What Australia’s New Gun Limit Would Mean in US

Following the Bondi Beach massacre, Australia did what anti-gunners always do. They look at how to restrict guns even farther than they’ve already been restricted.

Australia was touted for having one of the most effective gun control schemes, yet it didn’t stop Bondi Beach from happening, so clearly, the answer is to be even more restrictive, right?

One of the restrictions in place, among many, is a limit on how many guns a person can own.

New laws will be introduced by the ACT government this week restricting the number of guns licence holders can own and criminalising blueprints for 3D-printed firearms.

The proposed Firearms (Public Safety) Amendment Bill 2026 would restrict licence holders to a maximum of five guns, with exemptions allowing up to 10 guns for occupational and sporting purposes. 

The updated legislation comes in the wake of the Bondi terror attack and after the ACT government labelled the territory’s gun laws as “outdated”.

ACT Police Minister Marisa Paterson said Canberrans expected laws that “put community safety first”. 

“These new laws address identified risks in uncapped firearm ownership, and reclassify firearms to ensure modern, nationally consistent laws,” Dr Paterson said.

Capping firearm numbers ‘will certainly assist’: Police

The limit of five differs from surrounding New South Wales, which has a limit of four, but aligns with other jurisdictions like Western Australia. 

Dr Paterson said most ACT gun owners have three firearms and only 20 per cent of licensees would be affected by the proposed limits.

Now, I understand that Australia isn’t the United States, but let’s keep in mind that while anti-gunners aren’t exactly pushing this at the moment, that’s because they have other things they figure they need in place first in order to make that happen. Like gun registration, for example.

Still, there’s no doubt at all that at least some of our anti-Second Amendment types are looking at this with a deep sense of longing.

Most of them, even the best-intentioned, may not see why this is any kind of issue. While I doubt they’ll listen to me, I’m still going to delve into just why this is a terrible idea, especially here in the US.

First, of course, there’s the whole “shall not be infringed” thing, and telling me I can only have a certain number of guns is infringement.

Even if the courts somehow argued otherwise, the reality is that five guns isn’t necessarily all that many, even if you’re not much of a collector.

For example, let’s take someone who is largely into hunting with his firearms. They keep saying they’re not coming for our hunting guns, right? Well, let’s think about how hunting guns actually work.

There are very few guns that are universal hunting weapons. Shotguns can take down pretty much anything, but they don’t have the range for a lot of game animals, so that means you’re going to need firearms specific to what and how you’re hunting.

Your .30-30 deer rifle might work great on whitetail, but it’s too big for squirrel or rabbit hunting, too small for elk or moose, and probably a bad idea to hunt bear with it.

And rifles are terrible for wing shooting anything.

A shotgun could probably take all of those critters, true, but you’re not getting close enough to an elk to use a 12 gauge, and a shotgun isn’t necessarily ideal for deer hunting in some places for the same reason.

That means someone who isn’t a collector, just an outdoorsman, might well have a shotgun for bird shooting, a rifle for deer, a rifle for elk or moose, a smaller rifle for small game, and a handgun for home defense.

That’s five. What’s the problem?

Well, what about when his kid wants to take up hunting? Children can’t lawfully buy guns of their own, after all, which means the gun would belong to dear old Dad. That would make six guns for him, and put him over the limit.

Note that I didn’t include things like milsurp guns, which many people just have because they’re cool, or the dreaded AR-15 Murder-Death-Kill-Inator. Just mostly the kinds of things anti-gunners claim they have no issue with at all. This doesn’t even get into handguns for hunting on top of rifles, or anything like that.

A person could have a dozen firearms and never get into anything for personal defense, defense against tyranny, or any of the other things a firearm might be useful for.

While no one is seriously talking about such a limit here, it’s just a matter of time before someone tries it.

Even without the constitutional arguments against such a bill, it doesn’t take much to see where this would become a massive problem, even for the Fudds.

Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.