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

Manhattan Building’s Columns Buckled Beneath New Addition, Images Show

Published

on

Manhattan Building’s Columns Buckled Beneath New Addition, Images Show

At least two structural columns buckled and failed in a 37-story office tower in Midtown Manhattan on Tuesday, prompting evacuations of nearby streets and buildings. While city officials asserted that the tower was in no danger of collapsing completely, outside engineers said further failures in the structure could not be ruled out.

A pair of columns that failed completely were part of the tower’s existing structure. A New York Times review of images and videos from inside the building has found that several floors were added atop these columns.

Advertisement

City officials said in a news conference on Tuesday that the building was continuing to move, while they simultaneously assured the city that the building would not suffer “total collapse.” “The way this building is constructed, it’s a steel-frame building,” John Esposito, a chief in the Fire Department in New York, said at the afternoon news conference. “So, it would not be a total collapse. It would be more of a localized collapse.” Still, he said, “that remains our concern, that it’s moved.”

Advertisement

Engineers said that the movement itself was cause for concern. In a properly designed steel building, they said, loads should redistribute quickly to surviving structural supports if columns failed.

Joe DiPompeo, a former president of the Structural Engineering Institute at the American Society of Civil Engineers, said that if the structure had been overloaded, he would expect any movement “to happen very quickly,” rather than gradually.

“Generally when a column buckles, it’s a sudden failure,” Mr. DiPompeo said. He said that a full collapse remained unlikely given the redundancies built into the building codes.

Advertisement

Engineers often refer to the most dangerous possibility as a progressive collapse, a process in which structures near the initial failure become overstressed and also fail, potentially bringing down the building if the sequence continues. While unlikely, it cannot be ruled out, Mr. DiPompeo said.

Footage recorded from inside the building shows at least two structural columns appear to have failed completely, Mr. DiPompeo said. Other nonstructural, interior walls — or at least the metal “studs” that were in place to hold them up — also appear to have deformed.

Advertisement

“The only way that really happens is if the floor above them dropped. It looks like the floor above could have dropped a foot or two, which is obviously not a good situation,” Mr. DiPompeo said.

@fernando40tiktok.commarc via Storyful

Advertisement

Advertisement

Image from @fernando40tiktok.commarc via Storyful

Advertisement

Image from @Bogs4NY via X

Advertisement

The 37-story building is in the process of being converted from office space into residential units. Four new floors and a large vertical portion were added onto the existing building in recent months. The vertical portion consists of a stack of over a dozen new floors cantilevered out over the existing building below.

Engineers said that there was nothing inherently wrong with adding residential floors or the cantilevered section above the columns that failed, as long as the original structure and the modifications had properly accounted for the added weight and wind loads.

“The cantilever alone doesn’t change anything,” Mr. DiPompeo said, but it does put additional load on the columns underneath — a factor that should have been reflected in the design.

Advertisement

Nathan Berman, managing principal and founder of MetroLoft, the developer overseeing the conversion, said on Tuesday that “this incident is nothing more than a typical construction mishap.”

He said two columns near the northwest corner of the tower had bent under the weight of additions to the building above, most likely because those columns had not been properly reinforced, though he said an investigation would determine the cause. The rest of the columns, he said, “picked up the weight.” He estimated the affected floors above the failed columns had sagged by a maximum of four inches.

Advertisement

Mr. Berman said that he expected the problems to be fixed and the project to be completed with, at most, a slight delay.

On Tuesday evening, installation of temporary shoring was set to begin shortly, in order to help stabilize the 20th and 21st floors of the building.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

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
Advertisement

Trending