It is deeply concerning that governments have the power to enact legislation that could lead to the destruction of museum collections.
As custodians of museums, it is difficult for us to fathom how any sensible individual could endorse legislation that results in the destruction of any collection. We are not alone in this sentiment. The widespread expressions of shock and anger from people around the world, as evident in comments on our online petition, highlight that most individuals grasp the importance of preservation, a sentiment that our government appears to overlook.
The destruction of historical items is to be deplored. Whoever thought that this is acceptable is not of a sound mind. They should be condemned just as the Taliban who destroyed the Buddhas were condemned.
– Anon, UK
Reflecting on the rationale behind this regulation, it’s hard to make sense of it on any level.
The ideology that drives governments to intervene in museum collections overlooks the distinct nature of firearms within such institutions. These artifacts have transcended their original purpose as weapons, transforming into historical artifacts—an essential record of our past and a significant part of our narrative. Consequently, it is crucial that they be preserved in their original state, ensuring that future generations can appreciate and study them.
Does the government genuinely believe that by eliminating objects, even within the sanctuaries of truth and authenticity that are museums, they are purging the nation of items so malevolent that their destruction is deemed necessary for the betterment of humanity?
How does this scenario differ from the destructive actions carried out by Middle Eastern extremists, motivated by religious and political beliefs, as they vandalized ancient statues they deemed offensive? Their rampage left a trail of devastation that not only shocked but also robbed the world of irreplaceable cultural treasures.
Throughout both World Wars, the immense value of museum collections led to efforts to safeguard them amidst the chaos, ensuring protection from the ravages of war. It is disheartening to contemplate that LSAFM may be compelled to relinquish its vital collection to shield it from potential harm initiated by our own government.
Alternatively, could there be another rationale behind this decision? Considering that numerous major museums in the State are either government-owned or funded, museums might be seen as a convenient target to initiate the process of tightening the State’s gun laws.
This matter seems distinct from the implementation of gun control measures intended to enhance public safety. It’s probable that instances of firearms theft from museums are very low, given the challenge of finding official statistics on this matter. Even rarer are likely the instances of crimes committed with firearms stolen from museums.
Museum objects hold value in multiple dimensions, and museums are acutely aware of the precautions necessary to prevent theft of any item within their collections. Museums displaying a significant number of firearms also recognize the responsibility they carry in the pursuit of public safety.
What is the underlying reasoning behind singling out museums in the latest legislative measures?
So what is the rationale of targeting museums with this latest legislation?
When we met with the Police Minister in early February, he mentioned that our museum’s advertising of its firearm collection, coupled with public accessibility, raises concerns. However, does this truly translate to an elevated risk for the public? Firearms dealers and retailers find themselves in a similar position, yet they do not face the same level of scrutiny as museums.
Before the Regulation Amendment, museums legally had to temporarily deactivate modern (post-1900) firearms on display by removing internal components like firing pins or springs, or by using trigger locks. Museums, acknowledging the importance of preventing theft, were compliant with these measures and did not object to such safeguards for their valuable firearms.
It is crucial to recognize that firearms in museums have not been used for years. As anyone familiar with firearms understands, stealing a gun, sourcing missing parts, and attempting to fire it poses a significant personal risk. This risk is further amplified when missing components are substituted with any available part, or even worse, a hand-made substandard part, particularly in the case of self-loading, semi-automatic, or fully automatic firearms.
If LSAFM complies with the Regulation, some of the permanently destroyed items are so rare that only a handful of examples exist in the world. In certain cases, they are one-of-a-kind, with their internal workings serving as a testament to the technological endeavors of their makers.
While reviewing documents left by the Museum’s previous Custodian, we came across his correspondence with an English researcher concerning a Bren Gun conversion that met its demise under the Government’s 1996 gun buyback scheme. The rarity and value of this particular Bren Gun were so significant that the expert could identify it by its serial number. Upon learning that it had been destroyed during the Buyback, he responded:
‘There were two in the world … now there’s one.’
LSAFM has welcomed various researchers over the years, catering to not only firearms enthusiasts but also individuals with diverse interests. For instance, a writer with limited knowledge of firearms visited to understand the mechanics of the Smith & Wesson M&P revolver. This particular weapon was identified as the preferred choice for his fictional detective, and the writer sought to ensure technical accuracy in his literary work.
Another researcher, who freelanced for the National Sound & Film Archives, had a particular interest in the sounds produced by firearms. Our secure storage area transformed into an impromptu sound booth, equipped with sensitive sound recording equipment. During his visits, he captured the sounds of cocking hammers, working actions, and the handling of magazines in various firearms. These recordings are now preserved in the NSFA and are likely being utilized for diverse purposes.
Our ongoing research on the Lithgow and Slazenger sporting rifles, the little rifles that provided sustenance for many families after World War II, necessitates a meticulous examination of minute internal details of components of the very similar Models 1A and 1B. This examination seeks to uncover the underlying reasons for the modifications and change in designation.
It’s possible that there may be no physical difference, and the change in designation could have been an effort to distance the rifles from negative publicity following an incident questioning their safety. Alternatively, it raises the possibility that the rifle underwent slight modifications due to safety concerns and was subsequently renamed. Determining the truth would require a comprehensive examination, involving the complete disassembly and careful inspection of a number of both models.
Consider the donors, individuals driven by passion and belief, who entrusted their collections to a museum for safekeeping and public display. The legacies left by these individuals, in numerous instances, now face the prospect of being relegated to the scrapheap.
Our decision makers must give more thought to what they are destroying.
Our decision-makers must carefully consider the consequences of what they are dismantling. Museums stand as inter-generational institutions, and the responsibility for the care of their collections extends beyond the present generation of scholars, writers, researchers, and the public to include those of the future.
Future generations will harshly judge the government if they deprive them of the opportunity to witness and study their cultural heritage.
