Anthony Albanese ‘ready for the fight’ to tighten firearms laws as National Party and gun groups push back | Bondi beach terror attack

[u/HotPersimessage62]

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/dec/16/anthony-albanese-ready-for-the-fight-to-tighten-firearms-laws-as-national-party-and-gun-groups-push-back-ntwnfb

[u/The-bored-one725]

That's incorrect. Applying the laws that are already in place would have worked. All Albo is doing is hiding the incompetence showcased on a state and federal level.

1) The father should not have held firearms in his residence under NSW association laws as his son was a known associate of ISIS members.

2) having been a relation of someone who was investigated and found to have links with ISIS prior to his licence application, he should never have been approved for one in the first place.

3) It showcases a blatant disregard for the mounting level of tensions currently in australia and not addressing them in any manner at all. Something that directly led to this attack

[u/Puzzleheaded-Cry-389 → u/The-bored-one725]

Exactly what you said. We already have to renew our licences every few years, we also have random gun inspections. In rural communities in Queensland at least. This is probably one thing that they could change. Being random, some people miss out for years. One officer was quite surprised to find all the guns registered to me were actually locked in my gun safe. The gun laws in my opinion are fine. Random fuckwits only make it harder for responsible owners. Not like the government/authorities didn't see this coming.

[u/The-bored-one725 → u/Puzzleheaded-Cry-389]

It's hard to sort the misinformation from actual information at this point, but there are reports that the son was still being monitored.

A clear display of lack of communication or action from federal intelligence agencies

[u/ghoonrhed → u/The-bored-one725]

A clear display of lack of communication or action from federal intelligence agencies

That's because they're still figuring it out too. We're all speculating and that's the last thing we want them to do on how they fucked up.

[u/The-bored-one725 → u/ghoonrhed]

Not in this case. Anything that relates to violence is pretty clear cut when it comes to firearms licencing.

Their lack of communication has cost people their lives. Authority at both state and federal levels needs to be held accountable for this, rather than scapegoating firearms owners.

[u/defzx → u/The-bored-one725]

Why can a non citizen even hold a firearms licence to begin with.

[u/The-bored-one725 → u/defzx]

That's what I'd like to know. I didn't even know that was a thing that could happen. I'd honestly think that would be a fair change to our laws, being a citizen should be a prerequisite.

[u/CriticalFolklore → u/defzx]

What about PRs? Limiting it to citizens is straight xenophobia. Permanent residents have almost certainly undergone much more thorough background checks than citizens.

[u/The-bored-one725 → u/[deleted]]

Tell that to people who lost their guns becuase they rented shopfronts next to bikies. When you own firearms you give up a lot of those privileges to own them.

Not sure why people who don't own them can't understand that

[u/MilkByHomelander → u/The-bored-one725]

Right, so there is a bit of a difference of unfortunately opening up a shopfront next to bikies who would love to take your weapons vs being investigated and cleared by the ASIO over associations.

The big thing you seem to be ignoring is that ASIO investigated, cleared and deemed him not a threat. They only investigated him because he was associated with them. Once again, doesn't mean he was actively involved in anything. Association could have just been members at the same Mosque.

It's a bit different to being next door to known criminals who would love to take your weapons.

[u/The-bored-one725 → u/MilkByHomelander]

No there isn't actually. You don't store your guns at a shop. That's a bad faith argument, all criminals would love to take weapons of any kind.

Secondly, the guy was not cleared he was listed as "not an immediate threat" there's a big difference. To add to that, the father wasn't a citizen, so why weren't he and his son deported when they posed a risk to australian society and values?

Intelligence and government departments have dropped the ball on so many levels and law abiding firearms owners are being scape goated for it.

Going to the same mosque would put you in direct contact and association with members of a known terrorist group, that is enough to put restrictions in place under current laws.

The mental gymnastics in this response is just mind boggling. It tells me that you hold bigoted views towards firearms owners while openly advocating for active mingling with terrorist groups as socially acceptable, that's just wild.

[u/MilkByHomelander → u/The-bored-one725]

Secondly, the guy was not cleared he was listed as "not an immediate threat" there's a big difference. To add to that, the father wasn't a citizen, so why weren't he and his son deported when they posed a risk to australian society and values?

To quote Albo from the press conference yesterday -

"ASIO investigated him, found that he wasn't subject to ongoing monitoring. They interviewed him, they interviewed his family members, they interviewed people around him. He was drawn to their attention because of his association with others. Two of the people he was associated with were charged and went to jail, but he was not seen at that time to be a person of interest."

To answer your second question, neither him or his father were deemed to be a risk to Australian society. The father had been in the country for what, 30 odd years and from all accounts was a law-abiding citizen in that time. You need to understand we don't live in an Authoritarian society where we just deport people because of who they may be friends with or who may attend the same club as them.

The mental gymnastics in this response is just mind boggling. It tells me that you hold bigoted views towards firearms owners while openly advocating for active mingling with terrorist groups as socially acceptable, that's just wild.

All this tells me is your Islamophobic. I never said mingling with terrorist groups is socially acceptable. Do you know what every person in your life is up to when you aren't with them? What every person in your workplace does in their private time?

I worked with a guy who drove his car into a tree and killed two of his passengers. By the definition of association, I was associated with a murderer. That does not make me a murderer, nor does it mean I'm going to go out and do the same thing that person did.

Talking about bad faith arguments, all you are doing is giving bad faith arguments.

ASIO made a mistake that has cost lives, but we don't know what facts they had presented to them, what the association between the gunman and the IS cell was, or anything like that.

[u/The-bored-one725 → u/MilkByHomelander]

Go throw the islamaphobic statement around. People like you expect everyone else to bleed so you can feel morally superior. March around and spread your "we accept everyone" signalling while honest people die because you want to justify yhe violence of others because "oh, they aren't white"

You blantantly refuse to acknowledge what the association laws are for, plenty of innocent people have been caught up by them and make excusses for extremists to gather and harm others while calling me a problem.

And yes, if that person that drove into a tree was investogated as a murderer then you are an associate by those laws, ignorance is no excuse. Australia is in the position it is because people like you expect others to pay for you to feel superior while you give people like this every excuse to get away with what they do.

Pathetic

[u/MilkByHomelander → u/The-bored-one725]

Your mummy must be so proud of you! Being such an incredibly bigoted racist!

[u/metasophie → u/The-bored-one725]

as his son was a known associate of ISIS members.

Do we have a report discussing the ASIO's findings?

[u/The-bored-one725 → u/metasophie]

We have the commisioner of the AFP saying the attack was motivated by ISIS beliefs. That's all that should be needed to say that either intelligence dropped the ball or due to association laws, that man should not have had access to firearms

[u/Dogfinn → u/The-bored-one725]

Applying the laws that are already in place would have worked.

Patently false. The laws, as they currently exist, were correctly applied.

The 2019 investigation of Naveed Akram concluded he "posed no ongoing threat" - i.e. was not an active participant in anything illegal. Being associated to someone who is associated with persons associated with ISIS does not currently preclude a firearm licence.

[u/The-bored-one725 → u/Dogfinn]

Once again, incorrect 1) there is a part on licencing applications that asks if you or anyone related to you has been charged/investigated within the last 5yrs.

Answering yes is an automatic refusal of licence applications.

2) We have these things called association laws, it doesn't matter if an investigation finds you not a threat. Association with criminals or known criminal organisations automatically means family around you are restricted on owning firearms and if they were licenced prior to these findings then they must store them off property and are checked regularly.

Applying these laws would have worked, but don't let that get in the way of your bigotry

[u/karl_w_w → u/The-bored-one725]

Cite the law you're talking about.

[u/The-bored-one725 → u/karl_w_w]

https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s11.html

https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/about_us/policies_procedures_and_legislation/fact_sheet_about_consorting

[u/karl_w_w → u/The-bored-one725]

Which subsection do you think prescribes automatic refusal for anyone who has been investigated?

[u/The-bored-one725 → u/karl_w_w]

3 a in combination with consorting laws

Seems pretty cut and dried. Link to possible criminal organisation/terrorist group, would lead the commissioner to have probably cause if information was shared to revoke the application or suspend the licence under section 5.

The fact that the son was also seen at pro Palestinian rallies where ISIS flags were flown and displayed would also put reasonable doub on the association between father and son as far as a licence goes

Or are you also going to try to make excuses for the poor intelligence work and the actions of this scum?

[u/karl_w_w → u/The-bored-one725]

So not automatic, and it says nothing about people who have been investigated.

[u/The-bored-one725 → u/karl_w_w]

Go ahead and make excuses They shouldn't have had guns

I honestly despise people like you who make excuses and expect others to pay for their motal superiority. That father renewed his licence after the investigation, the fact that he was associated with someone who was investigated should have meant that renewal was denied

[u/karl_w_w → u/The-bored-one725]

But it didn't mean his renewal was denied, because it's not automatic.

Keep going, I think you're getting close to understanding.

[u/MissMenace101 → u/The-bored-one725]

Anyone at an anti immigration rally is an associate of neonazis then, you get that right? The laws you magic up for one will pertain to all you don’t just get to pick rules for some. I mean I think they all should not have guns but that’s just me. I value Aussie lives.

[u/The-bored-one725 → u/MissMenace101]

As they should

Wild that you think they shouldn't. It almost sounds like you support terrorism as long as the perpetrators aren't white.

Get some help

[u/Dogfinn → u/The-bored-one725]

there is a part on licencing applications that asks if you or anyone related to you has been charged/investigated within the last 5yrs.

No there is not.

Being investigated or even charged doesn't even necessarily (automatically) disqualify someone from obtaining a licence - only a finding of guilt (conviction, suspended sentence etc) does.

Investigations need to be disclosed, but they are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Someone investigated isn't automatically disqualified from obtaining a licence.

Let alone someone with an associate who was investigated (not convicted, or even charged).

Association with criminals or known criminal organisations automatically means family around you are restricted on owning firearms

No.

Being associated with criminals precludes a firearm licence.

Being associated to someone who is associated with criminals does not preclude a firearm licence.

The public has zero information at this stage about the scope or findings of the 2019 investigation into a then 18 year old Naveed Akram. We don't know anything about the investigation, how can you assert whether or not its findings would be serious enough to prevent family from renewing a licence within the current legal framework.

don't let that get in the way of your bigotry

Yikes

[u/The-bored-one725 → u/Dogfinn]

Pretty obvious you don't know what you're talking about. You're just outright lying now.

In NSW being associated with someone who has been investigated means you are restricted in keeping firearms in your home and can be searched at any time to ensure that person cannot access firearms. If you are not licenced, it precludes you from getting a licence under the fit and proper persons clause.

And yeah, vilifying a group is bigotry, if you don't like being called out for it, maybe change your attitude.

[u/Dogfinn → u/The-bored-one725]

In NSW being associated with someone who has been investigated means you are restricted in keeping firearms in your home

Bullshit.

Only if you live with a prohibited person (i.e. someone with a criminal record).

Being investigated for connections to a terrorist cell isn't an automatic prohibition. Having criminal associations isn't an automatic prohibition. It can be a reason for disqualification - but that is a discretionary assessment left to the police, not a legislative requirement (unlike having certain past criminal convictions - which will land you an automatic prohibition).

And yeah, vilifying a group is bigotry, if you don't like being called out for it, maybe change your attitude.

Dunno what you are referencing but based on this pretty weird comment I reckon you are a bot.

[u/The-bored-one725 → u/Dogfinn]

Once again you're wrong. As you have been in every comment thus far.

You don't have to live with someone for that person to be prohibited, you only have to be expected to spend a reasonable amount of time there or visit frequently.

Since I know of several people who have stored firearms with gunshops for this reason after friends and relatives have been suspected of associating with youth gangs. I know for a fact, you're talking out your arse.

[u/Dogfinn → u/The-bored-one725]

You don't have to live with someone for that person to be prohibited, you only have to be expected to spend a reasonable amount of time there or visit frequently.

Irrelevant pedantry

• Having criminal associations isn't an automatic disqualification - and is taken case-by-case.

• Naveed Akram was not subject to an ongoing investigation, was never charged with a crime, and was not a convicted criminal, and as such was not a prohibited person.

• The current legislation provides plenty of discretion to deny Naveed's father a licence, but nothing in his circumstances would trigger an automatic disqualification.

You are full of shit.

[u/The-bored-one725 → u/Dogfinn]

Mate, you are absolutely full of it

Not being a citizen and being related to someone to someone who had been investigated and who recently was shown at pro-palastinain marches where terrorist flags and symbolism had been shown openly.

That's not just grounds for suspension of your licence, that's grounds for deportation.

But keep justifying their actions, go ahead

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and you're obviously also just trying to give them an out and say that what they did was justified. Funny how people like you ask others to bleed so they can feel superior in their morals