Firearms Amendment Regulations 2015 (TAS)

The Firearms Amendment Regulations 2015 (TAS) were the subject of a legal challenge brought by an individual, who sought a declaration that the regulations were invalid. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicant argued that the regulations were beyond the power of the Tasmanian Government to enact and therefore invalid. The applicant contended that the regulations did not align with the requirements of the Commonwealth's Firearms Act 1996, and that the Tasmanian Government had overstepped its legislative authority by attempting to regulate firearms in a manner inconsistent with federal law.

The court was required to determine whether the Tasmanian Government had the legislative power to enact the regulations and whether the regulations were consistent with the Commonwealth's Firearms Act 1996. The central issue was whether the Tasmanian Government had the authority to declare certain devices, such as nail guns and phasors, as not being firearms under the state's legislation, and whether this declaration was valid given the overarching federal framework governing firearms.

The court held that the Tasmanian Government did have the legislative power to enact the regulations, as they fell within the scope of the state's authority to regulate firearms and related activities. However, the court found that the regulations were inconsistent with the Commonwealth's Firearms Act 1996, as they attempted to redefine the scope of what constitutes a firearm in a way that conflicted with federal law. The court concluded that the Tasmanian Government could not enact regulations that directly contradicted or undermined the federal framework governing firearms, as this would result in an impermissible interference with federal legislative authority.

The court issued a declaration that the Firearms Amendment Regulations 2015 (TAS) were invalid to the extent that they declared certain devices to be not firearms, as this conflicted with the Commonwealth's Firearms Act 1996. The regulations were otherwise upheld as valid exercises of the Tasmanian Government's legislative power, provided they did not contravene federal law. The court's decision underscored the importance of maintaining a consistent regulatory framework for firearms across Australia, while also recognising the states' role in regulating firearms within their jurisdictions.