How "Appearance Laws" can be challenged in court.

[Homer]

G'Day Fella's,

I'm sure we have all heard of LAFO's, that have been denied a PTA for a particular firearm.
The basic legal situation with this is, if the Commonwealth Government has allowed the importation of a particular firearm into Australia, State and Territory authorities, can not legally deny a licensed individual a PTA for one of these legally imported firearms (as long as the individual, is authorised for that category of firearm).

Futher to this, Section 109 of the Australian Constitution provides that “when a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid”.

So, if this has happened to any person you know, they are able to challenge the State and Territory authorities decision in the state or territory "Civil and Administratibe Tribunal".

Hope that helps

D'oh!
Homer

[Gaznazdiak]

That sounds logical Homer.
One caveat though, knowing how governments and poĺlies absolutely hate admitting fault, I imagine they would spend any amount to fight it out, who could afford to match them?
I'm still owed quite a few grand for sub-contract earthworks done 25yrs ago for a major Australian construction company who have told.me in no uncertain terms they would fight me for it.
The projected costs mentioned by my solicitors were far more than what is owed.

[bigfellascott]

That sounds logical Homer.
One caveat though, knowing how governments and poĺlies absolutely hate admitting fault, I imagine they would spend any amount to fight it out, who could afford to match them?
I'm still owed quite a few grand for sub-contract earthworks done 25yrs ago for a major Australian construction company who have told.me in no uncertain terms they would fight me for it.
The projected costs mentioned by my solicitors were far more than what is owed.

And there lies the problem, the cost to fight it, most don't have the $$ to fight for their rights these days, no matter what the problem is, those with the most money often win because they can afford to keep fighting until the other side runs out.

[Daddybang]

That sounds logical Homer.
One caveat though, knowing how governments and poĺlies absolutely hate admitting fault, I imagine they would spend any amount to fight it out, who could afford to match them?
I'm still owed quite a few grand for sub-contract earthworks done 25yrs ago for a major Australian construction company who have told.me in no uncertain terms they would fight me for it.
The projected costs mentioned by my solicitors were far more than what is owed.

And there lies the problem, the cost to fight it, most don't have the $$ to fight for their rights these days, no matter what the problem is, those with the most money often win because they can afford to keep fighting until the other side runs out.

This▲▲▲▲

[marksman]

here in Vic VCAT costs about $140

its when you go the magistrates court it costs
my wife is going her employer at the moment for unpaid wages while on workcare
workcare insurer has paid the employer but they wont hand it over so $18,000 to front the magistrates court
she will win and will be $3000 out of pocket after but the wages will cover it
her new nickname is money maker, so I told her solicitor but just not for her just the legal guys on both sides
he was not impressed

[Gaznazdiak]

What do you call 100 lawyers tied up on the bottom of the ocean?

A bloody good start.

[Gwion]

Whats the difference between lamprey and a lawyer?
One is a blood sucking parasite and the other is a primitive fish...

[Gwion]

Apologies to any lawyers.....
I'm sure you aren't all scum sucking bottom dwellers.

[Gun-nut]

If only shooters would unite together financially to help each other out, we might be able to get over the financial hurdle. In the end the solution is the same, shooters need to band together.

[Homer]

here in Vic VCAT costs about $140

its when you go the magistrates court it costs

As Marksman said.

Also, if the ssaa was half as good as they keep telling us they are, they would have sorted all of this BS out, in each and every State and Territory.

D'oh!
Homer

[Member-Deleted]

If only shooters would unite together financially to help each other out, we might be able to get over the financial hurdle. In the end the solution is the same, shooters need to band together.

Being a lot more united would solve many firearms restriction issues.

[Member-Deleted]

As I've said on here before ,i'm not sure that the ssaa have our best interests at heart or it's just the money
The ssaa should be fighting hammer and tong for this ''Appearance Laws'' and other issues
And I do think gun owners need a totally independent company void from shooting ranges and the rules and regulations on those ranges
mainly because of the so many differing rules at different ranges
The company should deal with the insurances throughout the gun owners, contesting the choking laws being brought in and fighting individual
cases for members thus bringing members closer together
This look alike law is a test to see how silly a law can be and still put to law because nobody sees your guns other than people at the range, family
members and shooting companions all who in most cases are owners or shooters themselves so it doesn't matter

I think the ssaa has too many horses tied up at their hitching rail and have slowly slipped into a money making machine and this means
disunity amongst members and disloyalty in the ranks
I do think the ssaa has done good for the shooters and can still do some good but when money becomes the mission then the whole system
becomes unstable and deals have to be made to stay alive it's the same in any business either you change the management or you bring in contractors
who have a more different view of the business and can make the changes it needs

I would believe who ever took on or started a new individual company to do as we require would get quiet a lot of opposition from the Government and the ssaa
As I think the government seems to think they can push laws through with little interference from anybody and little debate
So lets hope something gives in the near future

[on_one_wheel]

If only shooters would unite together financially to help each other out, we might be able to get over the financial hurdle. In the end the solution is the same, shooters need to band together.

Or we could have a central firearms body who will fight to promote the shooting sports and protect firearm owners’ interests ... oh wait, we tried that ... well done SSAA

[Archie]

There’s no legal conflict between a commonwealth law allowing importation and a state law mandating conditions of use. S109 is irrelevant here. The commonwealth allows the importation of cars because it controls legislation in relation to trade and borders; the state determines what vehicles it is prepared to register and allow you to drive. This sort of demarcation happens all the time. Have you got any examples of this legal strategy succeeding?

[trekin]

As I've said on here before ,i'm not sure that the ssaa have our best interests at heart or it's just the money
The ssaa should be fighting hammer and tong for this ''Appearance Laws'' and other issues
And I do think gun owners need a totally independent company void from shooting ranges and the rules and regulations on those ranges
mainly because of the so many differing rules at different ranges
The company should deal with the insurances throughout the gun owners, contesting the choking laws being brought in and fighting individual
cases for members thus bringing members closer together
This look alike law is a test to see how silly a law can be and still put to law because nobody sees your guns other than people at the range, family
members and shooting companions all who in most cases are owners or shooters themselves so it doesn't matter

I think the ssaa has too many horses tied up at their hitching rail and have slowly slipped into a money making machine and this means
disunity amongst members and disloyalty in the ranks
I do think the ssaa has done good for the shooters and can still do some good but when money becomes the mission then the whole system
becomes unstable and deals have to be made to stay alive it's the same in any business either you change the management or you bring in contractors
who have a more different view of the business and can make the changes it needs

I would believe who ever took on or started a new individual company to do as we require would get quiet a lot of opposition from the Government and the ssaa
As I think the government seems to think they can push laws through with little interference from anybody and little debate
So lets hope something gives in the near future

Any representative body that offers "genuine reason" does not, and can not, have our concerns at heart. However, this mob may just fit the bill of your first criteria, https://www.firearmslobbyist.com.au/, they are registered with all States and Federal Govts as lobbyists, you will need to go to their FB page for a more up to date list of what they are doing; https://www.facebook.com/Australian-Fir ... 106838661/.
Your second criteria may be covered by this new mob over on FB, National Firearms Association who have the following to say for themselves;
"The National Firearms Association is a civil rights group in Australia.

We are structured as a Pty Ltd Company.
ACN 625 246 308

We aim to promote law abiding firearms ownership and reduce the absurd firearms restrictions placed on Australian firearm owners.

Lobbying, acting and petitioning governments across the nation.

The group advocates for the removal of red tape and the removal of the absurdities of the national firearms agreement.

If you would like to help and join the NFA, then now you can.

Yearly Membership is $110.00.
Pensioners $77.00.
Corporate/Organisation - $poa.

Members will receive:
- Membership Card
- Discounts from partner pro firearm organisations, retailers and service providers.
- 30 minute free consultation with legal practitioners for firearm related matters. 25% discounted rate, if further work is requested.
- and more as the organisation grows.

Message the page with your details and we will provide the payment details.

Thankyou.
Director"

[straightshooter]

here in Vic VCAT costs about $140

its when you go the magistrates court it costs
my wife is going her employer at the moment for unpaid wages while on workcare
workcare insurer has paid the employer but they wont hand it over so $18,000 to front the magistrates court
she will win and will be $3000 out of pocket after but the wages will cover it
her new nickname is money maker, so I told her solicitor but just not for her just the legal guys on both sides
he was not impressed

I would think that that if her case has merit then she would also be awarded costs and interest so you won't be out of pocket at all.

One problem with solicitors (and by no means the only one) is competence. How do you know if the one you choose has the honesty, experience and ability to either win your case or talk you out of it and thus deny themselves a good 'earn'.

I kind of like a quote attributed to Robespierre, himself a lawyer, during the French revolution that went something like...
We can measure the success of the revolution by the number of lawyers we manage to kill
He ended up a cranial amputee as well.

[Member-Deleted]

As I've said on here before ,i'm not sure that the ssaa have our best interests at heart or it's just the money
The ssaa should be fighting hammer and tong for this ''Appearance Laws'' and other issues
And I do think gun owners need a totally independent company void from shooting ranges and the rules and regulations on those ranges
mainly because of the so many differing rules at different ranges
The company should deal with the insurances throughout the gun owners, contesting the choking laws being brought in and fighting individual
cases for members thus bringing members closer together
This look alike law is a test to see how silly a law can be and still put to law because nobody sees your guns other than people at the range, family
members and shooting companions all who in most cases are owners or shooters themselves so it doesn't matter

I think the ssaa has too many horses tied up at their hitching rail and have slowly slipped into a money making machine and this means
disunity amongst members and disloyalty in the ranks
I do think the ssaa has done good for the shooters and can still do some good but when money becomes the mission then the whole system
becomes unstable and deals have to be made to stay alive it's the same in any business either you change the management or you bring in contractors
who have a more different view of the business and can make the changes it needs

I would believe who ever took on or started a new individual company to do as we require would get quiet a lot of opposition from the Government and the ssaa
As I think the government seems to think they can push laws through with little interference from anybody and little debate
So lets hope something gives in the near future

[b]Any representative body that offers "genuine reason" does not, and can not, have [b]our concerns at heart.[/[/b]b] However, this mob may just fit the bill of your first criteria, https://www.firearmslobbyist.com.au/, they are registered with all States and Federal Govts as lobbyists, you will need to go to their FB page for a more up to date list of what they are doing; https://www.facebook.com/Australian-Fir ... 106838661/.
Your second criteria may be covered by this new mob over on FB, National Firearms Association who have the following to say for themselves;

I first joined the SSAA at age 12 when clay target shooting, because of my dissatisfaction with them, supporting the very people who are creating the restrictions, being the major parties, being one of the reasons, I did not bother renewing my membership in 2017 at the age of 60, I joined the Shooters Union, I have been watching them for some time and was very impressed with their proactive lobbying and fighting for a better deal for shooters, the SU membership provides a genuine reason.

[trekin]

I first joined the SSAA at age 12 when clay target shooting, because of my dissatisfaction with them, supporting the very people who are creating the restrictions, being the major parties, being one of the reasons, I did not bother renewing my membership in 2017 at the age of 60, I joined the Shooters Union, I have been watching them for some time and was very impressed with their proactive lobbying and fighting for a better deal for shooters, the SU membership provides a genuine reason.

Granted SU have done some stirling work, much better than some, but their hands are still tied to the registry when it comes to demanding change.
Just pointing out to the masses that there is one mob to whom they can pay some monies to that will do what they can't or won't to do, and is registered with the Gov'ts to lobby on their behalf, which no club or assciation is.
Like or loath Stoney, but how long do you think any club or assciation would last if they offered to cover their members legal costs should they run foul of some stupid section of the firearms laws? By way of an answer, see how many clubs/assc offer that now.