Connect with us

News

Australia announces strict new gun laws. Here’s how it can act so swiftly

Published

on

Australia announces strict new gun laws. Here’s how it can act so swiftly

Mourners gather at the Bondi Pavilion as people pay tribute to the victims of a mass shooting at Bondi Beach.

Izhar Khan/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Izhar Khan/Getty Images

At least 15 people were killed at a beach in Sydney, Australia, on Sunday when a father and son opened fire on a crowd celebrating the beginning of Hanukkah. At least 42 people were hospitalized.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the shooting as a “terrorist incident” targeting Jewish Australians.

Mass shootings are rare in Australia, which has historically strict gun laws. But Sunday’s deadly massacre has prompted Albanese and other Australian officials to revisit those laws and call for further restrictions to prevent more mass shootings in the future.

Advertisement

Here’s what Australian officials are proposing, and why the country’s politics and culture might allow for it.

Australia already has strict gun laws

The origin of Australia’s notoriously strict gun laws dates back to 1996, when a gunman killed 35 people in an attack in Tasmania.

The April 28 mass shooting came to be known as the Port Arthur massacre, and almost immediately the bloodshed prompted Australia’s political leaders to unite behind an effort to tighten the country’s gun laws. That effort was led by conservative prime minister John Howard.

The result was the National Firearms Agreement, which restricted the sale of semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns and established a national buyback program that resulted in the surrender of more than 650,000 guns, according to the National Museum of Australia. Importantly, it also unified Australia’s previously disjointed firearms laws — which had differed among the states and territories before 1996 — into a national scheme, according to the museum.

Guns handed into Victoria Police in Australia in 2017 as part of a round of weapons amnesty.

Guns handed into Victoria Police in Australia in 2017 as part of a round of weapons amnesty.

Robert Cianflone/Getty Images

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Robert Cianflone/Getty Images

Advertisement

The agreement has been cited internationally, including by the likes of former President Barack Obama, as a model for greater gun control and is credited with dramatically reducing firearms deaths in Australia. The country had zero mass shootings in the more than two decades that followed the agreement, one paper found.

Albanese said in a press conference Monday that the “Howard government’s gun laws have made an enormous difference in Australia and are a proud moment of reform, quite rightly, achieved across the parliament with bipartisan support.”

But Australian firearm ownership has been on the rise again in recent years. The public policy research group The Australia Institute wrote in a January report that there were more than 4 million guns in the country, which is 25% higher than the number of firearms there in 1996. Certain provisions of the National Firearms Agreement have been inconsistently implemented and in some cases “watered down,” the group said.

Graham Park, president of Shooters Union Australia, told supporters in a member update over the summer that Australian firearms owners are “actually winning,” The Guardian reported.

What the proposed gun measures will do

The prime minister and regional Australian leaders agreed in a meeting on Monday to work toward even stronger gun measures in response to Sunday’s shooting. Here’s what they include:

Advertisement
  • Renegotiate the National Firearms Agreement, which was enacted in 1996 and established Australia’s restrictive gun laws.
  • Speed up the establishment of the National Firearms Register, an idea devised by the National Cabinet in 2023 to create a countrywide database of firearms owners and licenses.
  • Use more “criminal intelligence” in the firearms licensing process. 
  • Limit the number of guns one person can own. 
  • Limit the types of guns and modifications that are legal.
  • Only Australian citizens can hold a firearms license. 
  • Introduce further customs restrictions on guns and related equipment. The Australian government could limit imports of items involving 3D printing or accessories that hold large amounts of ammunition.

Albanese and the regional leaders also reaffirmed their commitment to Australia’s national firearms amnesty program, which lets people turn in unregistered firearms without legal penalties.

While not specifically referenced by the National Cabinet, some of the proposals address details related to Sunday’s shooting.

Australia's prime minister, Anthony Albanese, (left) at Parliament House with AFP Acting Deputy Commissioner for National Security Nigel Ryan speak after the Bondi Beach shooting.

Australia’s prime minister, Anthony Albanese, (left) at Parliament House with AFP Acting Deputy Commissioner for National Security Nigel Ryan speak after the Bondi Beach shooting.

Hilary Wardhaugh/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Hilary Wardhaugh/Getty Images

Albanese said Monday the son came to the attention of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation in 2019. ABC Australia reported that he was examined for his close ties to an Islamic State terrorism cell based in Sydney.

Minister for Home Affairs Tony Burke said the son is an Australian-born citizen. Burke added that the father arrived in Australia on a student visa in 1998, which was transferred to a partner visa in 2001. He was most recently on a “resident return” visa.

How Australia’s political system enables swift legal changes

Part of the reason Australia’s government can act so quickly on political matters of national importance is because of something called the National Cabinet.

Advertisement

The National Cabinet is composed of the prime minister and the premiers and chief ministers of Australia’s six states and two territories.

It was first established in early 2020 as a way for Australia to coordinate its national response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, the group has convened to discuss a number of national issues, from a rise in antisemitic hate crimes to proposed age restrictions on social media use.

The National Cabinet doesn’t make laws, but its members attempt to agree on a set of strategies or priorities and work with their respective parliaments to put them into practice.

Australians wanted stronger gun laws even before Sunday

Gun control efforts in Australia inevitably draw comparisons to the U.S., where the Second Amendment dominates any discussion about firearms restrictions.

John Howard, the prime minister during the Port Arthur massacre, said in a 2016 interview with ABC Australia that observing American culture led him to conclude that “the ready availability of guns inevitably led to massacres.” He added: “It just seemed that at some point Australia ought to try and do something so as not to go down the American path.”

Advertisement

In fact, the National Firearms Agreement avows that gun ownership and use is “a privilege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety.”

Robust gun laws remain popular among Australians today. A January poll by The Australia Institute found that 64% of Australians think the country’s gun laws should be strengthened, while just 6% believe they should be rolled back. That is in a country where compulsory voting means that politics “generally gravitates to the centre inhibiting the trend towards polarisation and grievance politics so powerfully evident in other parts of the globe,” Monash University politics professor Paul Strangio wrote last year.

Now, there are renewed calls to further harden Australia’s gun laws in the wake of Sunday’s deadly shooting.

“After Port Arthur, Australia made a collective commitment to put community safety first, and that commitment remains as important today as ever,” Walter Mikac said in a statement on Monday.

Mikac is founding patron of the Alannah & Madeline Foundation, which is named for his two daughters who were killed in the 1996 shooting. His wife, Nanette, was also killed.

Advertisement

“This is a horrific reminder of the need to stay vigilant against violence, and of the importance of ensuring our gun laws continue to protect the safety of all Australians,” Mikac added.

News

DOJ warns of criminal charges for state election officials if noncitizens vote

Published

on

DOJ warns of criminal charges for state election officials if noncitizens vote

The Justice Department sent letters warning election officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia that they could face criminal prosecution over noncitizen voting, a spokesperson for the Justice Department confirmed Tuesday.

The letters, signed by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who heads up the department’s Civil Rights Division, give states five days to explain how they will comply with federal voter eligibility laws and how they will maintain “clean voter lists.”

Advertisement

“The Department sent these letters to all 50 states and the District of Columbia, asking for voluntary compliance in a timely manner with their obligations under federal law to ensure only citizens vote in federal elections,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement.

Noncitizen voting in federal elections is extremely rare, but Trump and his administration have falsely portrayed it as a widespread issue.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar and Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson are among those who said they received the letters from the Justice Department.

The letters say state election officers “could be criminally prosecuted for aiding and abetting” noncitizen voting. They further specify that any election officer who knowingly retains noncitizens on a statewide voting registration list or who facilitates noncitizens’ receiving and casting ballots could be subject to criminal liability.

“An intentional act that is aimed at diluting the votes of citizens could also constitute a violation” of federal law, the letters said.

Advertisement

Henderson wrote on social media that the threats constitute “truly bizarre behavior.”

“Got another love letter this morning from the DOJ sprinkled throughout with threats of criminal prosecution,” she wrote. “I’m sure I’m not the only chief election officer of a state who is being targeted for following state and federal laws by resisting DOJ’s demands for private voter data that have thus far been ruled illegal by at least a dozen courts.”

The letters are the latest move in the Justice Department’s campaign to assert more federal control over state elections.

While some states have complied with the administration’s demands that they hand over voter roll data, the Justice Department has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., for resisting. So far, 11 different federal courts have dismissed the Justice Department’s efforts to seize voter rolls.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Reigning champion Argentina escapes with remarkable World Cup victory over Egypt

Published

on

Reigning champion Argentina escapes with remarkable World Cup victory over Egypt

Lionel Messi #10 of Argentina celebrates scoring his team’s second goal during their World Cup match against Egypt in Atlanta on Tuesday.

Elsa/Getty Images


hide caption



toggle caption

Advertisement

Elsa/Getty Images

They looked beaten. And out. Argentina, the defending World Cup champion and No. 1-ranked team, was down 2-0 late against Egypt.

Then, in a span of 13 remarkable minutes, Argentina scored not once, not twice, but three times, capping a comeback for the ages and leaving Egypt stunned and shellshocked.

For much of the game in Atlanta, Egypt was in control, hobbling Argentina early. The Egyptian attack began almost immediately with a stunning header goal delivered by Yasser Ibrahim in the 15th minute. After that, Egypt’s defense closed ranks, making it practically impossible for Argentina to equalize.

Advertisement

It was downhill from there for the Argentines: team captain Lionel Messi failed to convert a penalty kick, and in the 67th minute, Egypt got a second goal from Mostafa Ziko (after an earlier Egyptian goal had been disallowed after a video review). It looked like Argentina was finished. On the brink of elimination.

But no one told the Argentine players that.

In the 79th minute, Lionel Messi began doing his thing. He fired a cross near the Egyptian goal, and Cristian Romero headed it in. Messi was not done. Four minutes later, he powered a shot past the Egyptian keeper. It was his eighth goal of this tournament, the most of any player. The score was 2-2.

Then, in stoppage time, yet another Argentina header and another goal, this time from Enzo Fernandez.

“This is the World Cup for you,” said Messi after the game. “It wasn’t easy to come back from two goals down. But as I always say, this group never gives up. We always try to fight until the end.”

Advertisement
French referee François Letexier speaks with Egypt forward Mohamed Salah during the World Cup Round of 16 match between Argentina and Egypt in Atlanta.

French referee François Letexier speaks with Egypt forward Mohamed Salah during the World Cup Round of 16 match between Argentina and Egypt in Atlanta.

Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption



toggle caption

Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images

Advertisement

Afterward, Egypt coach Hossam Hassan complained about the French referee and the officiating. “I am not convinced. I am not convinced with this outcome. I’m not convinced with the way things unfolded during this match,” said Hassan in a post-match news conference. “We have been treated unfairly today. We have suffered injustice.”

“We would have deserved to earn this win, but we are leaving with honor, with pride, regardless of this defeat,” said Hossan.

African soccer teams have been the stars of this World Cup. Morocco has yet to lose a game. Cape Verde qualified for the first time in its history and stymied Spain, Uruguay and Saudi Arabia. Argentina barely beat them in a nail-biter of a match.

Continue Reading

News

Top Senate Democrats push Trump-affiliated companies for answers about IRS settlement

Published

on

Top Senate Democrats push Trump-affiliated companies for answers about IRS settlement

Top Senate Democrats are pushing for answers on whether a provision in a controversial settlement agreement between President Trump and his own administration applies to companies co-founded by or affiliated with the Trump family.

As part of a deal struck in May by the Justice Department to resolve a lawsuit brought by Mr. Trump, the Internal Revenue Service is permanently barred from pursuing claims against Mr. Trump, his oldest sons Don Jr. and Eric, and the Trump Organization based on prior tax returns.

In a one-page document signed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and dated May 19, the Justice Department said the defendants in the president’s lawsuit — the IRS and the Treasury Department — are “FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED” from “prosecuting or pursuing, any and all claims” arising from tax returns filed before the settlement took effect. Blanche also wrote that the settlement applies to “parties including trusts, parent, sister, or related companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries.”

Now, Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, and Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee Ron Wyden of Oregon are pushing 11 businesses and organizations with ties to the Trump family to get answers for the “significant questions” the settlement raises relating to the tax audit provision, and whether the companies are included in the deal.

“Under the guise of a so-called legal settlement, the Trump administration has attempted to decree that the President, his family, and their entire business empire — potentially including entities with even the vaguest ‘affiliation’ to the family — are to face zero consequences if they have committed a range of financial crimes or misdeeds — regardless of the severity of the violation,” the senators wrote in letters transmitted to the companies Monday night. 

Advertisement

The letters were sent to mining company Kaz Resources, defense firm Powerus, cryptocurrency companies World Liberty Financial and American Bitcoin, robotics startup Foundation Future Industries, investment firm 1789 Capital, private aviation company Tag Air, and prediction markets Polymarket and Kalshi. 

All of the companies either were founded by Mr. Trump and his two adult sons, or list members of the Trump family as advisers, board members, or partial owners. Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket’s advisory board and 1789 Capital, where he’s a partner, has invested in Polymarket. Days before Mr. Trump took office for his second term, Kalshi also announced Trump Jr. would be a strategic adviser.

The Democrats, who are in the minority, lack subpoena power, so Mr. Trump, his children and his companies can’t be forced to answer the questions posed by the senators.

According to recent financial disclosures, the president earned more than a billion dollars from cryptocurrency ventures alone last year, including from his meme coin business and World Liberty Financial, his family’s cryptocurrency firm. 

Separately, the senators also asked the Trump Organization in a separate letter if it believes it has “immunity from all audits, civil penalties or federal prosecution” for any crimes that could have occurred before the settlement.

Advertisement

Trump Media and Technology Group, which is majority owned by a trust that lists Mr. Trump as the sole beneficiary and operates the Truth Social platform he uses daily, also received a letter from the Democratic senators.

“The public deserves transparency about the scope of this get-out-of-jail free card for Trump-aligned businesses, and about whether you intend to rely on this settlement as a free pass for any possible violations of the law,” the senators continued in their letter, which also seeks any communications that executives at the companies have had with the Justice Department and White House leading up to or after the settlement was signed.

The settlement was announced months after Mr. Trump and two of his sons and the Trump Organization accused the IRS and Treasury Department of unlawfully allowing a government contractor to leak tax returns to media outlets in 2020. 

In a statement, a Justice Department spokesperson said “the IRS routinely provides releases as part of resolving taxpayer reviews and audits. This settlement follows that same standard practice.” 

The spokesperson did not provide specific information about which companies are covered by the audit provision, or whether the Trump Organization and Trump family are the only entities covered by that addendum. 

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending