Pta refusal?

[Fionn]

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.

[Fionn]

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.

We don't have rights as such, Australia is the only democratic country in the world without a national bill or charter of rights. There are rights in the Constitution but these are very limited. These are the right to vote, protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms, the right to a trial by jury, freedom of religion and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency.

Notice nothing in that is even close to having a right to bear arms.

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.

[AZZA'S HJ47]

So this morning the email came through from Shooters union to help out shocked to see at 9am this morning. Ive forwarded to weapons licensing and awaiting to hear back from them. Fingers crossed it wont be to far away.

[bladeracer]

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.

[deanp100]

I have 28 guns. I’m desperately trying to get 29. I hunt with a few of them. The rest I have because they are really cool. They might be 80’s cool. They might be unfired cool. They might be rare as s**t cool but that’s the only justification I need in my mind.
Actually I lied. I have a couple of cat A so I’m not a threat anymore to the system.

[Fionn]

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.

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]

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]

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.

[madang55]

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.

Exactly...
And, sorry, the types of firearms. what the heck use is a double barrelled 10 shot 12g? Oh my goodness! The scrap iron that is being sold to ...bought by..some people is just amazing. Love to see the reason stated for owning on some of these applications...So we're not allowed to own pomp action shot guns...have you seen the new push button ones? I watched one being fired the other day as quickly as any semi auto and that goes for the rim fire and centre fire ones as well... Shooters are digging their own grave, deeper and deeper. We will find ourselves able to own only 1 firearm from each group with no way to argue the point and if we don't start showing some useful grey matter real quick....WA will look like paradise.

[ausbushman]

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.

You have a valid point here.
We have all been taking the piss buy acquiring ALL OUR WANTS, BECAUSE WE CAN
It's only a matter of time they are going to come down on us and change the laws
EVEN THOUGH WE AREN'T DOING ANYTHING WRONG IN THE EYES OF THE LAW

[bladeracer]

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).

[deanp100]

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]

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).

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.

[bladeracer]

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.

Exactly, the law does not require any of us to actually go hunting, it only requires us to prove an interest in hunting.

[womble]

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.

[womble]

I probably would eat twin uzis rare with a caeser salad and side of wedges, if it granted me a permit to hunt pigs with them.
Alas we are bound to far stricter legal requirements.
Unless you are good mates with your local police commissioner not going to happen.
And that’s a lot of brown paper bags packed full of freshly baked donuts and wads of cash that few can afford.
And then one day you slip up and buy the wrong type of donuts. You lose your guns.
Because you have no rights.

Now I strongly suggest you concede your argument. Or I will continue with this line of reasoning and delve even deeper into it.

[bigrich]

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.

this is the reallity of it . we are a british colonial country with no right to bear arms for whatever purpose written in a bill of rights. we are allowed to own firearms at the discretion of our government . without legal and political representation of a higher profile than we currently have , laws are going to progressively tighten . from what i've read of the UK , every purchase must be validated for a specific justified use . you can't purchase a firearm "just because" . and i think in times to come this is where things are heading
i don't normally agree with fionn , 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


i find it hippocrytical that some of the lefty, green, civil rights protesters of recent times are the ones instigating violence these days .some BLM protesters in the US were anything but peaceable and these extinction rebellion protesters playing up in brissy . their not changing anything or drawing support to their cause by blocking roads and p!ssing off everyday people

rant over

[Latitude37]

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.

[womble]

Nice input
Roughly a dozen feral species in Aus x 50 meter intervals = lots and lots of guns.

[bladeracer]

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.

I would do the opposite. If your genuine reason is for rabbits to 50m and you use it to shoot a fox...
You need the rifle for goats but you shoot a deer...

Use the specifics of the firearm. I want to use this .308 for heavy bullets, I want to use this .308 for light bullets, and I need another .308 for thermal work. And always include target and hunting. If you have one for hunting and one for target and you take the wrong rifle out after deer...

[Latitude37]

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).
A combination of both would work.

[Fionn]

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.

The point you miss here is that take the example given, owning firearms for 30 years for the genuine reason of hunting, that means you have renewed your licence 5-6 times with this lie of "genuine reason to hunt with them" and your never even fired them. Not once, not a range, not to sight them in.

But your defending this behaviour.

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).

As I said, that is in no way the intent of the law. Its people abusing the intent and now WA firearm owners may pay the price.

[Fionn]

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.

I thought it was an anti gun sight, as in "enough gun" already

[Fionn]

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's my point, Bladeracer seem in favour of people abusing the intent of the law. Its this type of behaviour that has changed Australia culture from a "fair go" to what we have now.


I guess at least we have someone to blame when the government decides on a whim to change the law.

[Fionn]

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.

i don't normally agree with fionn ,

That must of hurt

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

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.

[Fionn]

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).

They are monitoring what you are doing, they are just not taking action on it.

[deanp100]

So what if you want to make a bit of money out of cheap find , or something particularly valuable you’ve come across. What do you say you are going to do with it. ? A collectors license requires some welding to be done and it won’t be worth much after that. We don’t have a license for investment so you have to apply as a rec hunting or sport shooting scenario.

[womble]

You’re contradicting yourself because we do have a license for investment , being a collectors license.
I don’t know how it works in QLD but likely a legitimate pathway where you can take possession and onsell it. Heirloom or something.

Or, you intended to use it , indeed carried it in the field explaining the minor imperfections, because the bore is like new, but decided you won’t be using it and it’s just taking up room in the safe.
You are free to decide you no longer have genuine need of it and sell it.
Kinda legit. We’re not going to dob you in. We just think dean is a bit sketchy.

[deanp100]

You are right Womble. You don't know how it works in Qld. I have neither the desire to build a vault or make my guns inoperable so I guess I'll continue to tick the sports and recreation shooting box and shoot my guns in the field , or at a range when I feel like it .

[bladeracer]

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.

To own firearms for hunting the law _only_ requires us to show that we have an interest in hunting, the law does not at any point require us to actually hunt.

The primary reason WA wants to change the laws is that WA Police don't believe any civilian should be allowed access to firearms for any purpose.

Collecting for interest or investment is also fine, but we are not allowed to hunt with firearms held under those licences.