WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Questions about Western Australian gun and ammunition laws. W.A. Firearms Act 1973.

WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by YoungSC » 22 Apr 2018, 10:41 pm

I had a conversation with a WA gun instructor who believed that appearance regulations would be changing some time around the middle of the year. Has anyone heard anything similar?

Separate to that conversation, I note that the LRC recommendation was for Firearms Regulation 26B(2)(a) to be deleted. Is this recommendation being implemented?
YoungSC
Private
Private
 
Posts: 61
-

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by Flyer » 06 May 2018, 2:26 pm

26B(2)(a) has already been repealed. Unless you are talking about 26(2)(a).

I did have an interesting talk with WAPOL the other day. Earlier, I had been at Claremont Firearms looking for something in 6.5 Creedmoor. They showed me a Howa Chassis Rifle and I questioned the possibility of getting it licenced as it had a pistol grip etc. The guys at Claremonts said "No problem - pistols grips are fine and so are chassis rifles, as long as they don't have a full barrel shroud."


Image
So this Howa HCR is OK - note shroud opening at the top.


Image
However, this Tikka Tac A1 is not.


How do I know? I phoned WAPOL and asked them. They confirmed that "pistol grips are OK now" (just why they weren't in the past remains a mystery), but the Tikka Tac A1 is still illegal in WA due to its military appearance.

And what constitutes "military appearance"? Well, anything WAPOL decides on the day - they couldn't provide any official guideline, nothing is published, and the actual reasons given for why the Howa is legal and the Tikka is not are ludicrous!

According to Schedule 3 of the Firearms Regulations, Class D1 is . . .
D1
a self loading centre fire rifle designed or adapted for military purposes or a firearm that substantially duplicates such a firearm in design, function, or appearance

So what exactly does that mean? It means whatever it means to the people who decide one day pistol grips are illegal, the next day they aren't, or one day open shrouds are illegal, the next day they aren't, or . . . you get the idea. :lol:

Indeed, when I asked if it could be explained to me over the phone, they couldn't. They just have a list of firearms they deem can't be licenced in WA and every now and then add or subtract something from it.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by Flyer » 06 May 2018, 2:44 pm

You think that's retarded?

Image

Semi-automatic military rifles: M1 top, M14 bottom. According to WA regs, anything that "substantially duplicates" the "appearance" of these two rifles is a Category D1 firearm.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by Flyer » 06 May 2018, 2:47 pm

bentaz wrote:That's retarded, you guys should move to Australia! In 8 years of military service I never saw a rifle with a full barrel shroud or a bolt handle either lol!

Sorry, when I say "full" I mean "enclosed" barrel shroud. Ie; a shroud that encloses all or part of the barrel and is not open at the top.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by Gaznazdiak » 06 May 2018, 2:50 pm

Anyone, other than myself, considered the possible value of getting some form of general query going on just why the Powers That Be consider that the appearance of a firearm renders it capable of being somehow more dangerous to the public?
Perhaps a petition, online or otherwise, to get this nonsensical descent into political correctness explained at the least or dispensed with at best?
These people who persecute us with such meaningless, beaurocratic abstractions should be the ones responsible for justifying the hoops through which they force law abiding citizens to jump just to persue a sport or rid the ecosystem of introduced pests.
How about we stop just discussing and start fighting back? Any lawyers in our midst who could lend a suggestion?
fideles usque ad mortem
User avatar
Gaznazdiak
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1379
New South Wales

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by Flyer » 06 May 2018, 3:21 pm

At least in WA it's been addressed before - even raised in Parliament - to no avail.

This makes interesting reading on the subject: https://www.beatonfirearms.com.au/post_ ... ppearance/
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by Gaznazdiak » 06 May 2018, 3:59 pm

Interesting reading Flyer.
The thing we need to make clear though is this: when confronted with a firearm in a criminal context, the average Joe Public only sees that there is a gun pointed at them. They don't care if it's a 200 year old Blunderbuss or the most advanced combat rifle available to the military. All they see is "A Gun"
It's time we established, in law, that the functionality of a firearm is the only criteria that is logical in it's classification.
Aesthetics are totally illogical, and totally unimportant.

That is, in the opinion of a Tacti-tool in possession of an admittedly Tacti-cool rifle. :D
fideles usque ad mortem
User avatar
Gaznazdiak
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1379
New South Wales

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by Flyer » 06 May 2018, 5:20 pm

Well I guess if you had money to spend on a good lawyer, you could probably successfully challenge the WA law.

Firstly, which particular model of self-loading military rifle does the Category B firearm substantially duplicate in appearance?

WAPOL are obliged to specify the military model they think the Cat B firearm is based on, because that's the law.

Secondly, what are the defining characteristics of the self-loading military rifle in question that the Cat B resembles that are not common to other Cat B and/or any other firearms?

If it is the stock and grip - the argument used in the past by WAPOL - then what about all the other defining characteristics of the self-loading military firearm that are not found on the Cat B rifle?

For example: charging handle vs bolt (no semi-auto has a bolt); large-capacity magazine (all self-loading military rifles have high-capacity mags of at least 20 rounds); military-style open sights (all military rifles have back-up open sights); side ejection port with dust cover (bolt-actions do not have side ejection ports with dust covers); rate of fire selector (bolt actions do not have them); split receiver (bolt actions do not have "upper" and lower" receivers); anything else you can think of.

If I were a lawyer, I would simply argue there are more differences between the self-loading military and Cat B rifles in question than similarities; to wit, the Cat B firearm does not substantially have the same appearance as the military rifle as there are more differences than similarities - notwithstanding all the features that are common to all rifles (barrel, trigger etc).

Remember, it is for Police Licensing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their decision abides strictly with the legislation. If there is any ambiguity, then there can be no legal requirement for refusal.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by Gaznazdiak » 06 May 2018, 6:35 pm

Some good points Flyer, unfortunately they only apply in the "ideal" world.
Unfortunately, in the real world, once the Rozzers have your gun in their hands, it's up to you to try to prove a negative, that your firearm isn't an assault rifle clone. Before the confiscating officer takes it home for his own collection.

http://www.news.com.au/national/queensl ... 73e915e3e5
fideles usque ad mortem
User avatar
Gaznazdiak
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1379
New South Wales

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by Flyer » 06 May 2018, 7:01 pm

bentaz wrote:
IMG_20180430_171422-1024x576.jpg

Or this one!
All firearm are duplicates in appearance and or function to military rifles of one era or another.

Schedule 3 in WA states the rifle must resemble "a self loading centre fire rifle designed or adapted for military purposes" - so that doesn't include original bolt actions. That's why you can still own an Enfield or Mauser or a K31 or a Mosin-Nagant.

It's also why I made the point of posting a photo of an M1 and M14.

If you were to apply the strict letter of the law, then ANY rifle that resembled an M1 or M14 would be classified as D1 in WA - so why aren't they? Just about every wooden-stock hunting and sporting rifle licensed in WA today resembles an M14 or an SKS or a BAR or a Gewehr 41/43 etc.

I mean, they are basing the appearance on the stock, after all, and each of the above military rifles has a normal wooden stock without a pistol grip.

There is clearly no consistency in the way the regs are being applied and again, if I were a lawyer, that's where I'd start.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by ponkychonk » 06 May 2018, 8:43 pm

Hi,

I've had extensive correspondance with both WAPOL and local gun shops. I also had a chat with the guys who wrote the WALRC report re: firearms law reform (I'm a lawyer myself and have helped with WALRC reports before)

Basically, the *current* (and I stress current, they can change it when or however they please) the only two things they will actively reject a firearm for under the military appearance rule is:

- a folding stock

OR

- a complete barrel shroud that fully encloses the barrel

However, since the WALRC report, which basically said the entire military appearance law was nonsensical, WAPOL have been *supposedly* changing their interpretation of the rule to the QLD-style, "it must resemble a *specific* military firearm." Which basically would mean the rule would be relaxed and guns like the Warwick straight pull rifles would be fine.

Finally, whilst the guns themselves won't be licensed, you can just buy a chassis (which aren't themselves licensed) which has a full barrel shroud forend and stick that on your rifle. Be careful though, wouldn't want a cop rocking up to do a compliance check if you had one of those in the safe.

Also, I'm new here, so hi
ponkychonk
Private
Private
 
Posts: 92
Other

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by Flyer » 07 May 2018, 4:57 pm

Welcome mate. And thanks for clarifying.

Yes, that was my understanding of the current situation: No folding stocks (which could be argued make a firearm more concealable); and no full shrouds (a completely arbitrary ruling I have already highlighted above comparing the almost identical Howa HCR and Tikka Tac A1).

To be clear, I don't have a dog in this fight. But coming from a semi-legal background, I do have an interest in the way things work.

All laws are open to interpretation, and public officers (police) exercise that interpretation on a daily basis - whether it be issuing a speeding ticket or charging someone with a breach of the peace. Or not. That is their discretion.

However, the final arbitor is not the public officer that makes the initial interpretation, but rather the court system that makes the final interpretation, or ruling, which is used as a precedent for all future cases.

All that means is that if a potential firearm owner does not agree with an initial ruling, they can take it to a higher authority to argue their case - something I suspect has happened in the past to effect the gradual change we are now seeing regarding pistol grips etc.

Practically speaking, it costs time and money that most people don't have, and so such initial rulings go unchallenged and the status quo is maintained.

I think the bottom line is that most law-abiding firearm owners do want to do the right thing and abide by the regulations, but become frustrated with a process that is not only opaque (there are no public guidelines as to what is acceptable and what is not), but hinges on whoever is interpreting the regs on the day and is not always consistent.

Honestly, all WAPOL would need to do is issue a set of guidelines that everyone could follow and there would be a lot less confusion. I guess most gun stores here are already in regular contact with WAPOL, but it's still only word of mouth and open to conjecture.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by ponkychonk » 07 May 2018, 6:28 pm

Honestly, all WAPOL would need to do is issue a set of guidelines that everyone could follow and there would be a lot less confusion. I guess most gun stores here are already in regular contact with WAPOL, but it's still only word of mouth and open to conjecture.


Nailed it. EVEN if they insist on their mindless rules re: "fully enclosed shrouds," surely they can just spell it out clearly so that everyone understands. I'm pretty sure most gun owners aren't actively trying to find a way around the laws - hell, I feel like at the moment we are having to actively find a way to stay within the law.
ponkychonk
Private
Private
 
Posts: 92
Other

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by Oldbloke » 08 May 2018, 2:13 am

Some dick head is sitting in a corner of an office trying to justify his job. He/she makes decisions based on prejedice. I've seen it all before. Probably rooting the bosses daughter.

If it were otherwise they would issue clear guidelines much like a code of practice.
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by YoungSC » 08 May 2018, 3:28 pm

Flyer wrote:26B(2)(a) has already been repealed. Unless you are talking about 26(2)(a).


Hi Flyer, I may have got my regs mixed up, but I think I got the right one??


26B.Certain licences, permits and approvals not to be issued, granted or given

(2)A licence, permit or approval relating to a firearm cannot be issued, granted or given if —

(a)in the opinion of the Commissioner, the firearm closely resembles a firearm that is prohibited under regulation 26; or....


From what I'm reading by the gist of comments on this thread, the appearance frustration still persists, especially regarding barrel shrouds. I've asked my contact to provide more info on any pending/possible changes.

My ulterior motive for the original question is to put an MDT ESS chassis on my (currently applying for addition) Howa without cutting the top off the barrel shroud to meet the 'appearance requirements'. Failing that I'd look at an MDT LSS XL Gen2, but this would be a slight compromise in looks and desired function.

The rifle was purchased with a cheap Hogue stock to allow it to leave the dealer and would suffice in the short term, if the possibility of the MDT ESS was on the cards, I could leave as is for a while.
YoungSC
Private
Private
 
Posts: 61
-

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by ponkychonk » 08 May 2018, 6:02 pm

The purchase of the MDT ESS chassis isn't illegal in WA. Gun shops will even sell them over the counter, by themselves obviously (not with a rifle inside then.) Do with that info what you will
ponkychonk
Private
Private
 
Posts: 92
Other

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by Flyer » 08 May 2018, 7:48 pm

YoungSC wrote:
Flyer wrote:26B(2)(a) has already been repealed. Unless you are talking about 26(2)(a).


Hi Flyer, I may have got my regs mixed up, but I think I got the right one??


26B.Certain licences, permits and approvals not to be issued, granted or given

(2)A licence, permit or approval relating to a firearm cannot be issued, granted or given if —

(a)in the opinion of the Commissioner, the firearm closely resembles a firearm that is prohibited under regulation 26; or....

Hi mate, apologies - you are correct. I was looking at something else :roll:

I'm not suggesting you do anything "illegal", but it's worth noting that if you remove the top of the shroud, you actually make the firearm more dangerous, as there would be an increased risk of burning yourself on the barrel when you pick it up after use.

Just sayin'

:sarcasm: < Not directed at you, of course.
The laws of physics do not apply to politics.
Flyer
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 392
-

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by YoungSC » 08 May 2018, 8:26 pm

Yeah, I'm hearing you. Will exercise patience. Deep breath................
YoungSC
Private
Private
 
Posts: 61
-

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by DanKalevi » 19 May 2018, 11:20 pm

so if the gun must represent a cat B firearm, then the Desert Tech SRS, does not look like any other cat B firearm.. if i was to get the barrel shroud machined so that the top is open, then logic would dictate this firearm would be ok to licence? i would love to buy one of these in 300wm with a 6.5 barrel and bolt, so i dont have to have two different rifle, but gave up on the dream after looking into our licencing a little more. Anyone know if this could be achievable?
DanKalevi
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 3
Western Australia

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by knowsnothin » 20 May 2018, 8:45 pm

Get a switch barrel blaser. Similar budget. Similar performance. Tacticool receivers. No problems with BS appearance laws.
knowsnothin
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 134
Western Australia

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by ponkychonk » 21 May 2018, 1:09 pm

DanKalevi wrote:so if the gun must represent a cat B firearm, then the Desert Tech SRS, does not look like any other cat B firearm.. if i was to get the barrel shroud machined so that the top is open, then logic would dictate this firearm would be ok to licence? i would love to buy one of these in 300wm with a 6.5 barrel and bolt, so i dont have to have two different rifle, but gave up on the dream after looking into our licencing a little more. Anyone know if this could be achievable?


Guy at my gunshop just did this. Had the shroud machined at the top and had no issues with licensing it.
ponkychonk
Private
Private
 
Posts: 92
Other

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by DanKalevi » 20 Jun 2019, 12:26 pm

ponkychonk wrote:Hi,

I've had extensive correspondance with both WAPOL and local gun shops. I also had a chat with the guys who wrote the WALRC report re: firearms law reform (I'm a lawyer myself and have helped with WALRC reports before)

Basically, the *current* (and I stress current, they can change it when or however they please) the only two things they will actively reject a firearm for under the military appearance rule is:

- a folding stock

OR

- a complete barrel shroud that fully encloses the barrel

However, since the WALRC report, which basically said the entire military appearance law was nonsensical, WAPOL have been *supposedly* changing their interpretation of the rule to the QLD-style, "it must resemble a *specific* military firearm." Which basically would mean the rule would be relaxed and guns like the Warwick straight pull rifles would be fine.

Finally, whilst the guns themselves won't be licensed, you can just buy a chassis (which aren't themselves licensed) which has a full barrel shroud forend and stick that on your rifle. Be careful though, wouldn't want a cop rocking up to do a compliance check if you had one of those in the safe.

Also, I'm new here, so hi


I am understanding correctly that they can deny an application based on the full shroud. Now IF i was to buy an MDT chassis that had a complete shroud, and a member of WAPOL came to my house to do an inspection, wouldn't he have to state the exact piece of legislation that i have not complied with? As far as i have read so far no exact thing exists, so he would not really have any legal right to confiscate the firearm. However i am guessing that if the Commissioner came to my house personally he could probably do that? Even having said that it only gives him the right to deny an application, as far as the law is concerned my application was successful and the chassis and barrel shroud purchased legally, so i cant see how they really could take any further action legally? Someone please correct me if my thoughts are off
DanKalevi
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 3
Western Australia

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by TassieTiger » 20 Jun 2019, 7:20 pm

When the cops pull you up for speeding and to subsequently confiscate your car, they do not tell you which part of the transport act you have breached - they tell you that you have broken the law and feel free to argue your side in court...why would it be any different with a firearms inspection that’s gone wrong?
Tikka .260 (Z5 5x25/52)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223 - VX 3
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22 (vtex 4-12, bush 3-9)
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g.
Adler a110 reddot
Sauer 30-06 - VX 3
Howa 300 win mag. SHV 5-20/56
Marlin SBL 45/70
TassieTiger
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3704
Tasmania

Re: WA Appearance Regs Changing??

Post by DanKalevi » 22 Jun 2019, 9:23 pm

Well no i guess that is a bit different because there is actually comprehendible legislation that states the laws on speeding. If a cop comes to your house and says that you are being arrested, he will inform you of the crime that you are suspecting of committing, they wont just state you are under arrest for no reason. Now if a cop decided to take my guns under suspicion of non-compliance, i would probably just let him and argue it in court, however for the sake of a thought experiment i was just asking the question if it is lawful for them to do so. Also i want to be clear that i have no desire to try and skirt around the law and get a full shroud, i don't want that kind of attention. I am just wanting clarity on the laws and what they actually mean, as is everyone else i'm sure.
DanKalevi
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 3
Western Australia


Back to top
 
Return to Western Australia gun laws