Civil rights groups and pro-gun advocates in Australia are expressing concerns over new fast-tracked laws introduced by the New South Wales (NSW) government in reaction to the Bondi shootings.

On Monday, NSW parliament was recalled to debate a set of proposed laws that include restrictions on the number of firearms one person can own and greater police powers concerning protests. Premier Chris Minns stated that, while some may perceive these changes as excessive, they are critical for maintaining community safety.

A pro-gun politician argued that the laws unfairly penalize law-abiding gun owners, while civil liberties advocates assert that limiting protest activities detracts from democratic principles.

Among the controversial proposals is a ban on the phrase globalise the intifada, which Premier Minns argues incites disunity and invites violence. The term, historically linked to the Palestinian uprisings, has polarized opinions regarding its connotation of resistance or incitement.

The new laws also include enabling police to restrict demonstrations near places of worship and to remove face coverings from suspected offenders during protests. Critics, including civil liberty organizations, argue this infringes upon constitutional rights to political communication.

On the gun control front, the proposed regulations would limit NSW license holders to owning no more than four firearms, with some exceptions for farmers and sport shooters. This follows similar legislation from Western Australia, highlighting a national trend towards stricter gun control. The measures come in the wake of the Bondi attack, wherein 15 individuals lost their lives, leading to increased scrutiny on gun ownership practices.

While proponents of stricter laws, like Walter Mikac, a survivor of Australia's deadliest mass shooting, have praised the reforms as a means to close critical gaps in gun legislation, opponents warn that such measures could alienate and punish a significant demographic of responsible gun owners.

As the NSW government pursues stricter regulations, the balance between safety and freedom of expression remains a contentious issue, reflective of a society grappling with complex narratives surrounding violence, safety, and civil liberties.