WA laws.

[safeshot]

+ We were promised that SSAA would fund a 'class-action' against the new laws. crickets....
+ I heard (heard) from a former champion shooter that there were some Lawyers in Perth who also were preparing to challenge the laws.
crickets.
+ The Nats said before the election here in WA they would challenge the laws by some protocol ...crickets once more.

Has anyone heard anything of these things?
21-4-25

[Bugman]

No offence intended mate, but I am completely over the strive in WA. Others may want to get involved with discussion on WA laws but not me.

[geoff]

All you people banging on about class actions and thinking youre going to successfully take the government to court for changing the laws that they write either watch too much american legal TV, take too many drugs or your mother took too many drugs while you were in utero

Absolute cooker coping

[Wapiti]

A fool (or in this case the poor average desperate folk) and his money are easily parted.

[animalpest]

So what would the basis for the class action court case?
A legitimate government passed laws. The end

[on_one_wheel]

The Australian Government and legitimacy are words that shouldn't be mixed.

Two recent failures, robo debt and covid mandates.

[geoff]

They are a duly elected, legally recognised state government

They repeal existing legislation and write new legislation. It just so happens that we think this one sucks ass.....but that doesn't make it illegitimate.

Our system of government has operated this way for over a hundred years

How on earth does anyone propose to successfully litigate this? I'm sure that with another few thousand in donations, lady liberty can enlighten me

[Oldbloke]

They are a duly elected, legally recognised state government

They repeal existing legislation and write new legislation. It just so happens that we think this one sucks ass.....but that doesn't make it illegitimate.

Our system of government has operated this way for over a hundred years

How on earth does anyone propose to successfully litigate this? I'm sure that with another few thousand in donations, lady liberty can enlighten me

This is true.
But:
The legislation must still comply with the constitution.
I suspect it does
But:
There are within the constitution requirements to pay fair compensation.
And TBH I don't think $500 is fair for a $2k or $3k firearm. And my understanding is that's the sort of thing thats been happening. ( could be corrected)

And it's also my understanding that it's the compensation that the woman is trying to challenge.
Perhaps it's a con, I don't know but that's my understanding.

[Oldbloke]

Here,

IMG_20250423_223957.jpg (94.79 KiB) Viewed 1098 times

And here,

2023_Australian_Constitution.pdf

(671.53 KiB) Downloaded 250 times

Might be a funny flick but based on fact. But then, I'm no lawyer and I'd bet it's complicated.

[Oldbloke]

To add, this sounds like "just terms" does not apply due to it being state legislation.

IMG_20250423_225522.jpg (87.87 KiB) Viewed 1098 times

[geoff]

Put the constitution down and back away slowly.

Consider the definition of confiscation or acquisition here - nothing is being confiscated or acquired. An acquisition with unfair compensation would be like "We're planning on building a new freeway directly over your entire block and only offering you 70% of market value for it"

That's not at all what's happened with prohibited guns. You're just not allowed to have it anymore. You've got a few options - you can chuck it in the bin for nothing (metaphorically speaking, through a licensed dealer), you could sell it on usedguns like the other 648 of the exact same item at the exact same price, or you could sell it to the government for pennies on the dollar through their "buybacks" (their word, not mine) whereafter it will be destroyed. If something was being confiscated or compulsorily acquired.....how are you given the option to either dispose of it on your own terms, or sell it to a third party? Because it's not being confiscated!

Half of the people on the shooting internet are getting all hyped up about the constitution but you're putting the cart before the horse.

When I make these points I often get accused of being some Labor supporter who loves the new laws and that's really not the case. I'm just not trying to lead shooters up the garden path so that I can solicit (read: borderline defraud) donations for my "legal fund"

Various things get prohibited from whence they were legal all the time. I'll give you another example - when they phased out and eventually banned the sale of leaded petrol for motor vehicles you were given plenty of options to either use an additive, get your engine modified or sell the car and buy something that ran fine on unleaded. Nobody's old Holden was "confiscated" and it wasn't a constitutional crisis.

WAPOL have sent a bunch of stupid, poorly written and often unlawful letters, texts and emails but to my knowledge they are not driving around in the divvy van grabbing cheap s**t Turkish shotguns and CZ515s out of people's hands directly.

[Oldbloke]

Put the constitution down and back away slowly.

Consider the definition of confiscation or acquisition here - nothing is being confiscated or acquired. An acquisition with unfair compensation would be like "We're planning on building a new freeway directly over your entire block and only offering you 70% of market value for it"

That's not at all what's happened with prohibited guns. You're just not allowed to have it anymore. You've got a few options - you can chuck it in the bin for nothing (metaphorically speaking, through a licensed dealer), you could sell it on usedguns like the other 648 of the exact same item at the exact same price, or you could sell it to the government for pennies on the dollar through their "buybacks" (their word, not mine) whereafter it will be destroyed. If something was being confiscated or compulsorily acquired.....how are you given the option to either dispose of it on your own terms, or sell it to a third party? Because it's not being confiscated!

Half of the people on the shooting internet are getting all hyped up about the constitution but you're putting the cart before the horse.

When I make these points I often get accused of being some Labor supporter who loves the new laws and that's really not the case. I'm just not trying to lead shooters up the garden path so that I can solicit (read: borderline defraud) donations for my "legal fund"

Various things get prohibited from whence they were legal all the time. I'll give you another example - when they phased out and eventually banned the sale of leaded petrol for motor vehicles you were given plenty of options to either use an additive, get your engine modified or sell the car and buy something that ran fine on unleaded. Nobody's old Holden was "confiscated" and it wasn't a constitutional crisis.

WAPOL have sent a bunch of stupid, poorly written and often unlawful letters, texts and emails but to my knowledge they are not driving around in the divvy van grabbing cheap s**t Turkish shotguns and CZ515s out of people's hands directly.

That's the point.
In WA They are told (by the government) to hand in their firearms. They are effectively confiscated.

If you could continue to own/use them until you fall off your perch, that would be different.

IMO no different to '96. Got compensation then, of sorts.
But that was dictated to the states by the federal government. Different again.

[jezzab]

"It's the constitution, it's Mabo, it's justice, it's law, it's the vibe" - Dennis Denuto

[Oldbloke]

"It's the constitution, it's Mabo, it's justice, it's law, it's the vibe" - Dennis Denuto

Yeeesss

It just doesn't pass the pub test.
We ban firearms.
We take and destroy firearms.
Sorry, no compensation.

I looked at the WA constitution. Couldn't find anything regarding compensation.

It's complex.

[alexjones]

99% of WA gun owners love the laws. Or else they would of all went to Perth to show their disdain.

Inaction = support

[geoff]

"It's the constitution, it's Mabo, it's justice, it's law, it's the vibe" - Dennis Denuto

Yeeesss

It just doesn't pass the pub test.
We ban firearms.
We take and destroy firearms.
Sorry, no compensation.

I looked at the WA constitution. Couldn't find anything regarding compensation.

It's complex

It's really not. They haven't taken anything - every gun that's been handed in to police has been done so voluntarily. If you can't understand that as it pertains to the law then you have no business bandying about class actions.

It certainly feels like confiscation and as far as licence holders are concerned, the end result is the same. But it is not and cannot be considered confiscation. I am loathe to quote this asinine phrase but "Facts don't care about your feelings"

[on_one_wheel]

So are you suggesting that nobody should be looking into if the WA government has done everything correctly and everyone all just roll over er like a bunch of defeatists?

I mean... your a constitutional lawyer after all, we should just take your word for it that everything is above board.
Case closed.

[Oldbloke]

It is complex. Interpretation of law is rarely as simple as it looks on face value.

We are not lawyers.

They handed in firearms under threat of a conviction,,,,not voluntarily.

Yes,, I know, they can introduce any law they like, but it must still fulfil certain requirements. Otherwise it would be a dictatorship where there are no checks and balances nor would we have a high court to oversee these things.

And to OOWs comment.
Even if the chances are not great, I think the WA government, and others, need to understand that we are not push overs and need to be treated fairly not walked over.
So I hope this woman is fair dinkum and has the balls to at least investigate. (That's all she is saying) Because it seems to me WA shooters dont have balls and have rolled over.

Admittedly I'm looking from the outside.

Yeah, it's simple.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia

[geoff]

It's more dense than a failed loaf of bread in here

You are given three options:

A) Sell it privately interstate
B) Dispose of it through a dealer
C) Participate in the buyback and receive the fixed amount prescribed by WAPOL

If you choose option C then you did so voluntarily. The rates that WAPOL were offering were absolute trash but to say they offered "no compensation" is just factually incorrect.

Some people are just wilfully ignorant at this point. You're actively trying to be wrong because it doesn't suit your ideology.

So are you suggesting that nobody should be looking into if the WA government has done everything correctly and everyone all just roll over er like a bunch of defeatists?

I mean... your a constitutional lawyer after all, we should just take your word for it that everything is above board.
Case closed.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that nothing was confiscated, it was either sold or given away. I'm saying that this definition is really important. And in saying that YouTube grifters trying to scam money out of people know this, but are lying to you because that's what the modern ragebait social media economy requires.

Everything else about what we should and shouldn't do with that information....you came up with that all on your own. Don't put words in my mouth. All I'm doing is defining a word.

[bigrich]

The Australian Government and legitimacy are words that shouldn't be mixed.

Two recent failures, robo debt and covid mandates.

your not wrong there mate

[bigrich]

So are you suggesting that nobody should be looking into if the WA government has done everything correctly and everyone all just roll over er like a bunch of defeatists? .

unfortunately modern aussies seem full of apathy when it comes to standing up for themselves these days . look at the dismal turnout for the gun rally that was held . makes me sad

[Wapiti]

Does anybody really think the WA Labor government didn't get the highest paid legal knobbers at their disposal to make sure all the T's were crossed and the I's dotted?
Really? Just because suckers clinging to hope are shovelling money to people who'll gladly give them false hopes, and parasitic legal entities don't hoover it up when it's offered doesn't a win make.

That was at the rally staged to show the disdain of the people (whoops), and at the election. Too late now, as plenty warned.

[Oldbloke]

It's more dense than a failed loaf of bread in here

You are given three options:

A) Sell it privately interstate
B) Dispose of it through a dealer
C) Participate in the buyback and receive the fixed amount prescribed by WAPOL

If you choose option C then you did so voluntarily. The rates that WAPOL were offering were absolute trash but to say they offered "no compensation" is just factually incorrect.

Some people are just wilfully ignorant at this point. You're actively trying to be wrong because it doesn't suit your ideology.

So are you suggesting that nobody should be looking into if the WA government has done everything correctly and everyone all just roll over er like a bunch of defeatists?

I mean... your a constitutional lawyer after all, we should just take your word for it that everything is above board.
Case closed.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that nothing was confiscated, it was either sold or given away. I'm saying that this definition is really important. And in saying that YouTube grifters trying to scam money out of people know this, but are lying to you because that's what the modern ragebait social media economy requires.

Everything else about what we should and shouldn't do with that information....you came up with that all on your own. Don't put words in my mouth. All I'm doing is defining a word.

That's just BS.

But I'm glad you clarified the 3 options which are just more BS. BTW, option c, you don't choose of your own free will. You have a very short time frame with an axe above your head.

[on_one_wheel]

Does anybody really think the WA Labor government didn't get the highest paid legal knobbers at their disposal to make sure all the T's were crossed and the I's dotted?
Really? Just because suckers clinging to hope are shovelling money to people who'll gladly give them false hopes, and parasitic legal entities don't hoover it up when it's offered doesn't a win make.

That was at the rally staged to show the disdain of the people (whoops), and at the election. Too late now, as plenty warned.

I would have thought that the Federal Government would have used the best slimy parasites available when they implemented Robodebt, but apparently that was illegal.
They don't always get it right.

I also find it amusing that you jumped up and down about the poor turnout for the firearm law protests and now your jumping up and down about people trying to pick the new legislation apart
It's almost like you just like to jump up and down about everything
Your not female by chance ?

[Oldbloke]

Does anybody really think the WA Labor government didn't get the highest paid legal knobbers at their disposal to make sure all the T's were crossed and the I's dotted?
Really? Just because suckers clinging to hope are shovelling money to people who'll gladly give them false hopes, and parasitic legal entities don't hoover it up when it's offered doesn't a win make.

That was at the rally staged to show the disdain of the people (whoops), and at the election. Too late now, as plenty warned.

I would have thought that the Federal Government would have used the best slimy parasites available when they implemented Robodebt, but apparently that was illegal.
They don't always get it right.

I also find it amusing that you jumped up and down about the poor turnout for the firearm law protests and now your jumping up and down about people trying to pick the new legislation apart
It's almost like you just like to jump up and down about everything
Your not female by chance ?

Lol.

Correction.
They often don't get it right.