“You Don't Need It, So You Shouldn't Have It”
Is Not What the Law Says.
Back in April, The Point ran an opinion piece by Roland Browne — vice chair of Gun Control Australia and a Hobart lawyer — claiming “perhaps 200,000 people in NSW have gun licences that they don't need.” That number, and the argument built on it, later reappeared across The Point's firearms coverage. SSAA ACT has analysed the article and written to Mr Browne seeking a correction.
Where the Number Started
On 8 April 2026, The Point published “Australia's gun laws need reform: tightening the 'genuine reason' requirement,” by Roland Browne. It is the earliest of the firearms pieces we have reviewed — and its central claim, that around 200,000 NSW licence holders have guns “they don't need,” became the seed for later Point articles arguing the same line. Trace the coverage back and this is where the “genuine reason” argument begins.
To be fair to the piece — and we think fairness is what makes our case credible — two things are to its credit. Its history of Australia's firearms laws, from the 1987 Melbourne shootings through Port Arthur to the National Firearms Agreement, is accurate. And unlike The Point's Australia Institute staff writers, Mr Browne's advocacy role is disclosed in his by-line. Our concern is not his right to argue for reform. It is the accuracy of a few specific claims.
“200,000 Licences They Don't Need”
This is the claim that frames the whole article — and it does not hold up. It confuses two different things: whether someone used a firearm last year, and whether they hold a valid reason to be licensed.
A “genuine reason” is not a use-it-or-lose-it test. It is satisfied by an eligible reason — club membership, access to rural land, collecting, occupational use — regardless of how often you exercise it in a given year. Someone who didn't hunt last season has not stopped having a genuine reason. Calling their licence one they “don't need” swaps the author's personal judgment of need for the standard the law actually applies.
Treating Owners as Presumed Dishonest
The article says firearms are held “under the guise of being a recreational hunter” and that the system has been “widely flouted by landholders and shooters alike.” That imputes dishonesty to licensed owners and the landholders who support them — as a class, and without evidence that any individual made a false declaration. A process being thin on paperwork is a point about administration; it is not proof that the people who met that process lied.
Using Bondi to Tar a Whole Category
The article says the Bondi perpetrator held six firearms “under the guise of being a recreational hunter.” Whatever failures preceded that atrocity, using one offender to cast the recreational-hunter category — held by many thousands of law-abiding people — as inherently a “guise” is guilt by association. A failure in one case is not evidence that a lawful licence category is a cover for wrongdoing.
The Safety Claim, Without the Evidence
The article says tightening the genuine-reason test “will further enhance public safety.” No evidence is given for a link between lawfully held “unnecessary” guns and actual harm — and the best independent finding points the other way:
“There is no clear evidence that numerical caps on individual ownership, by themselves, reduce firearms-related harm.”
His Own Example Makes Our Point
Speaking to 936 ABC Hobart on 24 July, after the Coles Bay home invasion, Mr Browne argued the case for ownership caps by pointing to the murder of Constable Keith Smith in June 2025. It is worth looking closely at that example.
By Mr Browne's own account, Constable Smith was killed with a rifle that was illegally owned by a man who did not hold a firearms licence. Ownership caps apply only to licensed owners — they would have done nothing to stop an unlicensed offender using an unlawfully held gun. The example he chose to make the case for restricting law-abiding owners is one that restricting law-abiding owners could not have prevented. It points to the illicit market, not to licensed shooters.
What SSAA ACT Is Doing
We have prepared a media analysis of the article and written to Mr Browne, care of his firm, requesting a correction, with a copy to The Point. The letter now also addresses his 24 July ABC comments. We have kept it strictly to the facts. In short, we are asking that:
Correct the 200,000 claim
Withdraw the bad-faith language
Fix the Bondi passage
Qualify the safety claim
Drop the Keith Smith example
SSAA ACT does not oppose reform, and we do not dispute Mr Browne's right to argue his case. We support debate built on accurate facts — and we said as much to him directly. What we object to is a contested advocacy estimate presented as established fact, and lawful owners treated as presumptively dishonest. We will keep members informed of any response.
Sporting Shooters Association of Australia ACT Inc
Media contact: info@ssaaact.org.au
SSAA ACT Inc represents approximately 5,700 members. There are approximately 7,000 licensed firearm owners in the ACT. These are distinct figures.
Sources: “Australia’s gun laws need reform: tightening the ‘genuine reason’ requirement”, by Roland Browne, The Point, 8 April 2026; “Tasmania reports rise in gun theft, as Coles Bay victim Grant Whelan continues slow recovery”, ABC News, 24 July 2026; Lay Rapid Review of Victoria’s Firearms Laws (Ken Lay AO APM, May 2026).