What Cities Have Implemented Voluntary Gel Blaster Buybacks?

The issue of gel blaster regulation has become a hot topic in Australia recently amid growing concern about the illegal use of the replica toy guns in crimes and intimidation. With their realistic appearance, gel blasters are frequently mistaken for real firearms, prompting calls for tighter controls. Several major cities have responded by implementing voluntary buyback programs allowing owners to surrender gel blasters in exchange for compensation. But are these an effective approach?

What are gel blasters and why are they an issue?

Gel blasters, sometimes called hydro blasters, are airsoft-style toy guns that fire small water-absorbent gel beads or pellets. More powerful versions shoot at velocities rivalling airguns while even low-powered blasters can cause pain or injury at close range.

Originally a niche enthusiast item, gel blasters became widely popular in Australia from around 2018. Their low cost and easy availability compared to airsoft and paintball gear made them appealing. Enthusiasts say they allow for simulated combat games and target practice in a safer way than using real firearms.

However, police and lawmakers have grown increasingly concerned about gel blasters being used illegally or for intimidation. With metal components and realistic designs mimicking actual firearms like pistols and assault rifles, gel blasters are hard to visually distinguish from real guns.

There have been numerous incidents in Australia where gel blasters were used to commit armed robberies or extortion, or were used to threaten and intimidate people. A 16-year-old Queensland boy also died in June 2021 after being shot in the chest at close range with a gel blaster pellet.

The guns have been banned or restricted in every state and territory except Western Australia and the Northern Territory. But regulations remain patchy and policymakers continue to grapple with how best to control them.

Why are buyback programs being used?

With gel blaster ownership already common, states introducing new regulations have looked to buybacks as a way to quickly reduce the number of blasters out in the community. Buybacks give owners a chance to voluntarily surrender blasters they don’t feel comfortable keeping under the tighter rules.

Police champion buybacks as an “amnesty” allowing owners to comply without fear of punishment. They hope reducing the availability of gel blasters will lead to fewer instances of misuse. Buybacks also let police gather data on the scale of gel blaster ownership.

Community leaders see them as a way to prevent gel blasters falling into the hands of criminals. And they avoid the risks of owners illegally keeping or reselling non-compliant blasters if they were simply outlawed or confiscated.

Buybacks are less confrontational than blanket bans and forceful disarming. Queensland Police Minister Mark Ryan said in July 2021 their buyback aimed to take these weapons out of our community without unfairly punishing recreational users”.

But critics argue buybacks are costly and question if they really stem misuse. Tighter supply controls or banning high-powered blasters completely may work better, they say.

Where have gel blaster buybacks been offered?

Here are the major Australian cities and states that have already held or announced voluntary gel blaster buybacks:

1. Melbourne, Victoria

• Victoria banned unlicensed gel blaster possession in June 2021.
• A temporary amnesty and buyback ran from 30 June to 31 December 2021.
• 23,000 blasters were handed in, second only to Queensland.
• Owners received $150 compensation per blaster surrendered.

2. Sydney, New South Wales

• Gel blaster laws introduced in NSW in March 2022.
• NSW Police launched a buyback program from 1 July 2022 to 30 November 2022.
• Compensation is $250 for the first blaster, $500 for each additional.

3. Brisbane, Queensland

• Queensland first restricted gel blasters in July 2021.
• Queensland’s buyback was the most popular with 43,000 surrendered.
• Compensation was $200 for the first blaster, $500 for extra units.

4. Perth, Western Australia

• WA announced new gel blaster laws in September 2022 to take effect in November.
• A buyback program is planned to support the incoming regulations.
• Compensation details are still being finalised.

5. Adelaide, South Australia

• SA introduced gel blaster laws in December 2021 banning unlicensed possession.
• A three month amnesty and buyback was announced, running from 1 March 2022 to 31 May 2022.
• Around 5,600 blasters were handed in. Compensation was $200 per unit.

6. Canberra, Australian Capital Territory

• The ACT restricted high-powered gel blasters in December 2020.
• No general buyback has been held, but there have been localised efforts:
  • In 2021 the Majura Park Shopping Centre held a limited $50 gift card buyback.
  • Wanniassa Hills Primary School ran a blaster hand-in event in November 2021 after reports of students threatened.

7. Hobart, Tasmania

• Tasmania introduced gel blaster regulations in September 2021.
• No broad buyback program has been implemented so far.

Why are some sceptical about gel blaster buybacks?

While buybacks may seem like a reasonable middle-ground policy, some experts have questioned their effectiveness and whether the substantial costs are justified.

Critics argue buybacks:

• Are a “band-aid” solution and won’t address underlying issues fueling crimes involving gel blasters. Tighter ongoing restrictions or outright bans may work better.
• Can be easily circumvented by owners keeping their most powerful blasters and only surrendering an older or cheaper one for compensation.
• Shift costs onto taxpayers. Queensland’s program cost an estimated $13 million including compensation and administration.
• Have little lasting impact, with remaining blasters quickly filling the gap left by those surrendered. Research on Australian gun buybacks suggests they had no long term effect.
• May not reach owners who intend to misuse gel blasters, as they are unlikely to voluntarily surrender them.
• Don’t compensate business gel blaster owners adequately for loss of stock and income.
• Could incentivise premeditated exploitation of buyback schemes for profit, by stockpiling cheap blasters to cash in when regulations hit.

Experts like University of Sydney criminologist Associate Professor Philip Alpers say buybacks “make very little difference to the problem” and are just “window dressing”.

Sydney gel blaster supplier Gel Ballistics labelled NSW’s buyback a “$5 million publicity stunt” that he expects will have no effect on crime rates.

What else are critics proposing?

Rather than buybacks, critics argue tighter supply restrictions, bans on high-powered blasters or prohibiting realistic designs may be more fruitful approaches.

Suggestions include:

• Nationwide gel blaster regulations to close loopholes between states.
• Prescribing gel blasters as firearms to impose licensing requirements on owners.
• Requiring permits to buy gel blasters like current state firearms permits.
• Mandating clear visual markings distinguishing gel blasters from real guns.
• Banning sale of gel blasters that closely mimic military weapons like assault rifles.
• Limiting gel blasters to low projectile velocities below 10 Joules to reduce injury risk.
• Not compensating surrendered blasters but instead fining owners breaching bans or restrictions.

Some also think more responsibility should fall on retailers to control sales and parents to safeguard storage. Ultimately, harder policing of existing laws targeting violent crimes and intimidation may make more difference than regulating replica toys, they contend.

What are the positives of buyback programs?

While debated, proponents argue there are still benefits to voluntary buybacks including:

• They provide a grace period for owners to comply with new laws and avoid punishment or confiscated stock. Amnesties encourage community support.
• Quickly removing a large number of blasters from circulation makes misuse harder. Even with potential exploitation, the overall number in the community falls significantly through buybacks.
• They allow data gathering on the scale of gel blaster ownership to inform policy decisions.
• Compensation means owners surrendering blasters don’t lose the full value of their investment unexpectedly due to regulatory changes.
• Buybacks are relatively simple and fast to implement compared to complex supply controls or national regulatory harmonisation which could take years.
• They demonstrate governments are listening to community concerns and being proactive about gel blaster misuse.
• Buybacks are preferable to simply criminalising existing owners when banning unlicensed possession after gel blasters were previously unregulated.

Both sides make reasonable points in the buyback debate. Ultimately there are no perfect solutions. While critics rightly highlight buyback limitations, proponents see them as an incremental step in the right direction. Buybacks at least take large numbers of gel blasters permanently out of circulation quickly, even if tighter ongoing restrictions are still needed.

How have buybacks worked in practice?

The buyback results have provided real-world data on participation rates and blasters handed in:

• Victoria received 23,000 gel blasters surrendered, showing significant community support. But with an estimated 80,000 blasters in the state beforehand, around 70% remained.
• Queensland saw massive participation with 43,000 guns collected. Long queues formed at some hand-in locations. But critics said owners simply handed in their oldest blasters while keeping multiple better units.
• NSW is still ongoing but saw low early turnout, potentially due to just $250 compensation offered initially. An extension until November aims to encourage more owners to participate.
• SA received around 5,600 blasters. Support was modest but still removed thousands of concerning replica firearms from the public.
• The ACT saw small localised participation, unsurprising given no state-wide compensation incentives. But local efforts still drew awareness to the issue.

So participation rates and total guns surrendered have varied significantly between states.QLD’s program seemingly had the greatest impact by retrieving huge numbers of gel blasters quickly. But other states still saw reasonable turnout that likely had some dampening effect on illicit blaster availability, despite collecting fewer.

What are the logistics of how buybacks operate?

Police have tailored the buyback procedures and compensation in each area:

• Strict eligibility criteria are set, with buybacks only for residents surrendering personally owned blasters. No proxies are allowed on behalf of others. Proof of identity and residence is required.
• Banned gel blaster models are defined and prohibited from compensation, eg. military-style assault rifle reproductions.
• Compensation levels offered per blaster vary between $100 to $500 depending on the state. Lower compensation may limit participation.
• Capped numbers per person apply, often one blaster, to prevent exploitation by stockpilers. Some states allow more at officers’ discretion.
• Designated locations are chosen for hand-ins, like police stations. Drop-off times and dates are set, eg. weekends or after hours for accessibility.
• Hand-ins are recorded with owner details taken and blasters catalogued by make and model. Data informs authorities on ownership demographics, numbers, and preferences.
• Police promote the programs through media and online. Clear infographics explain procedures and eligibility to residents.
• Safety precautions are taken like zip-tying triggers and removing batteries or gas cylinders before transportation and disposal.
• Proof of surrender is provided to owners for their records in case future compensation policies arise.
• Collected blasters are destroyed, usually melted down so they can never re-enter the market. Funds received by police offset costs.

What factors may influence participation rates?

Variable participation between states seems partly linked to factors like:

Compensation Amounts – More dollars offered makes surrendering more enticing for owners. Victoria and SA had lower turnout with $150 and $200 payments capped at one blaster, while Queensland’s $500 for additional guns encouraged handing in multiple items.

Amnesty Period Length – Longer buyback durations allow more time for participation. Short hand-in windows can limit numbers surrendered.

Advertising and Promotion – How widelybuybacks are publicised influences awareness. Queensland extensively marketed theirs while other states were less prominent.

Goodwill – Community goodwill towards new laws affects compliance. Strong backlash to regulations may limit voluntary participation.

Cost of Gel Blasters – If cheap, owners may surrender older blasters but keep multiple better units. More expensive hobby-grade models encourage maximising compensation.

Fear of Prosecution – Those worried about being penalised if found possessing banned blasters after amnesties end may be more likely to take part.

Inconvenience – Travelling to hand-in locations and paperwork deter some owners. Convenient, simple processes encourage buyback utilisation.

Capped Numbers – Limits per person prevent large-scale exploitation but may also discourage participation if owners can’t surrender their full collection.

What weapons have been handed in?

Police report a wide variety of gel blaster models have been surrendered. These include cheap generic products along with intricate hobbyist designs:

• Basic pistol and compact SMG shapes are common, like Glock and Uzi designs. Their smaller size makes them easy to conceal.
• Assault rifle style gel blasters are also prevalent. These highly realistic designs often closely imitate real guns like M4s or AK-47s.
• Shotgun models were less frequently received. Their bulk limits concealability. But tactical and shortened ”tacti-cool” shotguns did appear.
• Sniper rifle variants surrendered mimic real-steel large calibre rifles. Their long barrels and precision scopes suit long-range targeting play.
• Sci-fi varieties like laser blasters appeal to Cosplay and fictional themes. But their striking colors and lights often distinguish them from real firearms.

In Victoria, the M4 CQBR featured heavily in guns handed in. This compact M4 derivative resembles special forces and police firearms, concerning officials.

Victorian police reported 90% of surrendered gel blasters were illegal models under new laws banning unlicensed possession. The high figure suggests owners strongly complied in giving up newly prohibited blasters rather than keeping them unlawfully.

How does gel blaster regulation compare globally?

Australia has taken a relatively forceful stance on gel blasters compared to many overseas jurisdictions:

• Gel blasters are essentially unregulated across much of Asia and remain a popular retail item. Malaysia and China are major manufacturing hubs feeding enthusiasts worldwide.
• Europe takes a more cautious approach. Germany allows blasters shooting under 7.5J muzzle energy but bans public brandishing. The UK defines them as low-powered airguns requiring registration but not licensing.
• USA gel blaster laws vary between states. They are generally unregulated like toys except in a handful of states restricting BB guns and airsoft without proper colouring.
• Australian states now have the strictest gel blaster laws globally. Even where they remain legal, strict permits modelled on firearm licences are required akin to owning actual guns.

Our tighter rules likely stem from especially high concern around mimicking deadly weapons given Australia’s low gun crime rates and strict firearm laws adopted since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

But critics argue this strictness has fueled an illicit market, with regulations making blasters seem “cooler” and more tempting for illegal mischief and posturing.

How else are gel blasters being regulated?

Beyond buybacks and possession bans, further sales and design restrictions aim to make gel blasters less dangerous:

• Nearly all states require licences equivalent to firearm permits to legally own high-powered blasters. This imposes storage rules and background checks on buyers.
• Age limits like 18+ sales aim to keep blasters away from irresponsible youths. But critics say unscrupulous retailers still sell them to minors illegally.
• Power limits have been proposed, only allowing sales of low velocity models unlikely to cause injury. This is difficult to police however.
• Some advocate purpose-coloured shells distinguishing them from real guns at a glance. But colours fade, or could be re-sprayed by criminals.
• Most states want a national framework to align their conflicting laws. But complex federal negotiations have stalled progress towards consistency.
• Prescribing gel blasters as firearms federally would override state laws entirely, but this strictness is controversial and unlikely currently.
• Import bans on overseas brands have also been suggested, but domestic manufacturing could fill the void if lucrative enough.
• Making retailers and parents more culpable for sales and storage breaches has been raised as an alternative to owner-focused laws.
• Ultimately only tighter enforcement of existing criminal laws around armed offenses and intimidation may effectively deter deliberate gel blaster misuse.

Overall, further ongoing restrictions seem set to follow temporary amnesty buybacks, rather than buybacks being seen as a full solution in themselves. Combined ongoing approaches will likely have the greatest impact.

Gel Blaster Buyback Frequently Asked Questions

Why are gel blaster buybacks being held?

Buybacks aim to quickly reduce the number of concerning gel blasters in circulation following new state laws introduced to address safety fears and criminal misuse of the replica guns. They provide compensation incentives for voluntary surrender.

How much compensation is offered at buybacks?

Compensation amounts vary between states:

• Victoria: $150 per gel blaster surrendered
• Queensland: Up to $200 for the first blaster, $500 for each additional
• NSW: $250 for the first blaster, $500 for each extra
• SA: Fixed $200 per gel blaster handed in
• WA: Compensation details still being finalised

Can I hand in gel blasters owned by someone else?

No, buyback programs only allow individuals to surrender personally owned gel blasters registered in their name. Proxies handing blasters in on behalf of others are prohibited.

Do I need proof of ownership for buybacks?

Yes, you’ll need to supply proof of identity and residence. Police also record details of models being surrendered. Receipts of surrender are provided.

What types of gel blasters are eligible?

Only legally owned, unmodified gel blasters are eligible. Banned makes like military-style assault rifles are prohibited. Blaster condition does not affect compensation.

When do buyback amnesties end?

Hand-in end dates vary between states but are usually scheduled from between 1-6 months. Police warn owners to surrender blasters before amnesties finish or risk penalties.

Where can I hand in gel blasters?

Designated police stations are the main hand-in locations. Some buybacks also use temporary sites like showgrounds on particular days to boost accessibility.

Can I be prosecuted if I hand in an illegal gel blaster?

No, the point of amnesties is to avoid prosecution for possession violations, provided you surrender blasters within the buyback period. But future misuse could still be penalised.

What happens to surrendered gel blasters?

Handed in blasters are catalogued and stored temporarily before being destroyed, usually melted down so they can’t re-enter illicit markets.