Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

It isn’t easy being an ammunition collector with a protection order against you

By johnboy - 28 May 2010 18

The Magistrates Court has the sad tale of one Glen Thomas Beadman of Hackett.

Glen had been collecting bullets with appropriate permits and licences and had over 3,000 of the things in his house. Not enough to actually start a war, but possibly good for a well executed coup d’état.

But then on 8 October 2008 Glen was served with an interim Personal Protection Order in proceedings under the Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2001.

At which point his firearms licence was suspended and the police took a keen interest in his collection.

There’s some doubt as to whether he was then in breach of the conditions of his approval to collect bullets.

Magistrate Burns has found a prima facie case has been made and it’s up to the higher court to make a finding as to reasonable doubt.

It might have been safer to stick to tea pots.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
18 Responses to
It isn’t easy being an ammunition collector with a protection order against you
vg 9:09 pm 29 May 10

damien haas said :

Special G said :

If you were seeking a Domestic violence order and knew your x-partner had access to firearms I’m pretty sure you’d be happy the Police took those firearms away for the time being.

If he disputes the order and makes his case then his collection will be returned and licence will be reinstated. If not then maybe a donation to the war memorial would be more appropriate than destruction.

ridiculous logic. i take it youre implying that a licensed firearms holder would use a firearm to inflict harm upon someone. the actual incidences of this occurring are so low as to be statistically insignificant. following on this flawed logic, we should also seize his car – in case he trys to run her over, his kitchen knives – in case he tries to stab her, and his dressing gown cord – in case he tries to strangle her.

Its obvious the closest you’ve ever been to crime is what you see on TV. The logic is sound, the only things ridiculous are your inane all ill-informed observations

A Noisy Noise Annoys 4:03 pm 29 May 10

One said :

Operate numaticly powered hand tools (or access a building site that has such tools)

Pneumatically. I won’t bother correcting “suggar”.

Tooks 2:16 pm 29 May 10

eyeLikeCarrots said :

If they take his collection, I can only hope that he has a precise inventory and photos – the armoury guys would LOVE to 5 finger discount a selection.

Another retarded conspiracy theory. Keep em coming – always funny to read.

Thoroughly Smashed 1:48 pm 29 May 10

One said :

The law states that any “Explosive Compound”

Also means he can not:

Operate numaticly powered hand tools (or access a building site that has such tools)

Enter a shopping center that sells party poppers

Buy petrol,

use suggar,

or Have a life.

Mean while the Union thugs that dreams up this BS can get them selves a special order because they have a right to terrorise people. Not once has any member of our so Called Government been held to account for laws they created that is only to fund booklet printing between elections.

Administration loves this system – keeps them all in worthless jobs!

Wowzers, you turned a thread about firearm etc. regulation into an amusingly spelled rant about industrial relations. Good job well done!

One 12:25 pm 29 May 10

The law states that any “Explosive Compound”

Also means he can not:

Operate numaticly powered hand tools (or access a building site that has such tools)

Enter a shopping center that sells party poppers

Buy petrol,

use suggar,

or Have a life.

Mean while the Union thugs that dreams up this BS can get them selves a special order because they have a right to terrorise people. Not once has any member of our so Called Government been held to account for laws they created that is only to fund booklet printing between elections.

Administration loves this system – keeps them all in worthless jobs!

olfella 5:10 am 29 May 10

The article states it is bullets he was collecting – not guns to fire them. So what’s the problem? It is just the same as collecting tea pots. It doesn’t mean he drinks tea… or is the assumption is he has cups to drink it from?

damien haas 11:46 pm 28 May 10

Special G said :

If you were seeking a Domestic violence order and knew your x-partner had access to firearms I’m pretty sure you’d be happy the Police took those firearms away for the time being.

If he disputes the order and makes his case then his collection will be returned and licence will be reinstated. If not then maybe a donation to the war memorial would be more appropriate than destruction.

ridiculous logic. i take it youre implying that a licensed firearms holder would use a firearm to inflict harm upon someone. the actual incidences of this occurring are so low as to be statistically insignificant. following on this flawed logic, we should also seize his car – in case he trys to run her over, his kitchen knives – in case he tries to stab her, and his dressing gown cord – in case he tries to strangle her.

Pickle 9:45 pm 28 May 10

” If they take his collection, I can only hope that he has a precise inventory and photos – the armoury guys would LOVE to 5 finger discount a selection.

Bullshit”

Yeah bullshit, they would use all 10 fingers…

Special G 8:12 pm 28 May 10

If you were seeking a Domestic violence order and knew your x-partner had access to firearms I’m pretty sure you’d be happy the Police took those firearms away for the time being.

If he disputes the order and makes his case then his collection will be returned and licence will be reinstated. If not then maybe a donation to the war memorial would be more appropriate than destruction.

DJ 6:23 pm 28 May 10

eyeLikeCarrots said :

If they take his collection, I can only hope that he has a precise inventory and photos – the armoury guys would LOVE to 5 finger discount a selection.

Bullshit

Tetranitrate 5:37 pm 28 May 10

damien haas said :

Perhaps the Michael Diamond case may provide further guidance on a fair way to proceed in these types of unfortunate matters. I prefer innocence until proven guilt before penalties – such as a persons collection being removed – are applied.

Unfortunately there is no such presumption – given this is an ‘interim’ order, he hasn’t even been to court over it. The other party would have been and made their case to the judge who then imposed an interim order.

Spoono 3:11 pm 28 May 10

I just hope they don’t take his precious

eyeLikeCarrots 12:27 pm 28 May 10

If they take his collection, I can only hope that he has a precise inventory and photos – the armoury guys would LOVE to 5 finger discount a selection.

damien haas 11:50 am 28 May 10

Perhaps the Michael Diamond case may provide further guidance on a fair way to proceed in these types of unfortunate matters. I prefer innocence until proven guilt before penalties – such as a persons collection being removed – are applied.

troll-sniffer 11:42 am 28 May 10

Comes down to semantics now don’t it? To collect is to gather, obtain, purchase, etc. To hold a collection is not to collect, it is merely to store, to hold, to have etc.

If Glen had not collected any new items to add to his collection after his firearms licence was suspended there’s no case to answer. If he did collect, only the items collected should form the basis of a case.

That is how I see this little tale in plain Ingris.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site