Australian Gun Laws Under Scrutiny After Terror Suspect Acquired Six Weapons Despite ISIS Links

Image: Jihad Watch

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed that Naveed Akram first came to the attention of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) in October 2019. He was monitored and investigated for approximately six months. At the conclusion of that period, authorities assessed that Akram did not pose an ongoing threat, and the investigation was closed.

However, senior officials later revealed that Akram had close associations with Isaac El Matari, who was arrested in the same year and subsequently convicted for plotting an Islamic State (IS)–inspired insurgency in Australia. El Matari had styled himself as the Australian commander of the terror group and was part of a broader IS-linked network operating out of Sydney.

According to sources with direct knowledge of the investigation, several members of this cell were convicted of terrorism-related offences, and many of them maintained close ties with Naveed Akram. These connections, while known to authorities, did not ultimately trigger further preventive action.

Senior officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, also confirmed that two Islamic State flags were discovered inside a vehicle at Bondi Beach. One of these flags was visible in publicly circulated footage from the scene, placed on the bonnet of the car—an image that has since raised serious questions about how such symbolism went undeterred.

Addressing the media on Monday morning, NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon disclosed that Sajid Akram had been a licensed firearms holder for a decade. He confirmed that Akram legally owned six firearms and stated that police had successfully recovered all six weapons from the scene.

The broader concern raised by these revelations is not unique to Australia. Critics point to parallels with the 2016 Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, where the perpetrator, Omar Mateen, had also been previously investigated by the FBI. Despite multiple warning signs and extremist statements, the investigation was ultimately dropped, allowing Mateen to carry out one of the deadliest terror attacks in U.S. history.

The recurring pattern highlighted by such cases is a perceived reluctance by authorities to act decisively unless there is explicit, immediate evidence of an impending attack. In contrast, analysts argue that individuals expressing extremist views linked to other ideologies often face faster and more severe consequences, including the loss of firearms licenses.

This has led to growing debate over whether counterterrorism thresholds are applied unevenly, particularly when investigations intersect with concerns about religious profiling or civil liberties. Critics argue that the standard for intervention in cases of Islamist extremism is set so high that many individuals evade meaningful scrutiny until it is too late.

The central argument emerging from this discussion is not solely about gun control, but about how ideological extremism is assessed, monitored, and acted upon. Without addressing inconsistencies in how threats are evaluated and managed, critics warn that existing systems risk repeating the same failures—at a devastating human cost.

(This Article was originally published by Jihad Watch)