After Bondi, leaders back tougher gun laws - but does the same logic apply

The Bondi terrorist attack has rightly shaken the country.

Australians are being told we need “tougher gun laws” after the Bondi Beach terror attack, where police say a father and son opened fire at a Jewish holiday event and killed 15 people, before the older man was shot dead at the scene.

National cabinet has now agreed to strengthen Australia’s gun laws, with proposals including limits on how many firearms a person can hold, changes to “open‑ended” licensing and tighter national consistency.

But there is a second question sitting underneath the politics: how did the firearms used in a terror attack remain in legal hands?

Under the National Firearms Agreement, anyone who wants a firearms licence must pass a “fit and proper person” test administered by police agencies.

If our leaders want laws that actually save lives, the answer can’t be only about new bans.

It must include citizen-only gun licences and quickly removing firearms from at-risk owners.

‘Please assess’: what happens after you report a firearms risk?

I have personally emailed the NSW Police Force Firearms Registry to report what I described as a potential public-safety concern/threat – in relation to an alleged legal firearm owner in NSW.

The person I reported emailed me the following statement about firearms and licensing (verbatim):

“I also hold all the correct licences and forms necessary to possess firearms and as an added bonus I am also ASIO cleared which is a higher clearance than just the police check necessary for firearm ownership.”

The Firearms Registry is part of NSW Police and is responsible for administering firearms and prohibited weapons legislation in NSW, including registration, licensing and compliance.

And NSW law already uses threshold-based reporting in some areas – with Section 79 of the Firearms Act providing a pathway for health professionals to notify police if they believe a person may pose a threat to public safety if they have a firearm. NSW Police’s Health Risk Assessment guidance also says an assessment must be requested where NSW Police has received credible information linked to threats or behaviours associated with self-harm or violence related to mental illness or impairment.

But for ordinary community members making a report, the system can still feel like a black box – especially when police cannot lawfully share outcomes about another person’s status.

And if they do reply (don’t hold your breath), you’ll probably get a generic response I got:

The risk now is a debate that punishes compliance and mentally stable gun owners – while avoiding the harder question: what triggers a review into gun ownership and how quickly / transparently does the system act?

And yes, this intersects with Indigenous safety… because systems that expand police powers without safeguards tend to land hardest on people already over-policed, while the violence driving harm goes under-serviced.