By KATRINA BRANDON

 

TAKING up arms, the Rapid Review into Victoria’s Firearm Laws were released to the public on May 25, with many gun owners feeling relieved.

The state government will not introduce caps on the number of firearms a person can own, which was one of 16 recommendations made in a review into the state’s gun laws following the Bondi terror attack.

In March, former Police Commissioner Ken Lay conducted the review and handed down his findings to the state government.

“I am pleased to present my Final Report on the Rapid Review of Victoria’s firearms laws,” Mr Lay wrote.

“The 1996 Port Arthur massacre fundamentally changed how Australians understood the risks firearms pose to the community. In its aftermath, the nation reached a clear and enduring conclusion: effective firearms regulation is foundational to community safety.

“The reforms that followed did more than change firearms laws; they reshaped what Australians now expect of their governments – that public safety will be prioritised, risks confronted early, and difficult decisions taken in the interests of the whole community.”

In the review, Mr Lay said he drew on input from thousands of Victorians, including victims, advocates, hunters, and those in the community, through public surveys, written submissions, and targeted engagement.

“This Review seeks to reflect those differing views with respect and rigour,” he wrote.

“The recommendations are intended to support Victoria’s commitment to the National Firearms Agreement and to contribute to the ongoing harmonisation of firearms laws across Australia.”

Groups such as the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) and the Traralgon Pistol Club have shared their relief at the decision.

“The Traralgon Pistol Club supports the Victorian government’s decision not to impose a cap on the number of firearms owned by licensed sporting shooters,” a Traralgon Pistol Club spokesperson told the Express.

“The proposed cap caused significant angst among our members and the broader sporting shooting community, with many concerned that legitimate target shooters were being unfairly targeted despite already operating under strict licensing, storage, and compliance requirements. There was considerable relief once the government confirmed the proposal would not proceed.

“Many competitive shooters require multiple firearms to participate in different disciplines and competitions, and an arbitrary cap would have unfairly impacted law-abiding participants without addressing illegal firearm use by criminals.

“We believe the government has taken a sensible and balanced approach by recognising the difference between licensed sporting shooters and criminal firearm activity, while continuing to support strong public safety measures.”

VFF acting president Peter Star also welcomed the decision, stating it recognises the realities of farming and the legitimate role firearms play in agricultural businesses across Victoria.

Mr Star said that firearms are an essential tool of trade for pest animal control, livestock protection and maintaining leading animal welfare and biosecurity standards. He also stated that the VFF had worked throughout the review process to ensure farmers and regional communities had a strong voice in discussions around proposed reforms.

“The VFF was the only organisation directly representing farmers during consultation on the rapid review, and we made it a point that any reforms must recognise the unique needs of agriculture and regional Victoria,” he said.

“We advocated strongly to ensure farmers were heard, and it is pleasing to see the government acknowledge concerns that a firearm cap could have created unintended consequences for agriculture.”

Mr Star said the VFF fully supports measures that strengthen community safety and keep firearms out of the wrong hands, provided that changes do not impose unreasonable costs, red tape, or administrative burdens on legitimate firearm users, such as farmers.

“Farmers understand the importance of responsible firearm ownership and maintaining strong safety standards,” he said.

“It’s not lost on us why these reforms were flagged in the first place, and we fully support the need to keep the community safe.

“However, any new requirements around licensing, storage, training or compliance must be practical, proportionate and workable for people living and working in regional and rural Victoria.

“There are still important questions around reclassification, ongoing competency requirements, licensing costs and how some recommendations will operate in practice.

“The VFF will continue engaging with government to ensure farmers remain part of the conversation and that future reforms are developed with genuine consultation and not just lumped on regional communities.”

State Member for Gippsland East, Tim Bull, has also supported the government’s decision to reject proposed firearm ownership caps.

The review received more than 500 submissions and included 40 face-to-face consultations across Victoria, including a forum run by Mr Bull in East Gippsland.

Mr Bull said the outcome demonstrated community consultation could make a difference.

“In that forum, it was made clear that gun caps were not something that was palatable or workable,” he said.

“Some sporting shooters require up to eight firearms to compete in a single discipline, while those involved in vermin control need access to a range of calibre-specific firearms to do their jobs effectively. Having the choice of the right firearm for the task supports better safety outcomes.

“It was also highlighted that firearm limits could unintentionally restrict opportunities for young people involved in shooting sports.

“Because firearms used by those under 18 must be registered under a parent’s licence, proposed caps could have forced families to choose between supporting a child’s participation in organised shooting sports or retaining firearms required for farming, recreation or preserving family heirlooms.”

Mr Bull said reducing the number of legally-owned firearms would not stop criminals obtaining illegal weapons, nor would it have prevented tragedies such as the Bondi attack.