animalpest wrote:Ok, so let's say your State government decided to pass laws restricting the purchase and possession of gold and diamonds - for whatever reason. Is that any different?
Nope.
animalpest wrote:Ok, so let's say your State government decided to pass laws restricting the purchase and possession of gold and diamonds - for whatever reason. Is that any different?
womble wrote:Well that question just answered itself
Technically we have rights it’s just our government has overruled some of them by law.
Magna Carta 1215
Bill of rights 1869
Overruled. We don’t have the right to preservation of life, liberty, property.
Feel free to take it up in the courts, because you can. If you can afford it.
No. Didn’t think so.
Fionn wrote:What we do have, but its only very strongly ingrained in culture is a "fair go" but the problem is people these days want to abuse this, such as having 28 Cat B firearms for the purpose of hunting, instead of getting the correct licence for it.
bladeracer wrote:Fionn wrote:What we do have, but its only very strongly ingrained in culture is a "fair go" but the problem is people these days want to abuse this, such as having 28 Cat B firearms for the purpose of hunting, instead of getting the correct licence for it.
So you believe nobody should ever be allowed to own 28 CatB firearms for hunting?
There is no other licence I'm aware of that allows you to use these firearms for hunting, CatA and CatB are the only options for hunting.
Fionn wrote:If your genuine reason for owning them was for hunting and you have owned some of them for 30 years without firing them, then no I don't.
If you can justify it by showing that you do use them for your genuine reason of hunting then I don't have an issue with it.
bladeracer wrote:Fionn wrote:If your genuine reason for owning them was for hunting and you have owned some of them for 30 years without firing them, then no I don't.
If you can justify it by showing that you do use them for your genuine reason of hunting then I don't have an issue with it.
You shouldn't have to prove that you do use them for hunting, it should be sufficient that you want the option of using them for hunting, even if you never get the opportunity.
Fionn wrote:bladeracer wrote:Fionn wrote:If your genuine reason for owning them was for hunting and you have owned some of them for 30 years without firing them, then no I don't.
If you can justify it by showing that you do use them for your genuine reason of hunting then I don't have an issue with it.
You shouldn't have to prove that you do use them for hunting, it should be sufficient that you want the option of using them for hunting, even if you never get the opportunity.
The genuine reason is not, I want 28 firearms as I may hunt one day in the next 30 years. As I said before, this behaviour is abusing the intent of the law, and will bring similar draconian laws to what WA is proposing,
It simply doesn't pass the Pub Test, but you seem to want to defend it and again with this implied belief that you have a right to own a firearm in Australia just because you want to.
You don't.
Fionn wrote:bladeracer wrote:Fionn wrote:If your genuine reason for owning them was for hunting and you have owned some of them for 30 years without firing them, then no I don't.
If you can justify it by showing that you do use them for your genuine reason of hunting then I don't have an issue with it.
You shouldn't have to prove that you do use them for hunting, it should be sufficient that you want the option of using them for hunting, even if you never get the opportunity.
The genuine reason is not, I want 28 firearms as I may hunt one day in the next 30 years. As I said before, this behaviour is abusing the intent of the law, and will bring similar draconian laws to what WA is proposing,
It simply doesn't pass the Pub Test, but you seem to want to defend it and again with this implied belief that you have a right to own a firearm in Australia just because you want to.
You don't.
Fionn wrote:The genuine reason is not, I want 28 firearms as I may hunt one day in the next 30 years. As I said before, this behaviour is abusing the intent of the law, and will bring similar draconian laws to what WA is proposing,
It simply doesn't pass the Pub Test, but you seem to want to defend it and again with this implied belief that you have a right to own a firearm in Australia just because you want to.
You don't.
bladeracer wrote:Fionn wrote:The genuine reason is not, I want 28 firearms as I may hunt one day in the next 30 years. As I said before, this behaviour is abusing the intent of the law, and will bring similar draconian laws to what WA is proposing,
It simply doesn't pass the Pub Test, but you seem to want to defend it and again with this implied belief that you have a right to own a firearm in Australia just because you want to.
You don't.
I disagree. The genuine reason is not "I need to kill an animal on July 15th" (where failure to do so would be a breach of the conditions), it's "I want to be able to kill animals humanely, thus I need an adequate firearm for the purpose if/when it eventuates". All we need to support our genuine reason is that we show that we have an interest in using firearms in this way - often through a financial commitment to a club that supports hunting, or by gaining access to property where we can hunt. In almost all states it is illegal to use a firearm to kill animals first to be able to prove you are actually doing so as we can't hunt with firearms until we are licenced, as we can only use them under supervision on approved ranges...where we can't hunt. Thus, how often we hunt, or whether we actually manage to organise a hunt is not relevant to our genuine reason at the time of applying for the licence. If a shooter wishes to spend ten years becoming proficient with their hunting firearms before ever taking them after live targets that should be applauded rather than derided.
Your approach is what is being used in WA to remove shooters' ability to hunt anywhere at all. WA Police (not the law) require a person to prove access to a private property before they'll issue a licence. The licence does not restrict them to only hunting on that specific property so it is irrelevant whether or how often the shooter attends that property. The licence was issued on the basis that the shooter had the option to attend there, not that they _must_ do so, and they provided evidence of such access in writing, as required by Police (not the law).
womble wrote:All well at good
At his majesty's privilege for as so long as you meet the legal requirements of genuine need.
We don't have the right to bear arms. Few countries do.
womble wrote:Currently sure. The law can change. As we so often see. And with rapid frequency.
Your rights can’t. Ever.
The government could outlaw all hunting and civil firearm ownership tomorrow.
In theory the government can change the legislation to how many firearms you can eat with a side of salad or chips.
If they so choose they can push that through parliament overnight.
We are one of few western democracies that does not have a bill of rights yet.
Still on parole for fear we may turn on king big ears.
Latitude37 wrote:Well, to get back on topic, at my recent TAFE course to get my licence, the trainer gave some good advice: be VERY specific as to why you need a particular weapon for each PTA.
This one is for target shooting at 50-100m.
This one is for rabbits out to 50m.
This one is for rabbits out to 100m.
This one is for rabbits out to 150m.
This one is for goats out to..
You get the idea.
Otherwise, it's easy for them to say "wait, that last PTA was for XYZ, so you don't need Y again.
bladeracer wrote:I disagree. The genuine reason is not "I need to kill an animal on July 15th" (where failure to do so would be a breach of the conditions), it's "I want to be able to kill animals humanely, thus I need an adequate firearm for the purpose if/when it eventuates". All we need to support our genuine reason is that we show that we have an interest in using firearms in this way - often through a financial commitment to a club that supports hunting, or by gaining access to property where we can hunt. In almost all states it is illegal to use a firearm to kill animals first to be able to prove you are actually doing so as we can't hunt with firearms until we are licenced, as we can only use them under supervision on approved ranges...where we can't hunt. Thus, how often we hunt, or whether we actually manage to organise a hunt is not relevant to our genuine reason at the time of applying for the licence. If a shooter wishes to spend ten years becoming proficient with their hunting firearms before ever taking them after live targets that should be applauded rather than derided.
bladeracer wrote:Your approach is what is being used in WA to remove shooters' ability to hunt anywhere at all. WA Police (not the law) require a person to prove access to a private property before they'll issue a licence. The licence does not restrict them to only hunting on that specific property so it is irrelevant whether or how often the shooter attends that property. The licence was issued on the basis that the shooter had the option to attend there, not that they _must_ do so, and they provided evidence of such access in writing, as required by Police (not the law).
deanp100 wrote:I can’t believe what I am reading. This site is called “ Enough gun”. I don’t have enough yet. By the way the push button shotguns are awesome.
womble wrote:Currently sure. The law can change. As we so often see. And with rapid frequency.
Your rights can’t. Ever.
The government could outlaw all hunting and civil firearm ownership tomorrow.
In theory the government can change the legislation to how many firearms you can eat with a side of salad or chips.
If they so choose they can push that through parliament overnight.
We are one of few western democracies that does not have a bill of rights yet.
Still on parole for fear we may turn on king big ears.
bigrich wrote:womble wrote:Currently sure. The law can change. As we so often see. And with rapid frequency.
Your rights can’t. Ever.
The government could outlaw all hunting and civil firearm ownership tomorrow.
In theory the government can change the legislation to how many firearms you can eat with a side of salad or chips.
If they so choose they can push that through parliament overnight.
We are one of few western democracies that does not have a bill of rights yet.
Still on parole for fear we may turn on king big ears.That must of hurtbigrich wrote:i don't normally agree with fionn ,bigrich wrote:but people buying 28 plus guns "because they can" will raise the hackles of licensing and anti gun types . to play "devils advocate", it doesn't make good sense or logic to non-shooters . i'm not opposed to folks buying a high number of firearms , but there's a lot of people who would question that many unless it was for historical collecting purposes . i know of one dealer up here in QLD who has a converted climate controlled shipping container with over 900 milsurps ,his personal collection, a lot in pristine condition . i've seen this first hand . all in custom racks , rows of every type of mauser you could think of as well as other makes
Latitude37 wrote:It's not like they monitor what you're actually doing. The point is to be specific, and what you're saying is the same thing, only more technical (because I know crap all).
Fionn wrote:I don't have issue with people owning a lot of firearms, as long as they abide by the intent of the law, collecting for interest or investment is one such and holding a licence for such is not an issue for me.
The issue I have is people circumventing the laws, for a number of reasons outlined already, plus a few that I haven't covered.
One of the main reasons that WA is looking at changing the law is that the police have raided a number of drug dealers, who have had 10 plus legally owned firearms. (owned for genuine reason of hunting, yeah right).
Its a bit like why many drug dealers seem to own pitbulls, yeah because they are great pets.
I have a great story of when we did a door knock with a big key, to illustrate both these points.