violence, the response must address the failures, behaviours and circumstances that actually contribute to such incidents. Parliament should carefully examine whether these reforms meaningfully address illegal firearms trafficking, criminal possession, failures in intelligence sharing, weaknesses in licensing assessments and failures to act upon known warning signs. Reducing the number of firearms held by compliant licence holders should not be treated as an automatic substitute for identifying and preventing genuine threats. The government must demonstrate how each proposed restriction will produce a measurable improvement in community safety. Law-abiding Australians should not be collectively penalised for the actions of criminals or individuals who commit acts of violence.
  4. The Financial Cost of the Buyback Scheme and the Responsible Use of Taxpayer Funds. The National Firearms Buyback Scheme raises serious concerns regarding the expenditure of public money and whether the expected public safety benefits justify its cost. The scheme will require significant taxpayer funding for compensation, administration, collection, transportation, processing and destruction of firearms that were previously lawfully owned. At a time when Australian families face substantial cost-of-living pressures and governments face increasing demands upon public services, every dollar of public expenditure should be carefully justified.Our roads require maintenance and improvement. Regional hospitals and healthcare services require funding, staffing and infrastructure. Police and emergency services need adequate resources. Australia must also ensure that its immigration, visa and border-security systems have effective identity verification, background screening and risk-assessment processes, consistent with lawful and fair treatment of applicants.I question whether spending substantial public funds purchasing legally held firearms represents the most effective allocation of resources when alternative investments may deliver more direct and measurable improvements in public safety. I urge Parliament to publish transparent costings, independent risk assessments and credible evidence demonstrating the expected benefits of the buyback. The public deserves to know not only how much these measures will cost, but what outcomes they are expected to achieve.
  5. Increased Licensing Costs, Two-Year Renewals and Mandatory Club Membership Reducing the maximum firearms licence term from five years to two years creates an additional administrative and financial burden for licensed firearm owners. Responsible licence holders who have maintained clean records, complied with storage requirements and demonstrated a legitimate need for their firearms will now be required to undertake the renewal process more frequently. This increases administrative workloads for both individuals and the NSW Firearms Registry. I question whether the additional frequency of renewals will deliver a proportionate public safety benefit, particularly for longstanding licence holders with established compliance histories. The requirement for membership of an approved firearms club also raises concerns. Many rural Australians use firearms exclusively on private rural property for lawful recreational hunting, pest management or other authorised activities. Requiring these individuals to maintain club membership, despite having no practical need to attend or participate in club activities, creates unnecessary expense and inconvenience. For people living in remote areas, access to an approved club may involve substantial travel. Mandatory membership should not be imposed simply as another administrative requirement where an individual can already demonstrate a legitimate genuine reason for firearm ownership. I ask Parliament to reconsider these measures and retain a licensing system that is affordable, practical and focused on individual suitability rather than unnecessary procedural burdens.
  6. Firearm Reclassification, Ownership Caps and Uncertainty Surrounding Buyback Eligibility One of the most troubling aspects of these reforms is the reclassification of firearms that have previously been legally purchased, registered and used by responsible licence holders. A firearm does not become inherently more dangerous simply because its legislative category has changed. Individuals who purchased firearms in full compliance with the law should not suddenly find themselves unable to retain them because the government has retrospectively altered their classification. This concern extends beyond the numerical ownership caps. A person may remain below the permitted firearm limit yet still lose the legal ability to retain a particular firearm because it has been moved into a category for which they do not qualify. The interaction between reclassification, ownership limits and buyback eligibility must be clearly explained. While the announced buyback arrangements include certain reclassified firearms, I remain concerned about situations in which owners may be unable to retain firearms, may face inadequate compensation or may encounter uncertainty about their eligibility. The government must ensure that no individual is financially disadvantaged through unclear, inconsistent or inadequate compensation arrangements. Where firearms were lawfully purchased before the legislative changes, there should be consideration of appropriate grandfathering provisions, continued ownership under suitable conditions or fair compensation based upon genuine market value. A firearm purchased legally, owned responsibly and stored securely should not become a financial liability to its owner simply because government policy has changed.
  7. The Broader Consequences for Regional Communities, Sporting Organisations and Licensed Businesses. These reforms will also affect people and organisations beyond individual firearm owners. Licensed firearms dealers, gunsmiths, shooting clubs, sporting associations and related businesses contribute to regional employment and economic activity. Restrictions on firearm ownership and classification may reduce the value of existing stock, create uncertainty for businesses and discourage investment in an already highly regulated industry. Shooting clubs provide structured environments for safety education, responsible firearm handling and competitive sport. Rural communities also rely upon local firearms businesses for essential equipment, repairs, advice and services.These impacts deserve proper consideration rather than being dismissed as incidental consequences of legislative reform. The government should undertake a comprehensive assessment of the economic and social consequences for affected communities and businesses.
  8. The Need for Genuine Consultation and Evidence-Based Reform I am concerned that the speed and scope of these changes have left many responsible firearm owners feeling that their concerns have not been adequately heard. Effective legislation should be developed through meaningful consultation with farmers, primary producers, shooting organisations, firearms historians, collectors, licensed dealers, rural communities and relevant law-enforcement experts. It should also be supported by evidence demonstrating that the proposed restrictions will address identifiable risks. Public safety and lawful firearm ownership are not mutually exclusive. Australia can maintain strong firearm regulations while also recognising the legitimate needs and contributions of responsible licence holders. Rather than relying primarily upon broad ownership caps and reclassification, I encourage Parliament to prioritise targeted risk assessments, effective licensing investigations, improved intelligence sharing, action against illegal firearms and appropriate enforcement of existing laws.
Conclusion and Requests to Parliament

I respectfully request that the Parliament of New South Wales:

  1. Reconsider the introduction of blanket firearm ownership caps and provide practical exemptions reflecting the legitimate needs of farmers, sporting shooters and other authorised users. 
  2. Establish protections for historically significant firearms and ensure lawful preservation options are available before destruction is considered. 
  3. Demonstrate, through independent evidence, how the reforms will address criminal violence and improve public safety. 
  4. Publish transparent costings and measurable objectives for the National Firearms Buyback Scheme, including consideration of alternative uses of taxpayer funds. 
  5. Review the reduction of firearms licence terms to two years and reconsider mandatory club membership for individuals who lawfully use firearms on rural properties. 
  6. Introduce fair transitional arrangements, appropriate grandfathering provisions and adequate compensation for owners affected by firearm reclassification. 
  7. Conduct meaningful consultation with affected industries, regional communities and licensed firearm owners before further restrictions commence.

I wish to make it absolutely clear that my opposition to these reforms is not an opposition to public safety or responsible firearms regulation. It is an objection to legislation that risks imposing substantial financial, practical and cultural consequences upon law-abiding Australians without sufficiently demonstrating that those consequences will produce the intended results. Good legislation should be measured by its effectiveness, fairness and outcomes, not simply by the number of restrictions introduced. I urge the NSW Parliament to reconsider these reforms, listen to those directly affected and pursue a balanced approach that protects the Australian public without unnecessarily penalising responsible firearm owners. Thank you for considering this submission. I respectfully request that these concerns be taken into account during any parliamentary review, inquiry or further consideration of the legislation.
The Submission from Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party MLC Mark Banasiak's

My submission is in 100% support for the action taken by Shooters Fishers & Farmers regarding the full repeal of the firearms laws introduced by the Minns government.

PART A: This truism summarises the folly of and destruction that results from the failure to heed: “Good men need no laws, and Bad men are not made better by them.” “ Bad men are not made better by them.” Being the key element as to why so many laws and regulations consistently fail to achieve intent.  Legislators - Wake up!

PART B: The reckless introduction of these (and other) laws have had and could have NIL effect on ‘the bad and the mad’.  What they have done is caused considerable anxiety, uncertainty, disruption and great financial hardship to those involved in the firearms industry and legitimate firearms owners themselves.Regarding the above; The Minns Government (NSW Taxpayer) is therefore fully responsible for all costs subsequent to the introduction of those laws and regulations - as determined not by bureaucrats, but by an agreed independent agent with that expertise. 

PART C: Action: Direct Police and their Firearms Registry to IMMEDIATELY rectify / make good everything done since the introduction of the Minns introduced laws.  The must include a letter to each firearms owner clearly stating their new status.

As noted above, FULL financial compensation for any and all monetary and time costs incurred since the Minns laws were introduced up until the time when compensation is to be paid.And when this is over and the destructive prejudice is reversed, an open apology by Premier Minns that his action was a response at an emotive time, and based on his self admitted  ignorance of firearms.

PART D: Advice (For NSW and all other states).Whole of society would benefit by treating people who pass appropriate and agreed sensible tests as an ASSET to society, not them being the pariah’s in society.  Instead of constant harassment by police, politicians, pacifists, regarding firearms in society: 

  1. Develop with the input of assorted experts and vested interest groups, a coordinated and ongoing public information program in schools and ‘mainstream media’ - including the ABC and it’s spawn the SBS - the practical roles of firearms and owners in society.That being necessary due to the destructive influence of most media and so called “entertainment” industries that profit from, yet simultaneously decry mind desensitising violence.  (Another crucial societal issue to be addressed.)
  2. Provide tangible benefits to licensed owners such that they will willingly participate in a proper, unbiased management system.  (many simple nil-cost examples)
  3. Detach firearms management from the grossly anti-firearms prejudiced police.  (reference my letter pc599 to Minns 20260617 .... surprise-surprise - no reply!)
  4. Federally;  Detach from the so called “United” Nations - specifically the benchmark principle of “General and complete Disarmament”.  ​ The basic UN principle targets civilian disarmament in a raft of ways to stifle and frustrate firearms ownership.  (to appreciate, read with article 39 to 51)​ EVERY dealing with the UN requires each “Member State” to “reaffirm” that (and other) basic principles with each and every dealing - on any subject.   ​ Commitment requires (here) Australia to disarm civilians.