Following the tragic Bondi Junction terrorist attack that claimed six lives, there has been strong public emotion and understandable calls for accountability. Among the proposals raised is the possibility of a royal commission into the events surrounding the attack. While such inquiries are often presented as a pathway to truth and reform, they also pose significant risks for lawful firearms owners in Australia. These risks deserve careful and measured consideration, particularly given Australia's already strict regulatory environment that includes mandatory licensing, safe storage laws, and regular compliance checks.
A royal commission is granted wide ranging powers and discretion. Its scope can extend far beyond the specific actions of an offender to include laws, systems, culture, and perceived risks. In a climate shaped by grief and political pressure, lawful firearms ownership can become a convenient focus, despite having no direct connection to the actions of a terrorist. This creates a risk that compliant firearms owners are grouped into a broader narrative of control and restriction rather than assessed on evidence.
Royal commissions are not courts and do not operate under the same rigorous evidentiary standards, cross-examination rights, or procedural safeguards that protect individuals in legal proceedings. Despite this, their findings and recommendations carry enormous influence. There is a real concern that firearms owners could be subject to adverse findings based on precautionary thinking or public perception rather than factual links to criminal behaviour. Once included in a final report, such findings can shape policy and public opinion for many years.
Australia already has some of the world's tightest firearms regulations—stricter than the United States, Canada, and most European nations. Lawful owners comply with licensing, background checks, storage requirements, and ongoing oversight. Further tightening arising from a royal commission may offer little additional public safety benefit while imposing significant new costs, administrative burdens, and restrictions on legitimate activities such as pest control for farmers, recreational hunting, and Olympic-level sporting pursuits. History shows that recommendations from high profile inquiries are often adopted quickly, with limited debate, as governments seek to demonstrate decisive action.
Another significant risk is that a royal commission may divert attention away from the complex factors that contribute to terrorist acts. Issues such as intelligence sharing between federal and state agencies, early mental health intervention programs, adequate policing resources, and inter-agency coordination are difficult to address and politically challenging. Focusing on lawful firearms ownership can provide a simpler and more visible response, even if it does little to address the systemic failures that truly warrant scrutiny.
For firearms owners, the concern is not opposition to accountability or public safety. It is the risk that a royal commission into the Bondi terrorist attack could lead to symbolic and punitive outcomes rather than fair and effective solutions. In such circumstances, law-abiding citizens may bear the consequences of a process shaped by urgency and emotion, resulting in tighter laws that undermine public trust, waste taxpayer resources, and fail to meaningfully improve community safety.
Do you want to get the last Australian Deer news, events, updates & competitions directly to your inbox?
Enter your name & email below and we'll make sure you're the first to know!
