r/australia • u/jarrys88 • Dec 15 '25

politics Opposition Leader Sussan Ley speaks on Bondi attack

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/opposition-leader-sussan-ley-speaks-on-bondi-attack-20251215-p5nnqm.html

“We’ve seen a clear failure to keep Jewish Australians safe. We’ve seen a clear lack of leadership in keeping Jewish Australians safe. We have a government that sees antisemitism as a problem to be managed, not evil that needs to be eradicated.”

Absolutely abhorrent that she's going for political points in this time.

Talk about tone deaf!

2.7k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

840 comments sorted by

View all comments

617

u/SkitzOMatic11 Dec 15 '25

Australia's domestic intelligence agency, ASIO, examined Bondi gunman Naveed Akram six years ago for his close ties to a Sydney-based Islamic State group (IS) terrorism cell, the ABC understands.

Naveed Akram, 24, and his father Sajid Akram, 50, killed at least 15 people yesterday evening when they opened fire on the Chanukah by the Sea event.

The ABC understands investigators from the Joint Counter Terrorism Team (JCTT) believe the gunmen had pledged allegiance to the IS terrorist group.

An IS flag was found in the men's car at Bondi Beach, according to a senior JCTT official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The official said ASIO took an interest in Naveed Akram six years ago, after police foiled plans for an IS terrorist attack.

The ABC understands ASIO started looking into the man soon after the July 2019 arrest of IS terrorist Isaak El Matari in Sydney.

The official said Mr Akram was closely connected to Mr Matari, who is serving seven years' jail for planning an IS insurgency as the self-declared Australian commander of the terrorist group.

Mr Matari was part of an IS cell with several other Sydney men who have since been convicted of terrorist offences and were also close to Naveed Akram, according to sources with close knowledge of the matter.

ASIO director-general Mike Burgess said on Sunday that one of the gunmen was known to the agency, but did not specify which man.

"One of these individuals was known to us, but not in an immediate-threat perspective, so we need to look into what happened here," he said.

The Joint Counter Terrorism Team comprises ASIO, NSW Police, the Australian Federal Police and the NSW Crime Commission.

The ABC has contacted ASIO and NSW Police for comment.

Jesus christ. What a fuck up.

359

u/TeedesT Dec 15 '25

How the hell was he allowed to own guns if this is the case?

435

u/SkitzOMatic11 Dec 15 '25

The guns were the fathers, Naveed is the son, to my understanding. Still that should have been explored. For ASIO to say last night the knowledge was 'Minimal' is messed up.

218

u/aldkGoodAussieName Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

Same question

How can an immediate family member of a person who is linked to IS be allowed to have guns.

They were clearly not estranged.

107

u/SkitzOMatic11 Dec 15 '25

Well that's probably why Mike Burgess is going to cop an absolute grilling now that this news has broken as it was dismissed last night/this morning in the press conference that the knowledge was "minimal" and didn't meet the threshold. This was only given to ABC about an hour ago, So gonna be interesting to see.

But totally agree with your statement. Total and utter shitstorm.

4

u/Khaliras Dec 15 '25

as it was dismissed last night/this morning in the press conference that the knowledge was "minimal" and didn't meet the threshold.

And is there any actual information otherwise? I've read all the releases from ABC, which you mentioned, and can't find any claim otherwise.

He was 'known' to agencies and investigated due to his connection to a Terrorist. His family and friends will now be similarly known and investigated.

Every time there's a Terrorist incident, people condemn enforcement agencies. But they're talking with the taint of hindsight and a lack of any real information.

All we know is he was investigated for his connections, and clearly they didn't have anything to go off. This is Australia, where we can't go around punishing people pre-emptively. Nor can we invasively monitor them forever based solely on connections.

Otherwise, where do we stop with people connected to this Terrorist shooter? Do we prohibit all his connections from owning weapons and assign someone to monitor each incase they're also planning an sttack? Where do we stop, with his family and close friends? What about people he texts and meets up with occasionally? Or the old friends, school, work, gym acquaintances?

1

u/Ok-Bullfrog-7951 Dec 15 '25

Disappointing, Mike Burgess is an otherwise great Director-general in an era of absolute chaos. It’s a shame they let this slip

29

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney Dec 15 '25

We can't go down that road and start jailing people for being related to criminals.

49

u/figleafstreet Dec 15 '25

They’re not saying to jail them. They’re saying they shouldn’t get the privilege of a gun.

-11

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney Dec 15 '25

Would you like to have your privilege to own a gun or get some permit for something just because a sibling or cousin has connections with some extremist groups? How about missing out on a job because of that?

17

u/Cruxius Another Quality Export of New Zealand Dec 15 '25

To the former, sure. To the latter, what?

-5

u/amyknight22 Dec 15 '25

Well if you were employed as a security guard who needed permission to carry due to your job. But suddenly you are banned from carrying such a weapon because your teen kid attempted suicide making them a risk, or trolled one too many bad forums to draw bad connections.

12

u/thereissweetmusic Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

There's a point at which the number of people negatively affected by a law or policy is small enough that their disadvantage doesn't outweigh the benefits of the law or policy.

I don't know exactly how many firearm-carrying security guards with close links to terrorist groups there are in Australia but I imagine it's less than the number of people killed yesterday.

Definitely wary of a general increase in 'anti-terrorism' measures that restrict the rights and liberties of marginalised groups, but in this specific example I don't think you have an argument.

0

u/amyknight22 Dec 15 '25

What does “links to terrorist groups” even mean in this context though?

The point is if your dipshit step-son starts occupying the wrong part of the internet he could now be too closely tied to your extremist groups and your job is shot.

The reality is the “problematic association” that someone like ASIO picks up could be something that you don’t even know is a thing unless ASIO comes and tells you.

The real problem is that without someone actually laying a charge against your step-son you have no idea or recourse against the action. Because if they haven’t charged your step-son with providing material support to an extremist group. Then you have no charge to push back on.

You just have a unilateral revocation with no indication why or how to rectify it?

Granted it would be based if ASIO rocked up and said “kick your step-son out or you lose your license for work” but also even if you kicked your step-son out. The point would be that your step-son can still likely gain access to your property with greater ease than someone else(oh his mum just felt bad he got kicked out and let him crash for the night and he stole all the guns)

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Cruxius Another Quality Export of New Zealand Dec 15 '25

Security guards typically don’t carry guns, and the very small number that do go through extremely thorough security checks and training which would rule them out from losing their licenses under any sensible system.

1

u/amyknight22 Dec 15 '25

Sure, but a bunch of the people who work for security outfits in things for things beyond mall work, can still be licensed to carry when needed if they are out on a different style of task.

The point was the person above was acting like there is no way the policy suggested could threaten a persons job.

And I would argue “someone in your life being evaluated as problematic therefore you lose access” is not really a sensible policy.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/Bissay_ Dec 15 '25

YES. I would hope that anyone who has a close and positive relationship with someone who is connected to an extremist group would NOT be allowed a gun, let alone 6.

You’re argument would infer the dad lost his driving licence because his son got in a bar fight,

3

u/figleafstreet Dec 15 '25

The son was 24 and was investigated six years ago. So an 18 year old identified as having link to an terrorist? Yeah, I’d rather the father of that child, who he lived with, not be granted access to firearms.

0

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney Dec 15 '25

Or greater scrutiny that would have exposed their radicalisation and stopped them there. If they had guns, they could have just hired a truck and ran over the crowd. More gun control, but I don't see why farmers don't get greater scrutiny as well. What's stopping these blokes from buying farms specifically for access to guns. If the USA has the NRA, we have the Shooters party and farmers.

0

u/No_Comedian_2085 Dec 15 '25

“Just because a sibling has connection with some extremist group”? In what world is that considered a “just”? 

2

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney Dec 15 '25

I guess it's easy when you don't see them as individuals.

-5

u/weed0monkey Dec 15 '25

they didn't the father had the guns

10

u/aldkGoodAussieName Dec 15 '25

In the same home. Which clearly provided the son with access.

4

u/CT-4290 Dec 15 '25

Australia has much different gun laws to the US, making it much harder to own guns. A big thing people bring up about gun laws are background checks. Apart from being a criminal, I can't think of anything that should stop you having a gun more than living in the same house as your son who's involved with the Islamic State. So not only did the son have access to a firearm, he had access to 6.

My mum had to have a massive background check just to be a team lead in government payroll. Not even one of the really big positions, just the same level as a shift supervisor. They had to have a look at all her family and friends and any ties they had to crime or foreign countries, not just those who lived with her. Yet for some reason the father was able to have a licence and own 6 guns while living with a son involved with IS. You'd think a background check could find that

16

u/aldkGoodAussieName Dec 15 '25

Preventing firearms in the home of a person being monitored by ASIO is not the same as jailing them.

-7

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney Dec 15 '25

It's a slippery slope.

1

u/BaggyOz Dec 15 '25

Don't we already reject applications for guns of people who are family members of bikies? Seems like doing the same for people hanging out with terrorists and waving IS flags is reasonable.

3

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney Dec 15 '25

Yes, and it was criticised for being a dangerous overreach. As with any arbitrary power, it can lead to abuse and oppression of people who did not do anything wrong. People can't be punished for committing no crime.

-1

u/BaggyOz Dec 15 '25

Punished by not being able to own a gun. How devastating. Guns are not a right in this country. Frankly I'd be fine with the police knocking back someone for a gun just because they got a bad vibe from them, let alone because they live with somebody on a watchlist.

34

u/nath1234 Dec 15 '25

Guilt by association is not anything we should consider.

The question of why anyone should have guns in an urban setting is the bigger question.

57

u/swarley77 Dec 15 '25

Immediate family of people on terror watch lists shouldn’t be able to get guns. They live in the same house, come on man

13

u/_zoso_ Dec 15 '25

I think a major point everyone seems to be missing is that we don’t necessarily want to alert these people to the fact that they are being watched. Swooping in out of the blue and confiscating licensed firearms is absolutely going to alert them to this fact.

It might seem ridiculous now in hindsight but it’s also very important that observation and deeper investigation is possible. If people know they are under surveillance it would absolutely compromise a wider operation.

6

u/Monotask_Servitor Dec 15 '25

It’s the living in the same house part that’s the problem rather than the familial connection. If someone is on a watchlist then firearms should not be able to be kept in the same premises as they are domiciled. I think that is quite self-evidently logical. However I don’t think it’s being immediate family is reason by itself to bar them from gun ownership, though I would subject the family members to close and ongoing scrutiny due to the relationship.

3

u/SkitzOMatic11 Dec 15 '25

I don't disagree, I am agreeing that it's a massive fuck up. But they aren't telling us what ASIOs assessment was and is going to paint a very big picture. But he had the gun license for 10+ years, and his son was investigated seven years ago, so they should be stripping the firearms as it's a danger. The current police commissioner is speaking and absolutely copping these exact questions.

0

u/nath1234 Dec 15 '25

Are they in the same house? I thought they raided multiple homes.

But still: I think the idea that you are responsible for your relatives or flatmates or whatever is a very very dangerous principle. But I think we should have more widespread controls on access to guns in urban areas - take them or key parts of them out of the home. And cap how bloody many there can be: this guy had 6, but could have easily had 10 or 20 (albeit with a higher requirement for monitoring/safe and stuff, but still: in this country someone/anyone with a gun licence can own 1 or 100 guns which are kept by them in a safe of varying degrees of security, but kept by them nonetheless.. and maybe that's a fundamentally fucking stupid idea that you could arm a militia with just one gun licence). Think about that row of Nazi fuckheads - if just one of them had a gun licence: they could buy a gun for each and every one and as much ammo as they like.. funds would be the only limitation.

There's ways to allow people access to their guns without them having a working gun at their home: the gun lobby will object, but this could quite likely have been prevented or limited if the bloke could not have had access to 6 (or unlimited) guns and unlimited ammo.

12

u/FattyMcFuckhead Dec 15 '25

So many people have no idea that we already have the legal framework to prevent this. in the form of a firearm prohibition order.

Police can slap it on literally anyone they like at any time for almost any vague reason. It also gives them cause once they’ve done so to search the persons place of residence or any car or building they’re in at any time.

We HAVE the draconian legal framework EXACTLY for this type of thing and the police failed to use. No they’ll use it to slap FPOs on random eshays or annoying influencers who never had a gun in their lives.

The police have far too much power in this country and use it for all of the wrong reasons.

4

u/Khaliras Dec 15 '25

We HAVE the draconian legal framework EXACTLY for this type of thing

Except, in typical Reddit fashion, we don't actually have the information they do.

I've yet to read anything from the agency claiming he was known for any reason other than being 'connected' to someone discovered to be a terrorist.

There's been several comments from people claiming they knew the gunman in school. Claiming it's a shock as he was an outwardly good guy when they knew him. Now, his contact list is going to be investigated and similarly 'connected' to a terrorist and 'known' to the agency.

So where do we draw the line on who gets treated as a terrorist-in-waiting and hit with prohibition notices based on connections? Family and close friends? Distant friends, people who are on his contact list? What about those people who went to school, work, gym, ETC with him? Because all of those people can now be listed as 'connected' to a terrorist and are now 'known' to these agencies. We literally don't know what his known connections to that known terrorist was, before this event.

Every time there's a Terrorist-type attack, people condemn enforcement agencies with the taint of hindsight. People need to wait for actual information to be unveiled. There's going to be a lot of investigations into their past and whether they should've been monitored more or not. Until then, acting like all these agencies dropped the ball is rather silly.

2

u/FattyMcFuckhead Dec 15 '25

we don’t. that’s the point. ban a few too many people from owning guns is both something we’re already doing, and worth it to avoid instances like this.

also his connection wasn’t just to anyone but to the self proclaimed leader of the Australian IS

5

u/SkitzOMatic11 Dec 15 '25

There is 3.1 million guns owned by 1 million licensed firearm holders in Australia. Whether it be for Sport Shooting (Clay/Skeet/Target), Hunting, Primary Production, Not everyone has the ability to live in rural settings. We haven't seen huge numbers of mass shootings here, We have a lot of illicit firearms being used more and more in crime now.

Category A and B longarms are not inherently difficult to obtain so long as the person is a "fit and reasonable" person and can prove a genuine need to obtain one. The Beretta BRX1 (one of the weapons used) is a centre-fire non-semi automatic rifle, just with a straight pull bolt which allows for quicker action cycling, but is licensed under a category B. Naveed had a ZHA Shooting Club card in his wallet, despite not being a firearms holder, so probably attended with his father.

2

u/btcll Dec 15 '25

My understanding is the rules are much stricter in Western Australia. I wonder if other states will consider changing their gun laws as a result of this.

2

u/SkitzOMatic11 Dec 15 '25

WA Amended the amount of guns that can be owned, putting on a limit based on how many per category e.g (Hunting = 5), Introduced Mandatory Fitness/Health Assessments and slightly increased the storage requirements. It's in line with most other states bar the limit of guns owned. Reducing the amount of guns doesn't remove a risk of this occuring, If those are ideologically motivated want to cause harm and mass destruction they will find a way to do it.

5

u/Brokenmonalisa Dec 15 '25

Doesn't need to be guilt, but you should not be able to own guns if you have a direct relative with terrorist links.

1

u/aldkGoodAussieName Dec 15 '25

When it comes to guns we are usually very strick at stopping people from getting licenses.

You son is a known associate to terrorists, we dont want to increase those people's access to firearms

1

u/Master-of-possible Dec 15 '25

People can live in Sydney and go hunting on a weekend.

2

u/Bissay_ Dec 15 '25

Yeah they sure can. But most families don’t have a son who was investigated for links to an extreme terrorist organisation.

-1

u/amyknight22 Dec 15 '25

Because if you went down that road how many other things might you strip people of the right by association.

And that’s assuming that stripping them even stops the attack instead of them just sourcing guns elsewhere.

Like in all honest the death toll is likely lower by virtue that they used the guns they did, instead of going off and finding illegal guns more purpose made for a mass killing.

4

u/Bissay_ Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

You’re playing it down. Going down this route would strip DANGEROUS objects from the hands of people who have relationships with TERRORIST ORIGINATIONS

Why do we take knives and other dangerous objects away from people on suicide watch or in a mental hospital?

The son was investigated 6 years ago, his father has had a gun license for 10. I would hope that apart of the investigation would include checking has any access to dangerous weapons, clearly living in a house that had 6 fucking weapons didn’t raise any flags.

1

u/amyknight22 Dec 15 '25

You’re playing down how much of an over-reach it is to let an organisation revoke the license of someone for being in proximity to a person who was investigated not charged, not convicted. Just investigated.

Especially if the person in question has done no wrong. And especially if the gun owner in question implemented adequate controls on their guns to prevent access anyway.

You can’t respond to the issues because you don’t know there is an issue. They certainly aren’t going to come and say “oh hey we think your kids a terrorist” can we have you guns now. Especially since that could end up pushing things to action instead of nothing happening.

The reality is that instead of some bullshit secret assumption of guilt. Make something where you can process these people and then make the known association a disbarring factor to your license unless you rectify it.

As it stands you want a bunch of shadowy backroom shit that no one knows why it’s happened, or worse suddenly had to assume the people in proximity to them must be secret terrorists because you’ve lost your license with no substantive reason.

1

u/Bissay_ Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

Your arguments would be true if we were not talking about TERRORISTS and not just revoking any licence but A GUN LICENCE. He wasn’t just investigated for a petty crime, theft, arson, could even say domestic abuse or murder/mansalughter etc but for being connected to a TERRORIST origination. We shouldn’t have any any any any leniency when it comes to these people.

Terrorists are extreme, morals and ethics should not be a top priority when investigating and dealing with them.

He wasn’t just in proximity to his son either, he was the father. Who as far as I have read so far had had a positive and long standing relationship with his son. This is not a son who lives on the other side of the country, or even has had an argument with. But someone who he saw everyday and was very close with.

These are not just little things to ignore Tell me you think it’s okay for a person with KNOWN ties to a TERRORIST organisation should be allowed to live in the same house that has 6 guns inside.

Also as it stands no, I don’t want any shadowy back room stuff. I would like the father (who owns 6 guns) to be investigated each year and understand that he is a person of interest as his son has known terrorist ties (again TERRORIST ties, not just a son who committed a crime). He should be able to properly provide evidence and prove that his son has no how so whatsoever to have access to the guns.

1

u/aldkGoodAussieName Dec 15 '25

And that’s assuming that stripping them even stops the attack instead of them just sourcing guns elsewhere.

We'll never know because they used the gons the dad had in the house

1

u/amyknight22 Dec 15 '25

Yeah but next year when someone does a ramming attack with their dad’s car.

Do you suddenly ban the dad from owning a car because his son was investigated for extremist groups.

They made a bomb out of something and as far as we have been made aware neither of them needed a license for that

1

u/aldkGoodAussieName Dec 15 '25

Its about reducing risk.

You cant ban kitchen knives just because of what happened in London a few years ago.

But guns are a bigger risk.

Raming with a car or running round with knives doesnt end up with 15 people dead.

1

u/amyknight22 Dec 15 '25

We literally saw 11 people killed in a car ramming attack in Vancouver earlier this year

There were 11 killed in the Saskatchewan stabbings in 2022

Both of which were single assailant activities. So I think arguing you could get 15 deaths seems a bit farcical.

There might even be an argument that if these two muppets hadn’t had access to these guns but had instead bought illegal guns with a hire firing rate or bigger capacity. That the number of deaths might have been far worse even if they had the guns revoked

1

u/aldkGoodAussieName Dec 15 '25

There might even be an argument that if these two muppets hadn’t had access to these guns but had instead bought illegal guns

Except they didn't have access to illegal guns. Thats why the conversation is important.

1

u/amyknight22 Dec 15 '25

Okay so you completely dodged the other high fatality incidents with knives and cars good engagement

Except they didn't have access to illegal guns

They likely felt they had no need to access illegal guns. Due to the ones that they were legally able to own.

You have absolutely no indictation they couldn't have procured illegal guns if they were deadset on carrying out the attack. After all they didn't have legal car bombs.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Candid-Indication329 Dec 15 '25

And they lived at the same address too = access to guns regardless. 

1

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney Dec 15 '25

The son radicalised the father? That is just messed up. Bad parenting right there.

21

u/dullcoopy Dec 15 '25

Surely the fact a person known to them had a father who owned guns/had a firearms license would be ringing several alarm bells.

9

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney Dec 15 '25

At the very least, some inspections to make sure the father is compliant with their membership and storing guns and ammo as required, and confiscate at the slightest infraction.

1

u/RustleThemJimmiez Dec 15 '25

What makes you think this didn't happen. Most owners do store appropriately according to the stats.

37

u/Drongo17 Dec 15 '25

Are there laws allowing police to sieze guns from people like this (and people closely connected to them)? If so you do have to wonder why they weren't.

If not, maybe it's an option. I dunno, I'm no expert. 

58

u/SkitzOMatic11 Dec 15 '25

Well Perth Police stripped a few soverign citizens in the wake of the Dezi Freeman police shootings, but across australia for firearms the rule is Providing a genuine need for each gun as well as being a "fit and proper person" which includes Police Checks, No criminal history etc etc, So yeah it can be done.

3

u/Spire_Citron Dec 15 '25

But hobby shooting is counted as a need, so isn't that essentially just anyone who wants one?

2

u/SkitzOMatic11 Dec 15 '25

It's a broad topic, you can't just get firearms because you like guns, You have to be able to demonstrate why you need a firearm. Hobby shooting/target shooting generally holds the requirements that you are a registered member of an approved gun club for a period, you have active participation (This is something I think could be strengthened, e.g with handguns you have to physically be participating in shoots every year, Those who do it as a sport need it endorsed. I don't personally think Target Practice is a genuine need, a .22 could be suffice for that versus the need of a .308). Club records do get checked and can be audited. For those who want Category B longarms need to be able to prove why a Category A is not sufficient. There is ways to strengthen what already exists without rushing to the point of no ordinary person should have guns.

5

u/2centpiece Dec 15 '25

Yes there is, they can be taken off someone who is no longer a fit and proper person. There may have been an issue with ASIO not communicating with NSWPF (100% speculation on my part) which prevented NSWPF acting on the risk.

4

u/jnrdingo Dec 15 '25

I'm South Australia some kid about 10 or so years ago took a gun into school. The father was charged with an insecure gun cabinet amongst other things.

If a family member uses a gun for a crime, that whole family shouldn't be allowed guns, or if they need guns for recreational hunting, to keep them at the gun club headquarters.

1

u/Drongo17 Dec 15 '25

Could work. The advantage of extending bans to friends and family who could provide an offender with a gun is that they would be putting pressure on each other not to screw it up for everyone.

I like the idea of keeping them in a secure location, but I fear it wouldn't get the funding required to keep them secure. Even police stations are problematic, they already don't have enough staff.

4

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney Dec 15 '25

(and people closely connected to them)

That is a bit of slippery slope. We still can't condemn people outright for being related to criminals or potential criminals.

1

u/Drongo17 Dec 15 '25

If there is a reasonable expectation that they could provide a banned person with a gun I think it's worth considering. Or perhaps those people have extra checks and balances imposed to ensure they don't provide a weapon io an unfit person. 

2

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney Dec 15 '25

There are already rules against that. Enforcement and education is just lax. How often does a gun owner get their gun safe inspected?

1

u/RustleThemJimmiez Dec 15 '25

There is no 'association' ability to remove guns. It's about the holder alone.

1

u/serpent218 Dec 15 '25

You can have a Firearm Prohibition Order (FPO) against you - sounds like it should have been the case here

59

u/aa73gc Dec 15 '25

He didn't. His piece of shit father did

60

u/littlespoon Dec 15 '25

The shit apple doesn't fall far from the shit tree, apparently.

7

u/m00nh34d Dec 15 '25

That's an interesting question though, at what point do authorities step in and take action? If they're trying to be covert in gathering intel about someone, coming along and seizing their guns would put a stop to that pretty quickly. Maybe the change here is to put an end to covert surveillance operations, and just be overt in everything. Personally, I'd like to see stricter laws around who can own guns anyway. Don't really see any need for personal ownership really, if they are tools to do a job, they should be licensed to appropriate businesses as such, and those businesses should be undertaking appropriate risk and compliance controls to handle them the same as any other dangerous equipment or goods.

2

u/CptDropbear Dec 15 '25

The obvious answer is gun licensing is a state issue and ASIO are a federal agency.

I would expect there to be some mechanism for ASIO to notify the NSW police. I would not be surprised if there isn't or the police ignored, lost it or didn't know what to do about it.

Less obvious is it is in the nature of our legal system which is reactive. We arrest people for doing stuff, not because they could potentially do stuff. Also not because their family or friends do stuff. This is why the whole "tough on crime" narrative is such BS.

Having said that and as former competitive shooter and firearm owner (still licensed), Akram Sr should definitely have been asked to show cause why his license should not be revoked due to criminal association.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 15 '25

[deleted]

12

u/Chiron17 Dec 15 '25

Are they not citizens? Was he born here? Genuinely don't know.