bigrich wrote:zbenga wrote:working on the QCAT application, it's not that easy to be honest because there is no online submission, should have ti ready this week
I sent in another PTA for a 6.5cm to see if that gets approved, then I have some more proof that they are targeting larger calibers
mate, they absolutely are targeting larger cals. some of the guys that shoot big game comp at my club have had to jump through hoops and get letters written from the club for their pta . it's freaking bullsh!t from WLB . at a guess i'd say it's more about muzzle energy than anything . but who knows, WLB might take a different approach next week . how useless is the police minister where a department under his control just does whatever they want
no, I think they are systematically targeting anything that can potentially harm them. They introduced ILBV a while back and quickly realised some calibers makes a mince of it and are now unofficially banning those calibers so their decision to use that specific ILBV is valid.
https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/94302they spend $24.4 million for 12,200 vests .... a Right to Information (RTI) would show more info on it but from what I understood this was in 2022 and the ILBV can't stop a high caliber round so they are internally banning them
looking deeper into this the seem to use two QCAT cases to justify themselves:
Shaxson v Queensland Police Service, Weapons Licensing Branch [20141 QCAT 309
Principle applied: the word, 'necessary' as used in s 13(5), is not defined. Its meaning must properly be
interpreted in the context of not only the provision in which it sits, but the Weapons Act and its purpose.
Necessary,' according to common usage, connotes something which is required, rather than something
which is merely convenient or a matter of preference. In the context, it reasonably connotes that the
requirement cannot be met in some other way, and cannot currently be appropriately met.
McConnel v Queensland Police Service(Weapons Licensing Branch) [20191 QCATA 156
Principle applied: it is for the applicant for the licence to establish a genuine requirement and there must be
an actual rather than potential requirement.
So I applied a few months back and did not select OTHER in the application and got rejected under not providing property dimensions and letters etc. I thought OK, I'll apply again and select other denied with the same justification as the previous cases.
Applied again but this time for a 6.5 CM to see if that gets approved with the same genuine need, if it does and I'm sure it will then I'll complete my QCAT application and feel I'll have enough information to prove they are systematically banning larger calibers without a justification written in law.
their rejections are:
PA1
You have failed to satisfy the Authorised Officer that your requirements cannot be adequately met
in a way not involving the use of a weapon or by using a weapon of another category or type.
PB4
It is considered that the issue of a Permit to Acquire would be contrary to the public interest.
I will ask to justify both, there are many details I have provided but it seems it's just a default reject with those two cases and above stanza, pretty clear cut it's an internal ban but we'll see
i reckon the fella running the comp would know . i know for a fact one of the guys in that comp needed a letter from the club for a rifle , and he's currently state champ in that class . i'm a ssaa member but i don't trust the leadership of the club . which is why i'm a shooters union member and support politics reloaded . step up now fellas as wapati has suggested . for the cost of a carton of beer membership to a shooting advocate group otherwise WA type restrictions are going to spread if changes to weapons licensing go unchallenged . act now
