UN_GunBy Andrew S. MacGregor

Former Australian Police Officer and prominent Port Arthur Massacre researcher Andrew MacGregor will discuss his research on the October 29 edition of Real Politik with James Tracy.

Mr. MacGregor maintains that Australia is years ahead of the United States in the how the enforcement of international gun control measures proceeds.


The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the present situation in Australia in regard to the criminal events such as the recent spate of ‘Drive-by’ shootings in Sydney is the continuation of the same events dating from 1987 when the Australian Federal Government attempted to usurp the various State and Territory rights in regards to firearms.

That the 97 per cent of all firearms stolen from ‘Licensed Firearm Owners’ in Australia in the past ten years have never been recovered simply means that these firearms were never the target of ‘Criminal’ gangs who would never use that type of firearm, thus the only other alternative has to be an organisation that has the intent to remove these firearms from the community.

That while the various State and Territory Police Firearm Registry Databases are well protected and secure within their States and Territories, it is the Federal Firearm Registry Database that is leaking information.  That those leaks are going to the ‘anti-gun’ lobby is relevant.  It is the ‘anti-gun’ lobby that has the intent to remove firearms from the community.

That the theft of ‘firearms’ is not localised but Australia wide demonstrates the impossibility of ‘Criminal’ gangs committing these thefts, as well as the fact that these ‘firearms’ have never been recovered in any of the ‘Police’ raids on such Criminal gangs, nor is there in reality any market for that quantity or style of stolen ‘firearms’, which again simply demonstrates that these thefts are being conducted by an organisation other than the ‘Criminal Element’ in Australia; which has the intent to remove firearms from the community.

That the presence of unregistered and totally unknown handguns including ‘Uzi’ machine guns in the possession of ‘Criminal’ gangs demonstrates the source of these firearms to be outside Australia, that is, that these weapons have been smuggled into Australia by various means which is the only area that the Federal Government has ‘constitutional’ control over, and that the Australian Federal Government is totally incapable  of proper management of this arena, and thus would be totally incapable of dealing with any criminal activities in regards to firearms, but that has never been the ‘agenda’ of the organisation that has the intent to remove firearms from only the law-abiding community.

-Andrew S. MacGregor

The AIC, the GCA and the Theft of Firearms in Australia

In my previous article on the ‘Theft of Firearms in New South Wales’ I inadvertently made an incorrect statement in regard to Ms Samantha Lee being; “It has previously been demonstrated that Samantha Lee is the only member of ‘Gun Control Australia’.”

This belief was founded on this 2004 paragraph in a March 2004 article. Last Monday morning, March 22, Mike Jefferys, who does the breakfast programme on 2CC Canberra, interviewed Samantha Lee about the launch. When he asked her who the NCGC actually were, and how many of there were, she hedged. When he put it to her that she was the only member, she replied, “Maybe I’ve just got a loud voice.”

John Crook’s Gun Control

The ‘Lobby group’ Gun Control Australia was originally formed by the anti-firearm activist, John Crook of ‘Ross House’ in Flinders Lane Melbourne in the late 1970’s.

“GCA (John Crook) has claimed that the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA), a federated group of sporting clubs (with over 150,000 members at 2013) is ‘extremist’ and ‘pro-violence’.In 1995 GCA (John Crook) were taken to court for this comment.GCA’s lawyers defended the case successfully on the then-new basis that they were engaging in constitutionally-protected free speech. The judge stated that: “In his opening for the plaintiff, Mr Wilson described Crook as a zealot – a description I regard as being only slightly exaggerated. In the considerable time he spent in the witness box, Crook gave the impression of being particularly dedicated to, and almost obsessed with the subject of gun control.” [WIKIPEDIA]

What ‘Wikipedia’ does not inform the reader was that John Crook called on a personal friend, Daryl Smeaton to give character evidence on his behalf.  At the time, Daryl Smeaton was a senior Public Servant working in the Federal Attorney Generals Department in the very same section that housed the NCV and the AIC.  The position Daryl Smeaton held at this particular time was; ‘Secretary of the Australasian Police Minister’s Council, the ‘Executive member of CLEB’ (Commonwealth Law Enforcement Board) as well as the Senior Political Advisor to Senators Michael Tate and Duncan Kerr.  He was also to become the Federal Government’s delegate to the United Nations Crime Prevention Commission.

It was Daryl Smeaton who presented to the various state Police Ministers at the Australasian Police Ministers Council, the new ‘National Firearms Laws’ for discussion on the 10th of November 1995.

Ms Samantha Lee joined the ‘National Coalition for Gun Control’ in the latter part of the 1990’s after the founder, the American Rebecca Peters returned to America and the NCGC leadership was passed onto another American, Randy Marshall.  In 2002, at the time of the Monash University shooting by Xiang, Ms Lee was calling herself a ‘spokesperson for the United Nations’.

In 2006, Ms Samantha Lee joined with the Tasmanian Roland Browne, claiming Co-chair status of the NCGC when they started calling for stricter legislation for handgun control.  The role of ‘spokesperson’ was then passed to Melbourne based, the Rev. Tim Costello, the brother of the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello.

In July, 2012 the NCGC merged with John Crook’s GCA and John Crook remained the President of GCA, and Ms Lee and Roland Browne retained their positions of ‘Spokespersons’, along with Rhonda Collins.  In fact these persons are the only members of GCA, and the initial summarisation of Ms Lee’s position with the NCGC in 2004 was that she was the only member of the NCGC in New South Wales.

The Australian Institute of Criminology

[‘Information and Research Service’ After Port Arthur: issues of gun control in Australia.” May 1996]

“The Hoddle Street and Queen Street mass killings in Victoria in 1987 provoked a great amount of community concern and resulted in the establishment of the National Committee on Violence (NCV). The NCV made 17 recommendations relating to firearms. Many of these, including a recommendation for uniform firearm laws in Australia, have not been implemented. Once again, Australians must consider the need for a concerted, national approach to firearms control, what that approach should entail and how it should be implemented. The lethal use of firearms is a dramatic indication of violence in society. Evidence suggests that the availability of guns increases the likelihood of death in cases of assault, self-inflicted injury and accident.”  The NCV was initiated by the 1987 Federal Government, established in October 1988, and housed within the Federal Attorney General’s Department.

What we are told in this ‘paper’ issued by the Australian Federal Government’s ‘Information and Research Service’ is that all the various ‘Lone-nut gun massacres’ that occurred in Australia from 1987 to 1996 were to be used by the Federal government to usurp the States and Territories rights in regard to Firearm control.  How are we told this? Well just exactly what does the term, ‘a concerted national approach to firearm control’ actually mean?  Furthermore the National Committee on Violence which was formed after Barry Unsworth’s infamous quote, “We will never have uniform gun laws in Australia until there is a massacre in Tasmania’, was housed in the Federal Attorney Generals Department.

The connection between the NCV and the AIC

“As already stated, the AIC (Australian Institute of Criminology) signed a MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) with the UN division (UNICRI) that is foremost involved with implementing gun control regulations worldwide. The person who signed that MoU was Duncan Chappell, the Director of the AIC. The signing of that MoU took place just three months before the convening of the National Committee on Violence (NCV) in October 1988. The NCV is the origin of the “tough new gun laws” in Australia. Duncan Chappell was not only the Director of the AIC; he was also the Chairman of the NCV. Later, after leaving the AIC, he went overseas and worked with his friends at UNICRI”. (Gunrunner by T Shulze)

The AIC appeared in 1996, to be in all aspects a Non Government Organisation (NGO), that had no other links except to a privately funded section of the United Nations, based in Vienna, called the United Nations Crime Commission. There was nothing at that time that would suggest that the AIC was a Federal Government body, or that Professor Duncan Chappell and Dr Adam Graycar were even remotely connected to the Australian Federal Government, but if a person did a search of the various bodies listed within the Federal Attorney General’s Department, then the third body listed under the heading ‘Criminal law and Law Enforcement’ was the Australian Institute of Criminology.

So it appears that the AIC has always been a department of the Federal Attorney General’s Department. The links between the AIC and the NCV should now extend not only to the United Nations but also to the Federal Attorney General’s Department.

We also have a direct link between the GCA, John Crook and Daryl Smeaton and the 1995’s ‘National Firearm laws emanating from the NCV once John Crook’s 1995 court case is considered.

Credibility of AIC’s research on firearm laws

In the article; “ANALYSIS FOR THE FUTURE OF NEW SOUTH WALES FIREARM LAWS” by Terry Shulze, these observations were made.

“It is significant that the NSW Legislative Council in September 1992 (shortly after the Select Committee on Gun Law Reform) decided to look at some of the information being disseminated from the AIC. The Standing Committee on Social Issues produced a very credible report that focused on “sexual violence research and (to) identify discrepancies in the research”. The findings held that the ICS Reports and the AIC research was “unfounded and invalid” and directed the Attorney General not to take the research into consideration when making policy decisions.  Considering the past and ongoing problems and cost of firearm law, the research regarding “firearm laws” should be given at least, if not higher, the scrutiny that was given to the research on “sexual violence”. 
It can be seen that not only was the basis of the new National Firearm Laws flawed, but that the State Legislative Council of New South Wales was aware that the source of the new firearm laws was flawed.
Then a 1997 report from the SSAA gave us this information:
“The superficial recommendations concerning firearms control as contained in the 1990 National Committee on Violence (NCV) Report entitled ‘Violence: Directions for Australia were referred to by Mr Smeaton as being embodied in the plan put to the Police Ministers.”
“The Chairman of the NCV at the time, anti-gun activist Professor Duncan Chappell, advised in response to a Freedom of Information request that the Committee’s consultations with ‘experts’ were pursued informally and that the names of such experts involved were not given to the NCV, nor were formal written opinions solicited or received by the Committee.”

The firearm targets of Rebecca Peters and Samantha Lee

The target for Rebecca Peters and her NCGC was always rifles and shotguns, supposedly of the ‘military style.  As Peters and Professor Charles Watson wrote in 1996:

In an article by Peters and Watson titled, “A breakthrough in gun control in Australia after the Port Arthur Massacre” there are some interesting little snippets of information such as;

“The death toll of 35 represents almost 50% of total firearm homicides for the entire country in an average year.” (This demonstrates that the pre-existing firearm laws were competent in providing protection for Australian citizens.)

Another gem is; “Handguns are strictly controlled and cause fewer than 40 deaths each year. However ownership of rifles and shotguns is fairly high, around four million guns in a population of 18 million”. (In other words handguns, which are strictly controlled and yet cause a similar number of deaths as Port Arthur each year, are fine, but rifles and shotguns are not! Figure that one out for yourself.)

“Australia has about 600 firearm deaths per year, accounting for one in 13 of all injury deaths. Eighty per cent of gun deaths are suicides. Handguns are strictly controlled and cause fewer than 40 deaths each year. However ownership of rifles and shotguns is fairly high around four million guns in a population of 18 million.”

What people can quite clearly see is that the specific targets of Rebecca Peters and her NCGC were the removal of high powered semi-automatic rifles and shotguns within Australia and the total registration of ‘ALL’ firearms and owners within Australia on a ‘National’ database.  This was the No 1 priority on the National plan.

Think of it in this manner; For the NCGC, the Port Arthur massacre was all about removing rifles and shotguns, just the same as the August 1987 Hungerford UK massacre by Michael Ryan, much the same as the Hoddle Street and Queen Street massacres in 1987 were supposed to have the States cede their powers to the Commonwealth so that Australia would have ‘Uniform gun laws’.  Then, much later there was to be another massacre as per Dunblane UK in March 1996 which was to remove handguns from the British general public.

Now are you able to comprehend exactly how Roland Browne of the NCGC was able to ‘predict the Port Arthur massacre in November 1995 and in March 1996, and that the NCGC Professor Simon Chapman endorsed those ‘predictions’ on the 29th April 1996!

The Australian equivalent massacre to Dunblane was to occur at the Monash University in October 2002, but due to civilian intervention, that planned massacre never passed the ‘massacre standard’ of 4 or more victims.  Another ‘handgun massacre’ was ‘predicted’ by Samantha Lee and Roland Browne in April 2006, but had to be discarded due to public awareness.

A full description of the 10 point plan was given in an article penned by Gun Control advocates, Rebecca Peters and Charles Watson, which states;
The May 10 Agreement Prime Minister Howard put to the police ministers a 10 point plan for strict and uniform gun laws, based on the NCV (National Council against Violence) recommendations. It requires every jurisdiction to pass laws that ensure:
1. The sale and ownership of every gun must be registered in a national database.
2. Anyone who wants to own a gun must prove they have a genuine reason‚ self defence is not a genuine reason.
3. The minimum age for a licence to own or buy guns will be 18
4. New licence applicants will have to undertake a training course in gun safety.
5. Domestic violence offenders (men only) will be banned from holding a gun licence for at least five years.
6. Uniform and strict gun storage requirements will be instituted.
7. Guns can only be bought and sold through licenced dealers- that is, no more mail order or backyard sales.
8. As well as a licence, every purchase of a gun will require a permit with a 28 day waiting period.
9. Semi-automatic weapons and pump-action shotguns will be banned, except for those farmers and professional shooters who can prove they have a genuine need for these weapons.
10. Owners of prohibited weapons will have twelve months to surrender them for fair compensation, funded out of an increase in the Medicare levy (the universal tax surcharge that funds Australia’s health care system).

Samantha Lee’s ‘gun agenda’

What we can see here is that Rebecca Peters initiated ‘stage 1’ of the anti-gun agenda.  ‘Stage 2’ was to be implemented with the Monash University shooting.

On the 21st of October 2002 Huan Yun Xiang opened fire with a handgun during an economics class at the Monash University in Melbourne, Victoria.  He killed two Asian students and wounded five others before another student grabbed him and with the help of the lecturer, Lee Gordon-Brown, disarmed Xiang.  Xiang later told his ‘controller’ Assoc. Professor Brett Inder that “it was all I could do!”  The one handgun then evolved into five handguns that Xiang had been legally permitted to buy due to a ‘change’ in the new handgun laws.

Approximately two months after the Monash University shooting, both Assoc. Professor Brett Inder and Samantha Lee were mentioned in the MSM in regards to comments on a container-load of Beretta handguns due to arrive in Australia.  The anti-gun Professor Paul E. Mullen was a lecturer at the Monash University.

Due to the fact that the Monash University was not a ‘massacre’, as only two persons were killed, the new ‘Handgun regulations’ didn’t go anywhere near what the NCGC required.

In April 2006, on the tenth anniversary of the Port Arthur Massacre, both Samantha Lee and Roland Browne, being spokespersons for the NCGC, again predicted a ‘possible massacre’ with a handgun.

However several persons opposed to the NCGC agenda then wrote warning of a potential massacre at a school, possibly within Melbourne, and circulated those warnings.  Those ‘Lone-nut gun massacres/shootings’ then took place in Montreal, Canada, at universities in America and including the massacre at Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania on the 2nd of October, 2006 where five Amish schoolgirls were murdered and another five wounded with the ‘Lone-nut’ gunman, Charles Carl Roberts then committing suicide.  Then to finalise these massacres there was the ‘Lone-nut gunman’ style massacre at Virginia Tech Virginia on the 16th April 2007, by Cho Seung Hui, where 32 were killed with another 17 wounded.

So, in Australia from 2006 there was an apparent move away from massacres, with the NCGC continually stating that since Port Arthur and the ‘New Firearm laws’ there have been no more ‘gun massacres’, cleverly forgetting of course the East Melbourne Abortion Clinic and the Monash University attempted massacres.

What this should indicate is that the NCGC has changed its agenda.  The agenda will still be on ‘handguns’, but it has to focus on other criminal activities such as ‘Bikie gangs, ‘Asian gangs’ and ‘Drug gangs’.  The inferences here are ‘criminal activities’, but the reality is that there is only one major criminal element in Australia and that is the ‘Drug’ activities, as criminals are simply businessmen wanting to make a big profits, and of course without paying government taxes.

Now there are two types of drugs to be found in Australia, the ‘Home-grown’ and the ‘imported’.  The ‘imported’ drug is naturally smuggled into Australia, and prior to 1996, along with the illicit drugs that were smuggled into Australia, there were also various handguns for the ‘druggies’ to defend their merchandise.

This however raises another problem for the ‘anti-gun’ advocates as they wish to have the ‘State powers’ in regard to firearms ceded to the Federal Government, but it is the Federal Government that has the power in regard to ‘importation of firearms’ and thus it would be counterproductive to inform the general population that the majority of ‘illegal handguns’ in Australia have been smuggled into this country and that the Federal government is incapable of ‘properly policing’ the illicit importation of firearms into Australia.

To negate this major stumbling block, the NCGC, the AIC and the Australian Federal Government, all require another source for the escalating number of illegal handguns in Australia.  That source has to be within Australia itself, and thus the only source of illegal handguns in Australia must come from the public itself, and most notably, the licenced firearm owners.

This then begs the question; ‘just exactly how does these sections of the Australian Federal government get the ‘Drug’ criminals to start stealing the firearms from the licenced shooters in Australia?’  The answer is that they cannot as the ‘Drug’ criminals already have their own sources of firearms (smuggled).  This leaves only one other alternative; Those sections within the Australian Federal Government connected with the ‘National Firearms Agenda’ have no choice but to steal the firearms themselves, or at least organise for their minions to commit the burglaries for them.  But if some firearms are ‘stolen’ by ‘members of Bikie gangs’ then that should also denote a connection between that gang and that section of the Federal Government.

Theft of Firearms in New South Wales

To get some idea of exactly when the ‘theft of firearms’ began to get media attention, we should look at some media reports

12 March, 2010 Louise Hall3, “Heavily armed security guards alarm greens.”  ‘In 2008-09, 585 firearms were stolen in NSW, an increase of 109 on the previous year’.  ‘We know that quite a number of handguns are lost or stolen from security guards’ the President of Gun Control Australia, John Crook.

28 July 2013  Linton Besser2, “Suburban shootings tied to rise in handgun thefts”  ‘A dramatic spike in the number of stolen handguns flowing on to Sydney’s black market may be linked to the added shootings across the city, experts say, with a 265 per cent increase last year in the theft of revolvers and pistols.’  ‘There were 711 firearms stolen last year in NSW, a rise of 36 per cent on 2009.’  ‘There were77 pistols and 18 revolvers stolen last year, compared with 19 and seven respectively a year earlier’.

Gun Control Australia spokeswoman Samantha Lee said theft was the main source of black-market firearms, along with ”rogue arms dealers selling them under the counter”.  ”Both the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Australian Crime Commission have stated that there is very little evidence to prove that guns are coming in illegally across the border,” Ms Lee said. ”The legal gun market is fuelling the illegal gun market.”

The increasing number of illegal guns circulating in Sydney coincided with a push by the hunting and gun lobby to promote firearm ownership and to wind back landmark gun control measures.

6 February 2013 Sarah Kendell1, “Where can you buy an Uzi?”  According to Samantha Bricknell of the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), the most likely cause is the growing number of legal firearms acquired by recreational shooters. A 2008 amendment to licensing laws waived the 28-day waiting period for existing owners to acquire additional weapons — which essentially means there are more guns around to steal.  “There has been an increase in the number of firearms being registered in the country and it seems to have been in the last five years,” Bricknell told NM. “We haven’t done any significant testing on this, but it may have been the reason [for the large theft numbers].”

Indeed, while the growth in legal firearms would seem the obvious reason for the state’s continually high gun theft rates, the AIC, which regularly monitors instances of firearms theft, says nothing in their data suggests legal owners are becoming more lax with gun storage.

“We have what’s called a non-compliance rate, which is the incidence of people who police have reported as being in breach of the storage conditions of their licence when they go to investigate a reported firearm theft”, says Bricknell.

“That rate hasn’t changed — in any given year, a quarter of owners who reported the theft of a firearm to police were deemed to be storage non-compliant. So while owners haven’t improved their compliance rate, it hasn’t gotten worse either.”

The avenue that hasn’t been significantly researched in past years is illegal import. Until last year, police insisted there was no evidence of large scale importation of firearms into the country. Then in March, a seizure of 140 ammunition magazines from a smuggling ring in south-western Sydney blew the possibility of guns passing en masse through Australia’s borders wide open.

The ongoing discovery of weapons for which a licence is locally unobtainable — including an Uzi sub-machine gun discovered during a police raid in Campbelltown last weekend — would seem to suggest importation from overseas is continuing.

17 April 2012, “PM asked to join push against handguns”5   PRIME Minister Julia Gillard needs to step in and work with the states to ban semi-automatic handguns in response to Sydney’s plague of drive-by shootings, a gun control group says.   The guns are the weapon of choice for criminals terrorising western Sydney because they are lightweight and easy to handle, says Samantha Lee, chair of the National Coalition for Gun Control.

13 October 2014, Bridie Jabour7 “Australia has 260,000 illegal firearms in circulation, Inquiry told” About 260,000 guns are on the Australian “grey” or black markets, an inquiry into illicit firearms has heard. They belong to people who did not register them after the stricter gun laws came in in 1996, or people had bought them illegally.

Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie focused on the fact that six out of 48,000 registered handguns had been stolen in Victoria in the past year, but more than 500 firearms had been stolen overall with rifles one of the more popular guns for thieves.

13 January 2012, Katherine Danks6 “A black market in stolen firearms” GUNS are finding their way on to the black market because registered owners are poorly trained and careless about the storage of their weapons, an anti-gun campaigner said.  Gun Control Australia president John Crook said owners often believed “guns are an everyday thing” and failed to properly safeguard their firearms.

The University of Sydney’s School of Public Health website GunPolicy.org states there are 185,118 registered gun owners in NSW.  Associate Professor Phillip Alpers said it is impossible to estimate the number of guns on the black market.

Australian Institute of Criminology data shows a total of 1570 firearms were stolen across all states and territories with the exception of Western Australia in 2008-09, with 592 guns stolen in NSW.  The number of firearms reported stolen in Australia has risen by 6 per cent each year since 2004-05.  The data found only 60 per cent of gun owners reporting theft in 2008-09 had correctly stored their weapon.

5 September 2014, Mark Morri4, “Hundreds of guns stolen across NSW” Nearly 600 guns have been stolen in the past year. Of the 578 weapons stolen about 80 per cent were from homes, mainly in rural NSW, according to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics. The bureau said there had been a 34 per cent increase in “prohibited and regulated weapons offences”.

Data from media on stolen firearms

In 2010, Louise Hall says that 585 firearms were stolen in 2008-09 from NSW which was an increase of 109 in 2007-08 (476).  However, in 2012, Katherine Danks gives us the figure of 592 for the same period of 2009-09 which is supposedly from the AIC.  In 2012 we are told by Linton Besser 711 firearms stolen in NSW.  From Mark Morri we get 578 firearms stolen in 2013-14.

Again from Katherine Danks we get the figures of firearms reported stolen in Australia has risen by 6 per cent each year since 2004-05.  One would presume that this statistic means that either firearms were only stolen from 2004-05, or that the data in regard to stolen firearms only commenced in 2004-05.

Then there is the disparity between the figures of ‘firearm owners’ failing to comply with the ‘Safety regulations’ (storage of weapons), with Katherine Danks in 2012 reporting that the AIC being quoted as; ‘The data found only 60 per cent of gun owners reporting theft in 2008-09 had correctly stored their weapon’ while Sarah Kendell in 2013 cites Samantha Bricknell of the AIC “That rate hasn’t changed — in any given year, a quarter of owners who reported the theft of a firearm to police were deemed to be storage non-compliant.  So, what exactly is the percentage of firearm owners ‘deemed’ to have failed to comply with the ‘Storage of weapons Regulations?  Forty per cent as per Katherine Danks or twenty-five percent as per Sarah Kendell?

Why aren’t these statistics constant?

The source of these statistics that are mostly cited by Samantha Lee and John Crook of the anti-gun lobby groups, GCA and NCGC appear to emanate from the AIC, which has a history going back to 1992 where they were deemed unreliable by the NSW Legislative Council.

However, if we go back to 1990 when the Director of the AIC, Professor Duncan Chappell signed a MoU with the United Nations in regard to gun control, we can then see that not only is there an apparent ‘conflict of interest’, but there is a bias towards the anti-gun lobby, and it appears almost as though the ‘anti-gun’ lobbyists are ‘spruiking’ for the AIC.

Then when we consider the ‘10 point plan’ cited by Rebecca Peters and Professor Charles Watson in 1996, we have the first point being: 1. The sale and ownership of every gun must be registered in a national database.

Now, why did Peters and Watson push for a ‘National Database’?  So their associates could control the use of the information stored within.  Who were their associates?  The AIC of course!  So who does the AIC pass on information too?  Consider this little paragraph:

The University of Sydney’s School of Public Health website GunPolicy.org states there are 185,118 registered gun owners in NSW.  Associate Professor Phillip Alpers

Just exactly where did the anti-gun lobbyist, Phillip Alpers obtain this information?  Well he couldn’t have got it from the NSW Police Firearms Database could he?  That simply means he must have gained this information from the AIC.  Is this information ‘privileged information’?  Of Course!

Then we have this:  Australian Institute of Criminology data shows a total of 1570 firearms were stolen across all states and territories with the exception of Western Australia in 2008-09, with 592 guns stolen in NSW.  The number of firearms reported stolen in Australia has risen by 6 per cent each year since 2004-05.  The data found only 60 per cent of gun owners reporting theft in 2008-09 had correctly stored their weapon.

Where did the AIC obtain this information?  From the various State Police Firearms databases of course.  Is this ‘privileged information’? Of course!  Is there a ‘Political agenda’ behind the release of this information?  Of course!  Exactly how accurate is this information?  The answer to that question can only be demonstrated by comparing this data with the data on the various State Firearms Registry databases, but considering previous information put out by the AIC there would have to be grave doubts on this information’s reliability.

And then finally we have this: MacGregor_Image

This ‘Google Map’ was found in two articles on the 13th of January 2012 and the 16th January 2012 on the ‘Dailytelegraph.com.au’ articles by Katherine Danks and Richard Noone. (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/a-black-market-in-stolen-firearms/story-e6freuy9-1226243017473 and http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/trigger-happy-shooters-gun-buying-spree/story-e6freuy9-1226244876195 )

This map must be considered extremely privileged and the original source has to be the New South Wales Police ‘Firearms Registry Database’, and this map demonstrates that there is a massive leakage of information from that database, and the leakage stems out of the Federal Attorney Generals Department via the AIC and it is extremely political.

Thus when licensed shooters in Australia, and especially in New South Wales believe that it is from information stored on the Police firearms database that ‘criminals’ are using to target their firearms, there is now sufficient evidence to demonstrate a ‘Prima Facie’ case in those beliefs.

Furthermore, although it will not be noticeable to the ordinary shooter, what is noticed is that the thefts in the most parts are fairly congested, especially at Parramatta, and that these ‘groups’ of burglaries rather than suggesting an ‘ad hoc’ approach by criminals, suggests a grouping pattern within ‘Police Districts’, because although there are several burglaries around Parramatta, there are only two at North Parramatta and virtually none at Liverpool or Cabramatta, and that is extremely interesting.

If I were a policeman attached to the ‘Firearm Registry Office and somewhat concerned in regard ‘breakings’ or ‘burglaries’ where firearms have been targeted, I would start paying close attention to State police who are either attached to, or associated with the Federal Attorney Generals Department, as are the ‘Police Special Operations Groups’ (SOG’s) and the Police Security Intelligence Groups (SIG’s).

And as for the fact that only 3 percent of these ‘stolen firearms’ are ever recovered by police, perhaps it may be an idea for police to check the numbers of firearms that have been destroyed by police at scrap metal furnaces, as there are insufficient number of criminal gangs, be they bikie, Druggies or Middle Eastern gangs to utilise the number of stolen rifles and shotguns.  In fact most police are now fully aware that the ‘drug gangs’ import their own weapons when they import their drugs.

Finally, the various State Police forces should be very aware of the ‘political agenda’ of the Federal government to usurp the various State roles in regard to firearms, and just as in November 1995 with the Queensland Police addressing the ‘Newly proposed National firearm laws’,

“As part of the consultation process, the Queensland Police Service has set aside times for a series of meetings to allow individuals or organisations within Queensland to comment on the Resolutions. The purpose of this letter, therefore, is to invite you to contact the Police service should you wish to comment on any aspect of the working paper or meet with the Service to explain your views”.

“I enclose a copy of the Working Paper for your consideration. It should be emphasised that the resolutions proposed in the forum of the Police Ministers Council are not necessarily supported by the Queensland Government”

What we are seeing in Sydney and other parts of New South Wales, and indeed, the rest of Australia, not only with the surge in gun related crimes such as ‘drive-by shootings’ and firearm thefts, which has led to the current New South Wales ‘Senate Inquiry’ into “the ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun-related violence in the community”

This is the exact same scenario the Bureaucrat Daryl Smeaton used when he was the Secretary of the Australasian Police Minister’s Council and the ‘Executive member of CLEB’ (Commonwealth Law Enforcement Board) not forgetting his ‘friendship’ with the GCA president, John Crook for whom he gave character evidence in a court case in Melbourne in 1995!  Ergo, this latest political agenda is all about the federal government usurping the Firearm Laws from the various States and Territories.


Andrew S. MacGregor is an experienced military and law enforcement officer. Born in 1947 in Yarraville, Melbourne, Australia, Mr. MacGregor served in the Citizens Military Forces of the Victoria Scottish Regiment and as Senior Constable with the Victoria Police. Since 1998 he has conducted extensive research on the Port Arthur Massacre and other Australian ‘lone-nut’ shootings. MacGregor began playing the Bagpipes at age ten, and was active for 14 years as a member of the Victoria Police Highland Pipe Band.

Leave a Reply

10 thought on “Australian Anti-Gun Lobby, UN Implicated in Firearms Theft Ring”
  1. […] By Andrew S. MacGregor Former Australian Police Officer and prominent Port Arthur Massacre researcher Andrew MacGregor will discuss his research on the October 29 edition of Real Politik with James Tracy. Mr. MacGregor maintains that Australia is years ahead of the United States in the how the enforcement of international gun control measures proceeds. Prelude The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the present situation in Australia in regard to the criminal events such as the recent spate of ‘Drive-by’ shootings in Sydney is the continuation of the same events dating from 1987 More… […]

  2. Putin to western elites:-play-time-is-over

    A Must Read Speech from Putin. Very long. I’ve included some excerpts out of context. It’s worth your time to read. He nails the rich elites with their new world order and all the arrogance and folly.

    Most people in the English-speaking parts of the world missed Putin’s speech at the Valdai conference in Sochi a few days ago, and, chances are, those of you who have heard of the speech didn’t get a chance to read it, and missed its importance.
    (For your convenience, I am pasting in the full transcript of his speech below.) Western media did their best to ignore it or to twist its meaning. Regardless of what you think or don’t think of Putin (like the sun and the moon, he does not exist for you to cultivate an opinion) this is probably the most important political speech since Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech of March 5, 1946.

    The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called ‘victors’ in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.

    Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

    A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

    Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.
    They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

    The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists’ invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region’s countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

    First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.
    Only the current Egyptian leadership’s determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?

    The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of ‘supra-legal’ legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

    Let’s ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States’ exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

    It’s a VERY long speech and worth every word. I know how some of you feel about Alex Jones but this is where it is posted:


  3. The Port Arthur shooting was used by the Australian legislature to radically curtail gun ownership in that country. 600,000 guns were confiscated in the wave of public outrage which followed it. Semi-automatic rifles and handguns were virtually banned. Similar but weaker legislation was proposed by the Obama administration in the wake of shootings in Newtown CT. and Aurora CO. It is therefore instructive to compare the circumstances surrounding these events, particularly as similar anomalies have emerged in the reporting of all three shootings.

    In all three cases there were sketchy and inclusive reports of a second shooter having been seen or captured. All three “perpetrators” were said to have exhibited symptoms of the autism spectrum disorder known as Asperger’s Syndrome. All three shootings were committed primarily with semi-automatic rifles, AR-15s. All three also involved the death of at least one child.

    One very striking similarity between the images of each of the perpetrators presented by the media is the treatment of their eyes, with white showing around the entire pupil in all three cases. This is very odd, as most people’s eyes almost never look like this unless they are mugging for the camera, or their images have been photo shopped. Almost all the images we have of Adam Lanza show this striking anomaly. James Holmes’ eyes look this way both right after the shooting and in the courtroom many days later. In the case of Martin Bryant however we actually have two otherwise identical photos, one with “crazy eyes” and the other looking normal. In other words, we have clear evidence that Bryant’s image was photo-shopped in exactly this way.

    Watch this video at approx. minute 7:

    The photo-shopping makes Bryant look dangerous and deranged. Is this technique part of a formula which has been used successfully in Australia and has been reproduced here in America to achieve the same effect? Who is behind these striking similarities? Do these similarities extend to other aspects of these shootings, such as the illusory deaths?

    There is a great deal of evidence that no one died at either Sandy Hook or Aurora. The youtube channel “livingonplanetz”(now banned) has shown that many of the “victims” of the Aurora shooting are still alive. Many of the Sandy Hook victims were seen singing at the Superbowl. Could the Port Arthur shooting have been a similar “hoax” event where no one died? I think that this is more than likely. All three events were based on a similar script, run by the same entity. A real shooter is not part of this scenario.

    This view obviously calls into question the investigation of Andrew MacGregor and the testimony of another key witness, Wendy Scurr. While both of these people claim to question the government’s account of the massacre, both actually reinforce the impression of a deadly event perpetrated with a very deadly weapon, one which the public might well want banned. MacGregor’s and Scurr’s main gripe is that the authorities left a door nailed shut trapping several victims. One has to ask whether these people can be trusted. It is my humble opinion that they cannot, that they are both frauds, and that the Port Arthur massacre was, like Sandy Hook and Aurora, a hoax where no one died.

  4. My niece who is a trained psycho therapist, posted – “I just hate my kids my kids have to go through these armed gun drills, just because of gun enthusiasts who refuse to give up their guns.’ linking to a wp article on a teacher’s impression of how terrible it was for 5 year olds.

    My response was that it is the policies fault and not that of responsible gun owners, who do not view it as a hobby, but a survival tool. Never witnessed violence inside my high school that had armed guards and a very rough population. And btw, bet you never hear the stories about how good guys with guns actually prevent mass murders?

    My other niece responded, who has a doctorate in child psychiatry, well I was freaked out at first at my school, but it was amazing how well the children just adapted. She has left education and is a lawyer now, think she has run out of the number of degrees she could possibly achieve before finding her dream job…

    1. Oh yes of course had to end the conversation with these trained professionals, hoping they might enlighten me, it is so sad the Sandy Hook Commission was not allowed to view any medical records that might shed light on what went wrong and why our children are now being terrorized. Seems allot like the children of the 50’s, made to crouch under their chairs to avoid nuclear bombs, and that would not of helped at all. crickets….

    2. -“I just hate my kids my kids have to go through these armed gun drills, just because of gun enthusiasts who refuse to give up their guns.’

      A perfect example of the mental block inserted into people regarding the reasons behind ownership of firearms. Enthusiast, Ha!

      -My other niece responded, who has a doctorate in child psychiatry, well I was freaked out at first at my school, but it was amazing how well the children just adapted.

      A doctorate in child psychology? And she can’t even discern between adaptation and mental conditioning? This shows how bad things have gotten. In another ten or twenty years as the older population dies off, these people will be in the majority. Very sad. I have people who know my proclivity to keep up on conspiracy, and New World Order lies, ask me all the time: when is the revolution coming? My answer is “never”. We will get old and die off and 1984 will come along gradually. Some future generations may curse us for letting it happen, but eventually we will be sent down the memory as well. Things will be to them as they always have been.

      Thanks for printing these skirt.

      1. Thanks Rich!

        Kind of felt like I was in an episode of the twilight zone, only when I pinched myself realized it was real life.

        Was always considered a rebel, along with my now deceased brother, is there a chance future generations might know of us?..

        Really try to keep my fb profile happy, in respect for my daughter who has two babies and like most young families are struggling,

        If you proclaim solar/wind energy will solve all of our problems., will jump all over your stance with facts.

        Pretty much am surprised the nieces haven’t un-friended me, but have this crazy notion of someday, they may ask for advise when the shtf….

  5. I just want to add to my comment that my skepticism toward MacGregor does not extend to Prof. Tracy who continues to ask the right questions and to provide a forum for these discussions. Kudos to Tracy for this antidote to the Orwellian “memory hole”.

    Also, Skirt, here is a story which reinforces your above point that armed guards are all that is needed to prevent mass shootings at schools:
    One wonders whether this event, which happened two months before the Aurora theater shooting, might have influenced the Batman Shooter’s decision to wear full body armor. If the shooter had nothing but blanks in his gun, he would have been quite vulnerable to someone with a concealed carry in the audience. One witness described seeing two men in black standing beside the shooter. Could these men have been armed with live ammo to take out anyone in the audience who might have shot back?

Leave a Reply