Whose laws are better

Questions about Victorian gun and ammunition laws. Victorian Firearms Act 1996.

Whose laws are better

Post by Conallin24 » 26 Apr 2017, 5:35 pm

Hi there, I was recently wondering about firearm laws and how they differ for each state. I was hoping that each person who reads this could comment a few pros that there state has compared to others and then some cons (yeah I bet there are more of those) thank you. Some laws that may be pros are for example vic being the only state to allow 40 and above calibre pistols for target shooters. A con example is Tasmania having the ban of guns that look like a assault weapon. Thanks in advance
Conallin24
Private
Private
 
Posts: 62
Victoria

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by bladeracer » 26 Apr 2017, 6:00 pm

Conallin24 wrote:Hi there, I was recently wondering about firearm laws and how they differ for each state. I was hoping that each person who reads this could comment a few pros that there state has compared to others and then some cons (yeah I bet there are more of those) thank you. Some laws that may be pros are for example vic being the only state to allow 40 and above calibre pistols for target shooters. A con example is Tasmania having the ban of guns that look like a assault weapon. Thanks in advance



Victoria doesn't require any club membership for a licence.
We can modify our rifles as we wish as long as we maintain minimum barrel length and overall length and don't change the caliber or category.
We can hunt on crown land anytime we wish to.
We can have sliding/folding/swiveling stocks and pistol grips on our rifles.
We don't need to transport our firearms in a locked box attached to the vehicle.
We can own up to .50BMG.
We can possess whatever ammunition we want.
We don't need to book public land or carry a GPS when hunting.
We don't need to sit an "R Licence" test to shoot on crown land.
We only wait 28 days for our first firearm, then our PtA's take minutes.
We can loan and borrow firearms.

We can't supervise unlicenced shooters except at a range.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12655
Victoria

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by brett1868 » 26 Apr 2017, 8:18 pm

vic being the only state to allow 40 and above calibre pistols for target shooters


Not quite right, NSW can have up to .45 but no bigger. A "High Cal" commissioners permit is required for calibers >38 up to .45 so no shooting 50AE or S&W 500

The good
NSW is pretty cool with the laws, we can have almost anything from .177 up to 50BMG without any restrictions or special requirements.

The bad
lack of ranges for bigger calibers.
R license and stupid booking system to hunt state forests.
Some firearms are banned here despite being perfectly legal in other states (Rossi Circuit Judge)

The ugly
Stupid processing times for PTA's
How's my posting?
Complaints, Concerns - 13 11 14
User avatar
brett1868
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3017
New South Wales

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by bigfellascott » 26 Apr 2017, 8:38 pm

None of them have restricted/stopped criminal activity so they are equally useless IMHO.
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by AusTac » 26 Apr 2017, 9:18 pm

Texas?


Gotta go with Vic for stralian laws
Certified part time hillbilly
User avatar
AusTac
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1171
-

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by pomemax » 26 Apr 2017, 11:28 pm

I rang far and asked about this banned here despite being perfectly legal in other states (Rossi Circuit Judge) and the reason I was given is that with out doing anything after a trigger put a fresh cartridge is present for firing.
So that makes it a semi auto are they single action or double action never realy looked at them
Wonder when someone from WA will contribute a good law from there
pomemax
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1165
New South Wales

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by GLS_1956 » 27 Apr 2017, 1:26 am

I have to say I'm glad I'm an Okie, Oklahoman. Per say there are no State laws that make it harder than the Federal laws. Oklahoma actually sets a lower age for owning/possessing a firearm, rifle/shotgun or handgun than federal rules for purchase. All types of firearms are legal in the Sooner State, including Class Three, which covers full automatic, sawn off shotguns and rifles, silencers/suppressors, and "certain other weapons".

No restriction on handgun barrel length, caliber, capacity, or method of operation. Besides, again, what the feds say. Rifles and shotguns fall into the same field, only restrictions are the federal regulations. Basically if it can be owned in any other state, it can be owned in Oklahoma.

Oklahoma is a "Shall Issue" state when it comes to having a carry permit. One must successfully complete a Carrying Permit Class, which covers state mandated education and minimal required marksmanship qualification standards, by the way the cost of the class is mandated by the state, presently set at $60US, so you can't be charged more, or less, than this for the class. Our carry permits are just that, carry permits, originally they were concealed carry permits but a few years ago the state legislature passed and the Governor signed a bill turning them into carry permit which allows for either open or concealed carry. Otherwise the permit is limited to handguns of 45 caliber or smaller, sorry no AR-15s or sawed off shotguns, though both are legal to own here.

No state mandated waiting period for either arms or ammunition, so other than the Federally mandated NICS, National Instant Check System, which has never taken more than 20 minutes for me, so generally it is a case of: Pick, Pay, Get cleared, walk away. Private sales or transfers are allowed with no NICS mandated..
I've been asked: "How many guns do you need to have?" My answer remains the same: "One more."
GLS_1956
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 541
United States of America

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by Member-Deleted » 27 Apr 2017, 11:59 am

pomemax wrote:I rang far and asked about this banned here despite being perfectly legal in other states (Rossi Circuit Judge) and the reason I was given is that with out doing anything after a trigger put a fresh cartridge is present for firing.
So that makes it a semi auto are they single action or double action never realy looked at them
Wonder when someone from WA will contribute a good law from there


The very fact that some firearms are allowed in some states and not in others, shows just how hypocritical and pointless many of the current laws really are, basically by these restrictions, they are classifying the level of potential threat, based on what state a particular LFO happens to live in, this type of restriction has no practical basis or reasoning.

For example, I can legally own a Circuit Judge on an "A/B" licence in Queensland, yet if I move to NSW, I am no longer deemed suitable to own the same firearm, nothing has changed, except for the location, yet according to the NSW authorities, I am deemed to be unsuitable to own one, not sure how moving to another state makes a person suddenly become a threat to the public.

Somehow the authorities have missed the point, that the hundreds of firearms that are allowed in one state, yet prohibited in another, have not caused any detrimental effect on public safety, this very point proves that the basis and reasoning for many of the current restrictions, are pointless and have little to do with public safety, it also proves that basing restrictions on the type of object, serves no purpose other than control for the sake of control, it is the type of person, not object that matters.
Member-Deleted
 

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by WayneO » 27 Apr 2017, 4:33 pm

Vic law that you have to use a minimum of .270 on larger deer. This despite the fact that a 6.5 x 55 out performs the .270 by a mile.
The zero moderator laws are also annoying, because the benefits far outweigh any fear mongering reasoning to the ban.
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis" Dante's Inferno
User avatar
WayneO
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 183
Victoria

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by duncan61 » 27 Apr 2017, 8:23 pm

I have no issue with firearm laws in W.A.There is massive stations out in the east and north of the state .If you call and ask what they want shot they will usually give permission to hunt on their leased land for dogs foxes cats goats donkeys emus camels kangaroos and anything else that they want gone.This means you can acquire a suitable firearm to do this.I am glad they do not hand out guns to anyone.I caught a bus today with a young man that was clearly on some mind altering stuff of some sort.I dont want this person to have access to guns and the system mostly prevents this.Its like Centrelink.I was receiving support for a few months and was grateful for the system yet some bleat about how fd up it is then you find out they missed some paperwork or something along them lines.
.22 winchester .22hornet .222 .243 7mm rem mag cbc 12g
User avatar
duncan61
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1905
Western Australia

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by duncan61 » 27 Apr 2017, 8:48 pm

Imagine this situation.
.All Civilian firearms are in a government compound and you have to book to get your own firearms out and explain why you need them and when they will be back
.You have to get a property letter every time you want to go hunting.I am aware in the east you do this already for some state forests
.If this was a suicide at a public shooting range the best prevention would be ban hand gun ranges where the public have access to handguns
I am not saying that I wish for this situation but we need to be aware of both sides rather than keep crying about how they wont let us have our toys.I have been to a rifle range where a pleasant chap was letting people shoot his .338 Lapua mag for s**ts and giggles so do not tell me we cant have powerful rifles
.22 winchester .22hornet .222 .243 7mm rem mag cbc 12g
User avatar
duncan61
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1905
Western Australia

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by Rifle realist » 27 Apr 2017, 10:05 pm

I second Duncan.
At the risk of of abuse I will state my reason.
Genuine need. In WA we can only shoot on a range or private property. So if you are not a member of a club/ range or don't own land or have permission to shoot on a property there is no reason to have a firearm. We are able to have a fairly broad range of calibers here. If you are new to it join a club learn to shoot and make contacts you will be invited to hunts, if you are safe and get along with people, you will meet property owners and establish your own contacts, enabling you to get a property letter.
Sako quad .22 WMR 3-9X40 Leupold VXI
Anchutz 1430-1434 .22 Hornet 4 X 40 Bushnell
Sako 85 Varmint .260 Rem 4.5-14X50 Leupold VXIII
Sako 85 Hunter .338 Win Mag 3.5-10X40 Leupold VXIII
Marlin 1895 45/70
Assorted .22s & Shotguns
Rifle realist
Private
Private
 
Posts: 71
Western Australia

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by duncan61 » 27 Apr 2017, 10:30 pm

Thanks R/R I am expecting all sorts of backlash from this topic and am surprised to have someone agree.I did some pistol training at Midland not long ago and for a very reasonable fee 2 of us got an Instructor and shot 40 rds of .22 LR out of a semiauto with safety training.Its a 4 part course the next is clearing jams and other stuff then part 3 is with a 357 mag.Bottom line if you wish to shoot a handgun you can
.22 winchester .22hornet .222 .243 7mm rem mag cbc 12g
User avatar
duncan61
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1905
Western Australia

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by Peeds13 » 27 Apr 2017, 11:29 pm

The thing I find worst about WA firearm laws is the appearance law, it's just not justifiable in any way. The rest I can tolerate, though it's far from ideal.
Peeds13
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 29
Western Australia

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by duncan61 » 27 Apr 2017, 11:49 pm

I agree.I am luke warm on this.Why does someone want an assault lookalike rifle with a big mag hanging of the bottom that gets in the way trying to shoot of a rest but at the same time if it is a bolt action its a bolt action.We dont seem to have a cat D here but I know if you do the paperwork right cat C is not to hard
.22 winchester .22hornet .222 .243 7mm rem mag cbc 12g
User avatar
duncan61
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1905
Western Australia

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by Peeds13 » 28 Apr 2017, 12:21 am

Yer that's it, practically aside. If it's bolt action, it shouldn't matter what it looks like. It's just another way to erode people's rights in the name of safety. Which unfortunately WA is the vanguard at.
Peeds13
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 29
Western Australia

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by GLS_1956 » 28 Apr 2017, 1:27 am

duncan61 wrote:I agree.I am luke warm on this.Why does someone want an assault lookalike rifle with a big mag hanging of the bottom that gets in the way trying to shoot of a rest but at the same time if it is a bolt action its a bolt action.We dont seem to have a cat D here but I know if you do the paperwork right cat C is not to hard
or an air conditioner? What about a car that has atop speed well in excess of any

Well, why not? Why does somebody want a car that has an automatic transmission, air conditioner, or can exceed the posted speed limits of any public roadway? What about a home which has more than you need, especially televisions, who needs more than one of those and do you really need one that takes two people to carry into the home?

Why do I have an AR-15, actually a Ruger SR-556? For the same reason I have the Mini-14, M-1 Garand, M-1 Carbine, Marlin Model 60, Ruger 10/22, Remington Nylon 66, Stevens/Springfield 22 auto, Remington 1100, Winchester Super X, and two Browning A5s. I'll not recite the handguns that are autoloaders. But why? Because I can, and it upsets elitists to no end.

I am not a criminal, I pose no threat to any person, save those persons who would pose a threat to me. I am a law abiding citizen, I assume you, the reader of this, are too. Why should you be treated as a criminal?
I've been asked: "How many guns do you need to have?" My answer remains the same: "One more."
GLS_1956
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 541
United States of America

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by bladeracer » 28 Apr 2017, 1:45 am

duncan61 wrote:I caught a bus today with a young man that was clearly on some mind altering stuff of some sort.I dont want this person to have access to guns and the system mostly prevents this.



The system prevents him from having legal access to firearms, it does absolutely nothing to prevent him from buying or stealing an illegal handgun off a bikie at the pub.
The system should not treat lawful owners as criminals.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12655
Victoria

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by burek » 28 Apr 2017, 10:12 am

As someone who was apathetic towards guns and gun owners, I never gave the laws much thought before. Once affected, many seem illogical and even trying to create a parody effect.

Sure, I agree with the process of getting a licence but then being affectionate towards some of the categorisations and rules is entering stockholm syndrome territory. Why are things judged by make believe movies and agendas? Many of the issues are simply about quality of life for the shooter, like moderators, appearance (lol), semi-auto, pump, higher capacity, handguns...

Having said that, Vic does appear to be most sensible. Qld also with their trade-in for same caliber/action. As a Queenslander it does boggle the mind why we can't hunt in state forests though. I'd say Qld is far more "frontier" than Vic
User avatar
burek
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 20
Queensland

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by Daddybang » 28 Apr 2017, 11:02 am

The no hunting in state forest s@#ts me to tears. I own a block of eighty acres that backs on to 30000ac of forest that's rife with ferals that I can't shoot if they are on the other side of my boundary and the little bast@#ts know it :thumbsdown:
This hard living ain't as easy as it used to be!!!
Daddybang
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2012
Queensland

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by knowsnothin » 28 Apr 2017, 11:38 am

WA cons.
- no hunting ferals on crown land. This is just a disappointing outcome for environmental and rec. shooting concerns.
- minimum property sizes for calibre acquisitions.
- any firearm can be banned by 'regulations' applied by police rather than legislation.
- locked safe requirements were decided by someone with absolutely no knowledge of safe design and manufacture with the effect that firearm safes are built 'down' to a specification.
- silencers not allowed even with compelling reason for use.

Our new police minister has recently abdicated her responsibilities as a legislator and has asked the police commish what firearm laws he would like enacted despite the firearm act review having recently been completed. Additionally she is looking into communal firearm storage. this would be a terrible outcome for primary producers.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-21/f ... th/8462724

The Pedericks think a better solution would be communal gun safes in towns where they can be overseen by police.

Police Minister Michelle Roberts has promised to act.

"Theft of firearms is an incredibly serious issue, I will be raising the issue of facilities to store guns with the Police Commissioner," she said.
knowsnothin
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 134
Western Australia

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by 1886 » 28 Apr 2017, 2:30 pm

Conallin 24. Mate you are wrong in singling out Tassie for the "appearance" issue as most States have this in their legislation and do you know which is the worse State for taking advantage of this ?

Yep yours, Victoria as your Commissioner has banned 12 firearms on “appearance”. As far as I know too date WA has officially banned one !!!

I agree with duncan61 and Rifle realist that if you have a genuine reason/need then there is really no issues obtaining firearms in WA.

I will also go as far as to say some of our eastern relatives would be surprised at what we are allowed to have that they aren’t, if you tick the boxes but I won’t let the cat out of the bag on a public forum.

The only downside is it can take a few weeks to obtain additional firearms but IMHO that’s not a major issue.

Transporting firearms and ammo only require that we take "reasonable" precautions and the Commissioner has indicated that a person being in a car etc is satisfactory. None of that QLD crap :D

But the problem we may now have is the new Labor Govt Minister seems to be ignoring the outcome of a recent Law Reform Commissions report and its recommendations on a new Firearms Act, which contained further positives, so who knows what may now eventuate.
1886
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 126
Western Australia

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by Gun-nut » 28 Apr 2017, 5:12 pm

1886 wrote:Conallin 24. Mate you are wrong in singling out Tassie for the "appearance" issue as most States have this in their legislation and do you know which is the worse State for taking advantage of this ?

Yep yours, Victoria as your Commissioner has banned 12 firearms on “appearance”. As far as I know too date WA has officially banned one !!!

I agree with duncan61 and Rifle realist that if you have a genuine reason/need then there is really no issues obtaining firearms in WA.

I will also go as far as to say some of our eastern relatives would be surprised at what we are allowed to have that they aren’t, if you tick the boxes but I won’t let the cat out of the bag on a public forum.

The only downside is it can take a few weeks to obtain additional firearms but IMHO that’s not a major issue.

Transporting firearms and ammo only require that we take "reasonable" precautions and the Commissioner has indicated that a person being in a car etc is satisfactory. None of that QLD crap :D

But the problem we may now have is the new Labor Govt Minister seems to be ignoring the outcome of a recent Law Reform Commissions report and its recommendations on a new Firearms Act, which contained further positives, so who knows what may now eventuate.


Vic is far more lenient than WA, by a mile. Only 12 firearms are banned by Vic due to appearance. And the vast majority of those firearms are CAT C by federal law that were moved to CAT D. In WA however there is far more than 1. You can't get the colt m2012, wfa1, remington 7615 (due to the magazine) or anything that vaguely resembles a CAT D in any way. They only banned 1 SPECIFIC firearm in WA but the rest are banned outright just by the way they look. Just because they haven't stated it, doesn't meant it isn't banned mate. It sucks, I know but we have to live with it until change happens.
Gun-nut
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 428
Victoria

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by 1886 » 28 Apr 2017, 6:27 pm

PM sent.

IMHO the appearance issue will never change as we don't have a united large enough voice, which is sad as its complete BS.
1886
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 126
Western Australia

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by Download » 28 Apr 2017, 10:45 pm

I've been told that in WA you can have Cat C shotguns for IPSC. Haven't seen much evidence for it but I suspect that's because they're keeping that on the down low.

Here in SA the only upsides I can think of are no magazine restrictions on A and B firearms. We can still put 30 rounders in our 7615s unlike pretty much every other state. We also have no "appearance" bans unlike NSW, Vic or Tassie.
Download
Private
Private
 
Posts: 88
South Australia

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by 1886 » 29 Apr 2017, 12:39 pm

Download wrote:............... We also have no "appearance" bans unlike NSW, Vic or Tassie.

Unfortunately I think you do. From memory it relates to the SA Police comment in para4;

https://www.facebook.com/sapolicenews/p ... 8732030806

I was researching this law in other States awhile ago and whilst other Sates spelt it out more clearly, the words "other objects" in your Reg 4(1)(i) was a tad confusing but I later found a ruling by your SA Law Commission that commented on these reg changes and spelt it out.

Their final point was

(?) - Firearms of Military Appearance.

Can't seem to re find it at the moment, LOL.
1886
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 126
Western Australia

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by Jandamurra » 08 May 2017, 6:10 pm

Conallin24 wrote:Hi there, I was recently wondering about firearm laws and how they differ for each state. I was hoping that each person who reads this could comment a few pros that there state has compared to others and then some cons (yeah I bet there are more of those) thank you. Some laws that may be pros are for example vic being the only state to allow 40 and above calibre pistols for target shooters. A con example is Tasmania having the ban of guns that look like a assault weapon. Thanks in advance


I'll tell you which state has the better laws-the state we were in before 1996!
Jandamurra
Private
Private
 
Posts: 93
South Australia

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by pomemax » 08 May 2017, 6:33 pm

I have had a rethink on the question asked I think it was 1970 had the best gun laws in all states
pomemax
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1165
New South Wales

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by PoorShot300 » 09 May 2017, 4:20 pm

bladeracer wrote:We can possess whatever ammunition we want.
iirc.... you can only posses ammunition for that which you are registered for. ie; You only have a .22 permit, so you can't have any centre-fire ammo, and if you have a .224 you can't have .338 ammo unless you have a permit for a rifle in that caliber... :oops:

We can loan and borrow firearms.
Only to licensed shooters of that calibre is what i was told at FSC... :unknown:

We can't supervise unlicenced shooters except at a range.

I was informed unlicensed shooters 'can' be supervised...(that also meant AT ALL TIMES, and same as teaching your own kids is how it was put) ie; be their shadow while they have the firearm possession....

So much confusion eh? :crazy:
PoorShot300
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 127
Victoria

Re: Whose laws are better

Post by bladeracer » 09 May 2017, 4:51 pm

PoorShot300 wrote:
bladeracer wrote:We can possess whatever ammunition we want.
iirc.... you can only posses ammunition for that which you are registered for. ie; You only have a .22 permit, so you can't have any centre-fire ammo, and if you have a .224 you can't have .338 ammo unless you have a permit for a rifle in that caliber... :oops:

We can loan and borrow firearms.
Only to licensed shooters of that calibre is what i was told at FSC... :unknown:

We can't supervise unlicenced shooters except at a range.

I was informed unlicensed shooters 'can' be supervised...(that also meant AT ALL TIMES, and same as teaching your own kids is how it was put) ie; be their shadow while they have the firearm possession....

So much confusion eh? :crazy:


You are correct that if you only have a Cat A licence then you can only possess rimfire and shotgun ammunition.
If you have a Cat B licence then you can possess all Cat A ammo plus centrefire rifle ammo, although lots of pistol ammo is also rifle ammo.
You can borrow any firearm of the categories you are licenced for.
In Victoria you can only supervise an unlicenced person handling a firearm or ammunition while at a range, nowhere else.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12655
Victoria

Next

Back to top
 
Return to Victorian gun laws
cron