WA Firearm Law Reforms - Monday 16 October announcement

[bladeracer]

The reason behind it is most likely to stop people circumventing the laws and to stop people having access to firearms who shouldn't. Given the rampant abuse/circumventing by WA firearm owners regarding property letters, this is the flip side to it, clamping down on all grey areas.

There is no abuse or circumvention of law. The Police were the ones that decided this should be a requirement (it is not required in the Act), and people are complying with that requirement. If they didn't want people to be free to do it this way they should've stopped it right at the start, by allowing it to flourish for decades they created their own problem, and are now punishing people for their own incompetence.

[Fionn]

I was not aware of the latter, thanks. Disappointing though. Very disappointed in the governor.

To be fair they haven't done it yet, its the very end process of when a law is made. Although the extremely rare occasions they have not given it was due procedural error. Without side tracking the topic, the Governor aka the "King" doesn't get involved in the day to day running of laws or that of his subjects.

Constitutional though ?
I’d say it’s untested. I think they’re pushing the envelope sections 116 and 117.
Section 115 they get around by offering “fair” compensation. And that’s dicey too because what value does your property have to you isn’t necessarily just monetary.

“It's not a house its a home” argument, works well in movies, aka "The castle" but its pretty well covered by case law, basically they need to offer a fair price, not market price or what you want for it.

Are the terms for the acquisition of your property truly just ? That’s a morality and fairness question.
Does it relate to your property in your possession. Might argue it does not.

It isn't a morality question, its a fairness question, the constitution allows acquisition of property as long its on fair terms.

Although the thing to note is that a change to the law isn't the WA government acquiring property, they are removing their permission for you own such property. Taking "The castle" example again, it wasn't the government removing his right to own the property, it was them acquiring the property for their use. So its not the WA government acquiring your firearms, they are removing your right to own them. The buy back is simply a fairness/morality thing, which they are not required to do.

What is "property" has already been covered by the high court and its extremely broad.

The high court has previously been fairly liberal with 116 on the basis that additional rights are implied.
Can you have freedom of religion without the right to discuss and debate political issues. Not really.
“A Persons views, opinions and attitudes” - what does that mean. What can it mean outside of religion and politics. There’s not much else.

Their is lot else, "f*** the police", sovereign citizens, right to bear arms, right to self defensive, 1% and associates, conspiracy theories, anti social behaviour or Hamas are the good guy's to name a few.

And sect 117 . Discrimination on the basis of state of residency . What sets the bar for that really. WA is outnumbered in its approach to this.

Section 117 is about being discriminated in another state because you are from WA, not about WA government discriminating against its own people.

I don’t know and appreciate your input Fionn.

I am far from a Constitutional Lawyer, so keep that in mind, but happy to explain what I know.

I think we all know how important it is for this to be challenged. It will set a precedent for other states and they will follow suit.

The best thing is to given submissions against the bill, this is the best stage to derail the bill, but as we are a democracy remember majority wins.

I personally don't agree with the laws, but I understand where they are coming from, I have post numerous times about LFAO abusing grey areas of the law. I get a lot of hate here for doing so, but this is the flip side of the coin. You push the reasonable boundaries and force the government to act and this is what happens.

The abuse of property letters, is the catalyst for this (IMO), similar abuses in other states is abusing the genuine need of hunting to obtain firearms that the intent is never to use them for such but just own them.

Their are many here on this forum that do such, often called "safe queens", people abuse the intent of the law and then wonder why it comes back to bite them.

[Fionn]

There is no abuse or circumvention of law. The Police were the ones that decided this should be a requirement (it is not required in the Act), and people are complying with that requirement. If they didn't want people to be free to do it this way they should've stopped it right at the start, by allowing it to flourish for decades they created their own problem, and are now punishing people for their own incompetence.

It wasn't the police who decided it, it was the government. The Police enforce the governments laws.

The police may have taken a soft approach to the issue, no doubt. but often the police need a reason to refuse and if the laws are grey its difficult as police are also required to wotk within the laws. But its the abuse of this softness by LFAO that has caused the government to act and often when government reacts its a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

But to be clear, a lot of the fault lies with LFAO who abused the law, as an example to show this, someone posted the number of WA LFAO who belong to a club and it was pretty small.

I predict the same will happen in Victoria with the large number if LFAO abusing the "genuine need" requirement of hunting to collect and store firearms.

Its on the radar, so be warned.

[Faedy]

Thanks for all the input here.

[Oldbloke]

OK, i have not see the Bill. Thats from the so called "consultion paper". You know the one they distribute when they have no intention of actual consultation.

* The persons views, opinions and attitudes.

Now life has taught me this:
1. About 10% of the people either think the rules of society dont apply to them. Or are just bastards. Mostly they are selfish. The 1s are in all areas of society.
2. Abt 90% of the people generally try to do the right thing. Due to lack of education or the complexity of laws dont know what some of them actually are. So, occassionally may break the rules. Generally they are law abiding citizens so to speak.


Getting to my point
The 1s are in the police force too.
So that line is sure to be used by some for the wrong reasons.

And attempting to fight it in the courts will send most broke.

The governor will just rubber stamp the new law once it passes both houses.

The shooters of WA need to get their act together quickly and lead a huge campain against the bill and the ALP. If necessary TV ads bill boards and internet media. Not just assume someone else will help them.

In the end the ALP in WA will look stupid because after they introduce the law the criminals will still be active and shooting people. Criminals generally dont follow the rules of society, do they? And they often dont get locked up because it costs too much, right?

[Oldbloke]

Here it is here.

Final Version Firearms Bill 2024 Consultation Paper.pdf

(655.15 KiB) Downloaded 3574 times

[1886]

The reason behind it is most likely to stop people circumventing the laws and to stop people having access to firearms who shouldn't. Given the rampant abuse/circumventing by WA firearm owners regarding property letters, this is the flip side to it, clamping down on all grey areas.

There is no abuse or circumvention of law. The Police were the ones that decided this should be a requirement (it is not required in the Act), and people are complying with that requirement. If they didn't want people to be free to do it this way they should've stopped it right at the start, by allowing it to flourish for decades they created their own problem, and are now punishing people for their own incompetence.

No we have always had to provide a property letter since the 1973 Act came into force. 1776 is correct in that this current letter abuse is the major cause, which has only been occurring in recent times, not for decades. This whole saga rests on certain greedy dealers and some land owners not shooters.

Certain dealers advised visitors that an application could be lodged now with a letter costing you x amount of dollars it you want that firearm, so obviously many took this opportunity to obtain a firearm with no real intention of using it, they just wanted to have one. It became a cash cow for the certain dealers via selling more guns and some land owners getting an additional good income many in the hundreds of thousands.

The Police initially tried to stop this new abuse by refusing these applications but appeals were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal and they lost every time so the dealers opened the flood gates even more.

............It wasn't the police who decided it, it was the government. The Police enforce the governments laws.

No. This has all eventuated by a Police request to Govt due to this continued abuse by certain dealers and the knowledge that SAT would continue to overturn any refusals so they had to take action somehow to stop this abuse and now we are all going to pay.

The Govt and Minister are just puppets in this matter and jumped on the bandwagon to make out they are protecting the public. The Police know the Govt has a majority so whatever they request and propose will get passed.

[womble]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
There will be a percentage of non compliance.
The state has failed to provide appropriate legislation to regulate ownership . Once again.
Of no benefit to shooters and certainly of no benefit to the greater community.
History repeats. Guns will go underground.

I don’t endorse this in any way shape or form. I’m very disappointed in it. I would much prefer to to encourage safe and responsible registered and licensed ownership.
But we know it will happen. Happened in New Zealand, well documented increase in criminal firearms.
Happened here. We still unearth them in the wrong hands 40 years on. Guns that have spent 40 years being recycled over and over again through criminal hands. Most will never be recovered.

They’re targeting a sub group of lafos that don’t join a club and don’t really seem to have a genuine reason other than just owning a gun. It would be so much wiser to pass legislation that gets them encouraged and involved in safe disciplined ownership and use.
To cancel them instead what does that do. You’ve removed their opportunity to be good. It’s not wise.
Better to regulate than deregulate

[Bruiser64]

The property letter “issue” is one that is entirely the making of the senior management of WAPOL. A bit over a decade ago, the police changed their processes for granting licenses. They decided to centralise all the decision making into Firearms Branch in Perth. Prior the that it was the responsibility of the Officers In Charge of the applicant’s local police station to approve licences. In my experience the the local police were quite thorough in vetting applications. I had an application delayed until I could demonstrate that my propert letter was genuine. I was told I had to go and demonstrate that I was permitted to shoot on that property. Which I did. The local police to.d me they were concerned my letter was a “phantom letter”. I was even visiting a farmer for work when he was visited by the local police to discuss a firearms application that he had supported through a property letter. I heard the police asking the farmer how well they knew the applicant and what they knew about the application.

So the situation they find themselves in today they created. I knew a local police Sergeant who bitterly complained about the change. He said it removed from him the ability to know who was applying for licences in his jurisdiction. So it is utterly disingenuous of WAPOL to complain about a situation that they were the architects of. They had control and they used to ensure that the applicants would actually be shooting on the property stipulated. But they decided to cheap out and centralise the application process. Now suddenly it’s law abiding gun owners fault for the problem that was entirely of WAPOL’s making.

[mchughcb]

The local police Sargent complained bitterly. Wasn't the fat slob from Blue Heelers was it? I sat next to him the other day in Flinders Lane and he was one pizza slice from a heart attack.

Fancy a local police sergeant needing to know every detail of your firearm business. No thanks.

[1886]

The property letter “issue” is one that is entirely the making of the senior management of WAPOL. A bit over a decade ago, the police changed their processes for granting licenses. They decided to centralise all the decision making into Firearms Branch in Perth................. So the situation they find themselves in today they created............... So it is utterly disingenuous of WAPOL to complain about a situation that they were the architects of. They had control and they used to ensure that the applicants would actually be shooting on the property stipulated......

Again No.

When it all went to the current central scenario even then there was still no issue with property letters and they still checked with property owners whether you were known etc etc. Oddly enough one of the reasons that this also eventuated was because there was no consistency in local decision making, ie it became an issue what location you lived in and who was the OIC and whether he was anti firearms or not, hence due to complaints this was also one of the reasons this task was subsequently centralised.

The current issue of property letters abuse was only a fairly recent scenario and WAPOL again tried to stem it by refusing applications with "brought" letters but again SAT dismissed their refusals leaving them with no option but to approve erroneous applications. Thus it became clear amendments or a complete rewrite of the Act would be the only way to stem this abuse.

So the whole responsibility for all WA firearm owners now possibly being subjected to not only having to obtain new property letters at every licence renewal plus now have a limit on the number of firearms allowed, rests entirely on those arsehole dealer/s who ABUSED the system for their own greed and have subsequently cocked it up for all as WAPOL's current hierarchy have now taken this opportunity to go way overboard with Govt support for a complete rewrite.

[mchughcb]

The dealers cannot have abused system if it was taken to the SAT and the polie lost.

No other state carries on like WAPOL. The issue is not the people.

[womble]

The local police Sargent complained bitterly. Wasn't the fat slob from Blue Heelers was it? I sat next to him the other day in Flinders Lane and he was one pizza slice from a heart attack.

Fancy a local police sergeant needing to know every detail of your firearm business. No thanks.

It’s a given in this context, Western Australia is a police state.
Not having a gripe this time either, intended quite literally https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
It can be an unfortunate consequence of a one party state.

[1886]

The dealers cannot have abused system if it was taken to the SAT and the polie lost...................

I am definitely NOT supporting the extent of WAPOL's Act rewrite on this matter only responding to incorrect assumptions like yours

No, like all issues involving law and who adjudicates, WAPOL lost due to usual bizarre law interpretations not because there was no abuse of the law.

It's common knowledge even on this forum that dealers and one landowner supplied 3000 letters for firearm applications and even you would have to agree that is just ridiculous as 99% if any, would probably never get to attend or plan to. There were also many landowners that agreed with dealers to supply pay for letters but on the basis no one could actually come an shoot !!!!

Again a blatant abuse of a system that was previously working fine with no WAPOL concerns until this abuse occurred and to the extent it had to be curtailed and now it will be at the expense of all Bonafide shooters.

[Oldbloke]

Some are missing the point.
The letter system was stupid in the first place.

Only WA has that.

They should model the Act on Victoria. Not perfect but workable.

If WA wants to limit the number of firearms set sensible limts.

I reckon pretty easy for a keen enthusiest who is not just into hunting but a few disciplins as well to need/want 15-20.

The reality is, if your going to go shoot a heap of people you can only use 1 at a time, not 20, or even 5. And if your responsible enough to have 1 why on earth would, 5 or 20 matter?

This is only about politics and hate, nothing to do with public safety. If they are worried about public safety start locking up the offenders. Not blaming/harrassing the innocent.

Next i will be paying the speeding fine of my next door neighbour.

[17Dave]

So to those who actually know something or have a background in law, how do I as a licenced owner who will be affected by this reply in aannwr that will be considered
They have not consulted to date and have only released vague information, gives me little faith they will genuinely consider my reply.

[Dess787]

For every gun owner sending through considered feedback, there will be 10 Jane and Joe Do-gooder Publics sending through feedback of "yes it's great there are limits of firearms, who needs more than 5 ? really should be none allowed" etc etc

Then you will have victims of firearms crimes sending through emotional testimonals to ban all guns

And that is how things will be justified.

But doesn't mean we shouldn't try and shouldn't send through feedback.

[Oldbloke]

Consultation:
"the process of discussing something with someone in order to get their advice or opinion about it:"

Not happening. Not even meeting with clubs etc.
Its "dictation".

Hand a letter to your local MP. Dont email

[17Dave]

My local member is Labor and parliamentary secretary to the deputy premier. I can't see handing her a letter will do anything other than add paper to a bin.

[Oldbloke]

My local member is Labor and parliamentary secretary to the deputy premier. I can't see handing her a letter will do anything other than add paper to a bin.

Your most likely correct.
BUT
If they dont hear objections from the shooters how do you think they will react?

Will they react differently if he gets 500 letters from shooters in his/her electorate?

[womble]

Important lesson to take from this thread that I will credit to Dess787. Don’t know how or when he learned it.

You try anyway.

This sense of what’s the point , or it will never change, only get worse, didnt get there by accident. It’s been carefully engineered into us as a group over time.
It’s their intention to make us give up and go away, to discourage us at every turn. They want to ingrain in you a sense of defeatism.
It takes a long time to do this to a person or in our case a particular segment of society. To deeply establish it by habit so it becomes your belief.
Using this legislation as an example, it’s to sabotage your goal.

Recognise what they’re doing and do not accept it.
Instead accept the challenge to rise above it. You don’t give in, you persist and we all persevere.

All they have done here is put another burning hoop to jump through in your path. Yes you are getting burnt.
Nevertheless, we all expect you to hit the ground running and smash through that thing with aplomb.

[bladeracer]

This sense of what’s the point , or it will never change, only get worse, didnt get there by accident. It’s been carefully engineered into us as a group over time.
It’s their intention to make us give up and go away, to discourage us at every turn. They want to ingrain in you a sense of defeatism.
It takes a long time to do this to a person or in our case a particular segment of society. To deeply establish it by habit so it becomes your belief.
Using this legislation as an example, it’s to sabotage your goal.

The British dived headlong into then as their shooters very readily seem to accept that law-abiding people owning firearms is too dangerous for a civilised society. Conversing with British firearm owners gets depressing as they seem to be perfectly accepting that they were seen as a significant threat to public safety within their society, despite all evidence indicating the opposite.

[womble]

Well hat wasn’t very British of them was it
I for one would fight Papalia bare fisted on the beaches, or in the fields, or in the hills.
Tis but a flesh wound.
We persevere

[Dess787]

The British dived headlong into then as their shooters very readily seem to accept that law-abiding people owning firearms is too dangerous for a civilised society. Conversing with British firearm owners gets depressing as they seem to be perfectly accepting that they were seen as a significant threat to public safety within their society, despite all evidence indicating the opposite.

Look it is human nature to think we have a 'raw deal''. Humans generally see the cup half empty not half full. E.g. Public housing in Australia is better than most regular housing in other developed countries

For the British, handguns are an absolute no no, but they can get semi auto shotguns with huge magazines for practical shotgun.

We compare our gun laws to the US and yes compared to them, we are very hard done by, but if you compare our gun laws to most developed countries, they are not too bad. Very very very few countries outside the US allow concealed carry.

It is always hard when something is taken away. Better to never have than have and lose it.

If we can get some of these proposed law reforms removed, then that will be a good thing. I don't think the 5 and 10 limits will be changed

[bladeracer]

The British dived headlong into then as their shooters very readily seem to accept that law-abiding people owning firearms is too dangerous for a civilised society. Conversing with British firearm owners gets depressing as they seem to be perfectly accepting that they were seen as a significant threat to public safety within their society, despite all evidence indicating the opposite.

Look it is human nature to think we have a 'raw deal''. Humans generally see the cup half empty not half full. E.g. Public housing in Australia is better than most regular housing in other developed countries

For the British, handguns are an absolute no no, but they can get semi auto shotguns with huge magazines for practical shotgun.

We compare our gun laws to the US and yes compared to them, we are very hard done by, but if you compare our gun laws to most developed countries, they are not too bad. Very very very few countries outside the US allow concealed carry.

It is always hard when something is taken away. Better to never have than have and lose it.

If we can get some of these proposed law reforms removed, then that will be a good thing. I don't think the 5 and 10 limits will be changed

My point was more about how readily British firearm owners seem to believe they were the cause of virtually non-existent firearm violence in Britain when there really was no evidence suggesting that. Not so much about the laws they are lumbered with, more about how easily their entire mindset about their own behaviour was changed by the laws coming in. The UK has almost nowhere to shoot or hunt anyway so there seems to me very little value in having an interest in firearms there anyway. The entire UK is the size of Victoria, with ten times the population. If we had 70 million people living in Vic we wouldn't have anywhere to shoot either.

As for comparisons with the US, both our countries are huge, and our firearm laws vary widely across both countries. Both countries have states with horrendous restrictions, both have states with fairly reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership. I don't think many US states have hunter access to public land like we do in Victoria, perhaps none of them do except maybe Alaska. We can go hunting any time we feel the urge, no permits or seasons or tag limits.

In the UK most people can't buy .22LR ammo by the brick (500rd) because they have restrictions on how much ammo they can own, buying several cases (5000rd each) at a time just makes no sense to them. You need special permits to buy hunting bullets or ammo as most shooters are restricted to non-expanding bullets. Reloaders can buy bulk bullets but are restricted with how many rounds they can have loaded up at one time. But, as I said, even if you had a brick of .22LR, where are you going to use it outside of a range anyway. It costs thousands of pounds to buy permission to hunt on private land there, and that is only available to a handful of people. Low-power air-rifles seem to be the way to go if you want to exercise an interest in shooting there.

As for these WA reforms, there will be very few firearm owners left in WA next year if it passes as tabled. Most of those remaining will be limited to using their firearms only at approved ranges - no shooting on private property. Most will no longer be able to licence their firearms for hunting, thus they will no longer be able to travel interstate for hunting trips either (WA issues individual licences for each firearm - you might be able to licence an air-rifle for hunting, but that doesn't allow you to go hunting buffalo or deer with your competition-licenced centrefire in other states). I'm sure a significant number of current shooters will hold "opinions", "attitudes", "way of living", or "domestic circumstances" that will rule them out - probably everybody posting to this thread would fall afoul of that clause. Landholders with small properties will no longer be able to licence useful firearms at all as they will no longer be able to buy a letter from a larger property owner, which is the current option to be able to shoot on your own small property (small being decided by Police - you currently need 10ac for an air-rifle, 20ac for a .22LR, 25ac for shotgun, 100ac for a WMR, 1000ac for a .223, or 2000ac for anything larger). A landowner will no longer have the option to allow a person to shoot on their property, they will have to ask Police for permission to give permission to somebody else for what happens on their own property.

[Fionn]

Its not looking good for WA LFAO and the proposed bill, another shooting incident is WA https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-22/ ... /103007076

[Fionn]

The reason behind it is most likely to stop people circumventing the laws and to stop people having access to firearms who shouldn't. Given the rampant abuse/circumventing by WA firearm owners regarding property letters, this is the flip side to it, clamping down on all grey areas.

There is no abuse or circumvention of law. The Police were the ones that decided this should be a requirement (it is not required in the Act), and people are complying with that requirement. If they didn't want people to be free to do it this way they should've stopped it right at the start, by allowing it to flourish for decades they created their own problem, and are now punishing people for their own incompetence.

No we have always had to provide a property letter since the 1973 Act came into force. 1776 is correct in that this current letter abuse is the major cause, which has only been occurring in recent times, not for decades. This whole saga rests on certain greedy dealers and some land owners not shooters.

That was me BTW not, 1776, Bladeracer miss quoted
But I agree with everything you have posted.

No. This has all eventuated by a Police request to Govt due to this continued abuse by certain dealers and the knowledge that SAT would continue to overturn any refusals so they had to take action somehow to stop this abuse and now we are all going to pay.

Police work for the government, the government makes the laws. They the Police certainly advised the government on the issues with the laws and the abuse, but its up to the government to change the laws if they deem fit.

As I said it's the government that decides the the laws, not the Police.

[Fionn]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
There will be a percentage of non compliance.
The state has failed to provide appropriate legislation to regulate ownership . Once again.
Of no benefit to shooters and certainly of no benefit to the greater community.
History repeats. Guns will go underground.

Rubbish, the Government is correcting the abuse of the laws, LAFO are to blame for the changes because they couldn't police themselves so the government is stepping in to do so.

It benefit's to non firearms owners as their are less firearms in the general public and less people owning firearms for non genuine reasons.

That's why it will pass, as its simple and makes sense to non firearm owners.

[Fionn]

The dealers cannot have abused system if it was taken to the SAT and the polie lost.

No other state carries on like WAPOL. The issue is not the people.

Absolutely dealers and LFAO abused system, just because its not against the law doesn't mean its the right thing to do, laws aren't all encompassing.

An example of this, LFAO who duck hunt in Victoria (lets say 500 people), could legally protest the changes to duck hunting laws by protesting and marching on Parliament while open carrying their firearms.

What do you think would happen if this occurred which is perfectly legal.

I have bought up here before about people abusing the genuine need to owner firearms before, but everyone here seems to support it, I get attacked for doing so and nobody says a thing, in fact a large majority of people on this forum thinks its perfectly OK.

Take the recent post about a person detained in a psychiatric hospital, asking if they should lie about it, I get poster saying they hope the person can track me down personally and find out when I live.

Absolutely no-one on this forum called that poster out for saying this and only one other person stood up and said they believed the person shouldn't have access to firearms

If you can't police yourself, the government will do it.

[Fionn]

Some are missing the point.
The letter system was stupid in the first place.

Only WA has that.

Victoria also has a letter system.