NSW Government Targets Law-Abiding Gun Owners After Bondi Beach Shooting
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
New South Wales to launch a two-phase gun buyback, offering up to AUS$1,000 for firearms, in a sweeping move that punishes responsible citizens after the Bondi Beach attack.
New South Wales will begin a controversial cash-based gun buyback scheme on 2 November, becoming the first Australian state to pay owners to surrender legally owned handguns, shotguns, and rifles. This reaction comes after the December 2023 terrorist attack on a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach, where 15 people—including a child and a Holocaust survivor—were killed. Instead of addressing the root causes of terrorism, the government is targeting law-abiding firearm owners.
The state government will pay up to AUS$1,000 for a revolver and AUS$450 for an air rifle, with higher-value firearms valued above AUS$3,000 eligible for up to AUS$10,000 in a second phase next year. The scheme unfairly targets those who own more than the new arbitrary limit of four firearms (ten for certain farmers and sports shooters) or whose licences have lapsed, with licence terms slashed from five to just two years, creating more bureaucratic hurdles for responsible citizens.
Premier Chris Minns declared, "We want those guns handed in, compensated for and safely destroyed," signaling a disregard for personal freedoms and property rights. The buyback is funded jointly by the NSW and federal governments, using taxpayer money to undermine citizens’ rights. Businesses and gun dealers, forced to comply with these reforms, may receive up to AUS$25,000, but this is little consolation for the loss of livelihood and tradition. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese claims these measures will prevent another antisemitic terrorist attack, but critics argue that disarming the public only leaves communities more vulnerable.