SSAA Benefits?

[Diamond Jim]

I'm not sure what benefit we in Wait Awhile receive from being a member of SSAA apart from receiving the advertising magazine.
As far as I am aware we can't turn up at a local SSAA range and shoot informally unless we are a member of a club based there.
We have no duck hunting, no quail hunting, no hunting in national parks or state forests. We don't seem to have any effective advocacy on firearms issues when we are faced with the most oppressive anti-LAFO government in the country.
Are SSAA going in to bat for WA firearm licence applicants who have just all had their applications refused (not deferred) because of Wuhan 'flu and who are only going to get a refund of about 2/3 of their $268 or $188 fee? Yes, that's correct $268 for the issue of a new licence, $188 to add a firearm to an existing licence then $56 annually thereafter. WAPOL are going to refund their portion but Australia Post is keeping their fee of about $60.
The gun shop I spoke with in Victoria this week said an addition there was about $10.

[TassieTiger]

Lodge a complaint with states ombudsman - I would guess, that just obtaining a complaint no will result in a full refund as it’s clearly a breach of Aust consumer law...
Ps - I dropped out of SSAA last month, based on their pathetic responses to store closures vs domestic violence increases - RE covid19

[Grandadbushy]

Diamond Jim mate I have pondered that as well but i'm in QLD , I've joined the Shooters Union they seem to be very passionate in fighting for shooters rights, they have had a couple of good wins lately for shooters ,If you get in contact with them they'll explain what they are about , it only cost $30 to $40 to join and they keep you updated with news letters on line I find them good to deal with . mostly they fight for shooters rights and make shooters aware of what they are entitled to as far as shooting laws and such. Ya never know they may do something for your problems. Here is the link http://www.shootersunion.com.au have a look you might enjoy a change also a $10,000,000 liability insurance comes with the membership whether shooting on public or private land . Cheers

[womble]

Public liability insurance

[AussieCapitalist]

Man that's expensive licence costs. I just paid for my 10 year licence in QLD and that was $461.15. About a quarter of that is a new application fee and the rest is for the 10 years.

[AussieCapitalist]

Shooters Union and SSAA are all crap. All they do is talk and talk is cheap. The national shooting council has about 5% of the amount of members that the big SSAA has and yet they are the only ones taking action and taking the government to court. Australians have been getting raped since 1996 and the time for talk is over. All the government will respond to is action. Even if the national shooting council loose their case the fact is they tried and they will keep trying. Things have gotten worse since 1996 not better and every time the government tries to impact lawful firearm owners in this country by bringing in more laws we want them to think twice because they will be challenged at every corner. The first few cases will be hard and expensive but once we get some case law happening things will be better overtime. Just like in QLD with the 338 lapua. Weapons licencing kept rejecting peoples PTA because they felt like it but the citizens kept suing them because the 338 Lapua is lawful to own and after awhile they went back in their box and realised they do not make the law and 338 Laupa is readily available for those that require it as the law says it is.

Court cases are a good thing. Shooters Union and SSAA can send as many letters as they want to politicians but that will do F ALL. We need legal challenges not a email that a politician will not even read.

JOIN TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://nationalshooting.org.au/

[Diamond Jim]

Public liability insurance

Yes, but every property I shoot on has public liability insurance. Has anyone ever claimed from SSAA? In WA we can't shoot on public land in any case so every private property or club invariably has private insurance.
I originally joined SSAA in the 1990's to support an organisation that I thought would advocate for shooters. Now I remain because it's a requirement for IPSC membership.
It seems more like a vessel for firearm distributors. They are a vital part of the shooting community but the consumer is, ultimately, the most important part of the chain. Without us the whole industry collapses.
SSAA, Shooters Union, National Shooters Council and everyone else - they all need to come together under a single group something like the NRA to form a unified, powerful lobbying group. The only way politicians will ever listen to us is if their positions depend on the support of a coordinated voting block.

[AZZA'S HJ47]

Yearly membership to SSAA.
Proud life member of shooters Union.

[AussieCapitalist]

Yes, but every property I shoot on has public liability insurance. Has anyone ever claimed from SSAA? In WA we can't shoot on public land in any case so every private property or club invariably has private insurance.
I originally joined SSAA in the 1990's to support an organisation that I thought would advocate for shooters. Now I remain because it's a requirement for IPSC membership.
It seems more like a vessel for firearm distributors. They are a vital part of the shooting community but the consumer is, ultimately, the most important part of the chain. Without us the whole industry collapses.

SSAA love gun control. They love making money from membership and range fees and they love the minimum pistol shoots. Nobody was a member before they "had" to be. The organisation is a joke and wants its members to just shut up, pay their fees and not complain. They literally waste peoples membership fees by suing their own members over petty crap.

[AussieCapitalist]

Speak of the devil I just got an email from the national shooting council about WA. They have just launched their court case over there. So they have one in WA,QLD and VIC.
What are the other organisations who have a lot more money than the shooting council doing? They are sending emails and writing posts on Facebook. How tough they are.

[Diamond Jim]

" The only way politicians will ever listen to us is if their positions rely on the support of a coordinated voting block."

I've seen it from inside the political system. A religious lobby group (of whatever faith or denomination you choose), industry, animal welfare, sporting associations, nursing mothers, whatever - maybe all worthy organisations but they all get listened to.
The fact is that, as a group, shooters and the shooting industry represent a huge block of votes that politicians can't afford to ignore. One problem is we have numerous groups purporting to represent us and none is effective because they don't work as a coordinated block and therefore we don't have the collective weight to exert influence. We need an overriding National Shooting Sports body to coordinate our efforts.
The biggest public rally I have ever seen in Perth was in 1996 but the media grossly understated the numbers involved. It was huge.
What is the proportion of firearm owners in Australia - 2%, 5%, 10%, more?
2% we determine a seat - we have that representative onside
5% we determine a State - we have the State onside
10% we determine a Federal election - we have the country onside
No political party would ignore a sector that large that was acting together.

[AussieCapitalist]

" The only way politicians will ever listen to us is if their positions rely on the support of a coordinated voting block."

I've seen it from inside the political system. A religious lobby group (of whatever faith or denomination you choose), industry, animal welfare, sporting associations, nursing mothers, whatever - maybe all worthy organisations but they all get listened to.
The fact is that, as a group, shooters and the shooting industry represent a huge block of votes that politicians can't afford to ignore. One problem is we have numerous groups purporting to represent us and none is effective because they don't work as a coordinated block and therefore we don't have the collective weight to exert influence. We need an overriding National Shooting Sports body to coordinate our efforts.
The biggest public rally I have ever seen in Perth was in 1996 but the media grossly understated the numbers involved. It was huge.
What is the proportion of firearm owners in Australia - 2%, 5%, 10%, more?
2% we determine a seat - we have that representative onside
5% we determine a State - we have the State onside
10% we determine a Federal election - we have the country onside
No political party would ignore a sector that large that was acting together.

There are over a million licenced shooters in the country. If united as one we would be a massive voting block. The problem is as you mentioned we are not united. Also there are a lot of leftists among the shooting community as well. People that love gun control and are happy to just ban everything so long as they are allowed their single shot 22. Shooters need to live and breath firearms. Shooters need to be single issue voters and have multiple children and make them into single issue voters. We have the numbers but we can always use more and we need to be united.

[Diamond Jim]

AussieCapitalist, I agree we need to be single issue voters but my take is we need to live and breathe the culture of hunting and shooting sports we have inherited. It goes back to compulsory archery practice in medieval days and before. Firearms are an integral part of that culture and while you and I might be devotees, the general public sees the tools we use very differently. My take is we need to preserve the values that made this country what it is and focus on ensuring the anti-gun zealots don't get voted into power. I guess a lot of shooters vote for their local Shooter's Party or equivalent but where does their second preference go? That's where we fall down. The lefties give their second preference to Labor, the farmers to National, the rights to Liberal - I can't imagine any shooters putting Greens high on the ballot paper but I bet it happens.
We need a coordinated effort that whatever your political leaning we direct preferences the party that best aligns with preserving our sport. And we need to strike a deal with that party so our sport is protected.

[No1_49er]

Yes, but every property I shoot on has public liability insurance. Has anyone ever claimed from SSAA? In WA we can't shoot on public land in any case so every private property or club invariably has private insurance.

Perhaps your understanding of Public Liability Insurance is flawed?
The property owner/s may well have PLI, but that will cover THEM in the event that some action of THEIRS causes damage or injury to something or someone by THEIR negligence or failing.
It does NOT cover damage that YOU might cause to something or someone on that property.
That is why, in the case of membership of SSAA, you are covered by (up to) $20M "for legal negligence while on public or private property anywhere in Australia".
If you choose not to have PLI, I would suggest that you think carefully about the possible ramifications. I know of a person who, by his own negligence, incautiously started a fire that then raged out of control on public land, for which he held an appropriate hunting permit, but was subsequently sued for damages for the loss of value of the land and the fire-fighting efforts to quell the blase.
Ultimately, the expense bankrupted him. He was not a member of a shooting association that would have covered his public liability.
Be very careful about what insurance cover you believe that you have.

[targetshooter900]

I've joined the Shooters Union they seem to be very passionate in fighting for shooters rights, they have had a couple of good wins lately for shooters

Agreed. Shooters Union is a way better organisation than the SSAA. they actually protect shooters rights.

[Grandadbushy]

Also No1_49er you may have some facts on this or maybe some one else but I have heard a whisper that if you are accepting payment for shooting services rendered to the land owner then the ssaa liability insurance may not cover you so i'd be checking up on that as well

[TassieTiger]

I think your correct 100% GDb.
I have some land and have had 100 trail bike riders ask to use - I checked my public insurance - if I say yes, then they can have claim against me, but if they just do it - it’s on them...a payment means you have entered into a business or contract arrangement - and then, all bets are off.

No1 - I’d recheck wording RE policy. Based on what you’ve written RE fire, he may not have been covered with SSAA insurance regardless, unless the fire was started by a firearm related incident. Policies are often written in a way as to be interpreted in the favour of ins co...

[Patriot]

Shooters Union and SSAA are all crap. All they do is talk and talk is cheap. The national shooting council has about 5% of the amount of members that the big SSAA has and yet they are the only ones taking action and taking the government to court. Australians have been getting raped since 1996 and the time for talk is over. All the government will respond to is action. Even if the national shooting council loose their case the fact is they tried and they will keep trying. Things have gotten worse since 1996 not better and every time the government tries to impact lawful firearm owners in this country by bringing in more laws we want them to think twice because they will be challenged at every corner. The first few cases will be hard and expensive but once we get some case law happening things will be better overtime. Just like in QLD with the 338 lapua. Weapons licencing kept rejecting peoples PTA because they felt like it but the citizens kept suing them because the 338 Lapua is lawful to own and after awhile they went back in their box and realised they do not make the law and 338 Laupa is readily available for those that require it as the law says it is.

Court cases are a good thing. Shooters Union and SSAA can send as many letters as they want to politicians but that will do F ALL. We need legal challenges not a email that a politician will not even read.

JOIN TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://nationalshooting.org.au/

They don’t name their committee members for security reasons

Sounds a bit paranoid, if I’m spending my hard earned on membership,I want to know who is speaking for me.

[AussieCapitalist]

They don’t name their committee members for security reasons

Sounds a bit paranoid, if I’m spending my hard earned on membership,I want to know who is speaking for me.

Greta could speak for me if her interests were pro firearm. I think you will find the reasoning is more so because a lot of the top brass are connected to a certain American firearm organisation who the media hates with a passion.

[No1_49er]

No1 - I’d recheck wording RE policy. Based on what you’ve written RE fire, he may not have been covered with SSAA insurance regardless, unless the fire was started by a firearm related incident. Policies are often written in a way as to be interpreted in the favour of ins co...

Yes, Tassie. But it's a matter of reading what I said.
I did not say SSAA.
The person concerned most definitely would have been covered by the PLI policy of the shooting Association which he chose not to be a member of, in a geographical jurisdiction that is not Australia. The Association made it publicly known that had he been a member, his liability would have been covered, to the same $$ extent that SSAA affords its members.

[TassieTiger]

Fair call, my bad. Topic heading pertaining to SSAA threw me.

[Bugman]

Like any organisation, the SSAA appears to have a few skeletons in their closet. Things like the apparent clandestine sale of the SSAA property used for recreational shooting etc, by a certain senior SSAA person. I like the magazine, but I am seriously having second thoughts on renewing my membership next time.

[Sergeant Hartman]

How ironic that after a couple of days of ssaa bashing Melbourne Gun Works post up this on their Facebook page

Screenshot_20200418-190133_Facebook.jpg (908.73 KiB) Viewed 7455 times

[Diamond Jim]

Perhaps your understanding of Public Liability Insurance is flawed?
The property owner/s may well have PLI, but that will cover THEM in the event that some action of THEIRS causes damage or injury to something or someone by THEIR negligence or failing.
It does NOT cover damage that YOU might cause to something or someone on that property.
That is why, in the case of membership of SSAA, you are covered by (up to) $20M "for legal negligence while on public or private property anywhere in Australia".
If you choose not to have PLI, I would suggest that you think carefully about the possible ramifications. I know of a person who, by his own negligence, incautiously started a fire that then raged out of control on public land, for which he held an appropriate hunting permit, but was subsequently sued for damages for the loss of value of the land and the fire-fighting efforts to quell the blase.
Ultimately, the expense bankrupted him. He was not a member of a shooting association that would have covered his public liability.
Be very careful about what insurance cover you believe that you have.

OK, to be clear, every property I shoot on is owned by family members. As primary producers they all have employers liability insurance and public liability insurance. That covers anyone who visits their properties with their permission. Trespassers would not be covered. Negligence and specifically negligently starting a fire that traveled to neighboring properties would never be covered by public liability in any case - even if the property owner started it.
In WA we can't shoot on public land. Everywhere we shoot is insured - club or otherwise.

I think I have a reasonable take on what public liability insurance entails - I have tertiary qualifications and work experience in this field. I choose not to share the details for the purposes of confidentiality.

[Grandadbushy]

G'day diamond mate, I don't think 49er was having a shot at you simply because I sort of understood your post similar to him , nobody doubts your experience what so ever ,insurance is very tricky at the best of times for the general public as with public liability, with the land owners public liability insurance it would be in case the shooter gets injured and intends to sue the land owner it does not cover the shooter , with shooter personal liability it covers the shooter incase the land owner was to sue the shooter for shooting stock or damage caused by the shooter (bit like the land owner insurance but in reverse) regardless of whether you are shooting on private land or public land it would be wise to have your own public liability insurance mainly because if you don't and you are sued by the land owner or public trust then you yourself will have to foot the bill not the insurance company and vice versa for the land owner the costs could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars a drain on any bodies pocket potential ruination for most so I for one and I think I can speak for many on here , I would not rely on the land owners liability insurance I would have my own liability insurance if I were to shoot on any land other than my own

[Grandadbushy]

A little info for those interested Employee liability insurance is to cover the employer for the costs of being sued by the employee.
The other employee insurance is Compensation insurance to cover the medical costs and wages of the employee.
Then there is Farm insurance this covers a variety of things like machinery , house ,sheds and so on (farm stuff) ie, possibly crop damage at times
It all depends on how the policies are wrote up I don't know of any liability insurance that covers the farmer for someone shooting stock (accidental or purposely) and I doubt a farmer would like that extra cost , the farm insurance would cover lost stock ie died from natural causes , none of these insurances cover the shooter for their damage to the employer or land owners property in any way. Some employers / landowners streamline their insurances and emit some claimable items to keep costs down ( ie) stock loss, crop loss, and others namely stuff they can do without but really cant but do to keep costs at bay , the main ones they will keep are the Employee compensation insurance, Public liability insurance, Farm insurance but none of these cover the shooter unless possibly with special contracts with the insurance companies I haven't heard of any but some of you may have but I doubt a farmer would want the extra cost in doing so , I presume they would want the culprit to pay for their mistake and any damage that has occurred from the mishap and this is why we have personal liability insurance

[No1_49er]

I presume they would want the culprit to pay for their mistake and any damage that has occurred from the mishap and this is why we have personal liability insurance

I think you've nailed it, GDB.

[Farmerpete]

I think ssaa are like canegrowers they charge exorbitant fees to "represent" you always claiming to be doing something for you best interests but never achieving anything.
Once you stop paying you never go back

[Diamond Jim]

I return to my original point. I think that WA members do not get the same value from our membership of SSAA that other states do. I think the organisation needs to step it up if it wants WA members to continue their loyalty. The magazine does nothing for me, I want tangible benefits, strong advocacy to government, challenge to unreasonable bureaucracy and facilities I can access.

[Grandadbushy]

And that's fair enough Diamond but with the environment today who is going to give you that ? Today they are too happy to take your money yet give bugger all in return, this has been the conversation for a fair while to get some one with the money the balls and the want and willpower to do something , I find today everything is done based on a political stance or for political reasons this leaves them open to persuasion from the government this is how the ssaa has moved into the position of ''if you are a member of the ssaa that is enough to hold a firearm licence now this is a very powerful position for them and hence they can sit back and rest on their wealth, this also leaves them open to be guided by the government from the chance they can loose that governmental blessing a bit like a small dog hunting with the wolves . At present some people are gearing up to take the gov to court over outlandish claims against the closing of the gun shops and the gun owners hopefully this is the turning point to save our sport and pastime ,I have heard it many, many times that we should unite and take the government to court but until we do all this they will keep squeezing gun owners into a corner of no return governments have proven they can't be trusted so the only way to stop their attack on gun owners and The likes is in a court of law and even then we will have to have the breeze on our side.