SSAA Benefits?

[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 7459 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.

[Diamond Jim]

''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.

Yes Bushy but we don't even get that. In WA SSAA membership is not sufficient to obtain/hold a firearms licence. As far as I know, we can't attend SSAA ranges for casual shooting unless we are members of a club based at that range. We are in the "too hard" basket. That aside, everything you say is spot on.

[Grandadbushy]

Well that sucks Diamond they sprook about what they do for ''ALL'' gun owners here in Australia and now with this virus the government is doing the same ''WE ARE ONE '' they say but it seems like we are when it suits them mate I have just been in touch with the SHOOTERS UNION and they are a Genuine Reason to hold a gun licence here in QLD just like the ssaa, would they be any different over there and do you have the shooters union over there ?I find them very helpful ,every time I've asked something of them they returned the answer all but straight away something I haven't been able to get from the ssaa . If you are a member of the ssaa I thought you had access to those ranges ,I thought that being a member was the asking for using them with a small fee that is , I've never shot at a ssaa range namely because a couple of blokes I know were but then stopped because of the infighting and the stand over rangers they said there was definitely some good ones but the majority was not.if the ssaa was serious about being there for the shooters they'd be trying to get all shooters the same benefits no matter which state

[TassieTiger]

That sucks DJ. WA really has some issues and the eastern states need to take more note. Bet your last dollar if they tried to implement some of the western type restrictions in the east there’d be an outcry.

Just FYI GDB. In Tas - SSAA can be used as a reason for gun licence and to keep members on their toes, police are notified when members drop out who have used SSAA as their sole reason for owning a firearm - yep, it’s business and nothing more to them. Shooters union can not be used as a reason in our state.

[Grandadbushy]

Well that is also a bugger Tassie . I can also see that if the ssaa is the genuine reason and then you drop out of membership you then have no genuine reason to hold a gun licence unless you have other genuine reasons like properties to shoot on and permission to do so. I just think it's so stupid to have all these different rules from state to state, it only ads to the confusion , the ssaa should be working towards rectifying that not suing their own members for various reasons the money would have been better spent fighting the gov in court to try and bring all states to the same point of gun laws and keep on top of the ever declining gun laws maybe it's just too much to ask of them it might upset their honey hole so to speak, its funny how the gov has all these different gun laws in diff states yet when it came to shutting down the G'shops and selling ammo it was Australia wide we famously became ''ONE'' then the ssaa only started snorting when other parties jumped up and down and started legal action or the threat there of .

[TassieTiger]

Your right -,The SSAA were in full support of closures, until others stepped in and THIS was one reason I stopped out of SSAA...

[AussieCapitalist]

@grandadbushy.

Mate I have to disagree with you, I don't think its stupid to have different laws from state to state. You are forgetting that we are a federation of self governing states and the FED has no authority on firearm ownership!!! I am a Queenslander first not an Australian first. If there was no state laws, the socialists in the big cities down south would out vote us with their bigger numbers and we would have nothing. We need smaller federal control and more local representation.


The states that shut the shops down are labor, It is a political move by them. Not that the LNP are friends to firearm owners but they have at least kept their shops open.

[Grandadbushy]

G'day AC mate I somewhat agree with you but there is no reason not to have gun laws and several other things the same through out Australia the governing part can be similar as now as a Federation bit like the rail gauge was brought to standard throughout Australia , Banks, Doctors many things gun laws should be the same but on saying that the hunting side would be slightly different as we don't have the deer like down south and the seasons but I doubt that would concern a licence . I wasn't suggesting that the states should be one, only the gun laws for example you loose your car licence you can't get a licence from any other state as I hear it so they can unite on that front why not gun laws , but you have valid points there mate as far as the political parties, well they all would squeeze gun laws if it meant votes for them and yes labour did do as you've said but you've got to remember who and what political party brought in gun laws and lied through their teeth saying they wouldn't change them, so they're all as bad as each other just at different times.

[Oldbloke]

State and federal laws and who has the authority to do what. Is refered to as "powers" in the constitution.

See Part V – Powers of the Parliament of the Australian constitution.

It lists the powers on the commonwealth (federal) parliament.

What isnt listed there more or less falls to the States. Guns/firearms don't get a mention.

Get a pdf copy here. A bit of light reading. Lol


https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament ... nstitution

[Maxjon]

I think the SSAA membership would be suffering severely, only for the cheap insurance policy they offer with membership. I hear they honour claims with minimal fuss, but I can't speak from experience. Make no mistake SSAA is driven by profit, and not much else.......

[Sergeant Hartman]

We don't have one standard railway guage in Australia

[Grandadbushy]

Yeah, ok then my bad but I thought all gauges were brought into uniform in 1989 but I could be wrong or by the sounds of it I am ,thanks for pointing that out SH but how does the Ghan rail train go up the center through different states on one line ? So then I will have to get my facts right thanks again

[Diamond Jim]

State and federal laws and who has the authority to do what. Is refered to as "powers" in the constitution.

See Part V – Powers of the Parliament of the Australian constitution.

It lists the powers on the commonwealth (federal) parliament.

What isnt listed there more or less falls to the States. Guns/firearms don't get a mention.

Get a pdf copy here. A bit of light reading. Lol


https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament ... nstitution

The constitution grants very limited exclusive powers to the Commonwealth Government in section 52 but the number of exclusive powers is quite small - three.
On any of the matters listed in section 51 both the Commonwealth and the State may make laws however where there is any inconsistency the Commonwealth law takes precedence to the extent of the inconsistency - these are shared powers.. Anything not specifically mentioned is exclusively for the States - in theory.
Foreign affairs and international trade is one area which the Commonwealth has the power to make laws. By signing international treaties (for the protection of wilderness for example) the States are automatically bound by the terms of the treaty - that's why the Gordon below Franklin Dam never got built. It is the Commonwealth Government's way of extending their reach into areas that the authors of the Constitution never intended for the Commonwealth to have power.
Human rights, health, education, refugees, indigenous peoples, whaling, nuclear energy....any international agreement or treaty they sign automatically binds the states and the States can't make a valid law that is not consistent with the Commonwealth agreement. The original intent was to limit the range of areas that the Commonwealth could legislate. Successive governments and sympathetic High Court appointees have twisted it to the opposite position.

[Oldbloke]

Thanks DJ. Must be 20 years since i read much of it.

Most people are completely ignorant of the part it plays in how we live.

[Diamond Jim]

One observation I've made - it may not be accurate so please feel free to correct me - WA police, fisheries, park rangers, council rangers or anyone with any power at all start from an assumption that Joe Citizen is going to break the rules and said official is duty bound to uncover what you are doing wrong. They will search a car until a defect, however minor, is found, find a left over cartridge case from 10 years ago, whatever...
In my dealings in other states, the approach is quite different - they start from a base of "how can we help you to comply with the rules" rather than an automatic assumption of guilt.

[MinuteofGoat]

I have family relations who sit for election to state parliament on the simple basis that they control other party's votes. My relations are religious nutters and proudly say so. They don't ever expect to be voted in, but they know that they will get a few percent of the votes. They go to the major candidates and shop around with what they want. If the major candidate will promise that their religious based policy will get included, their preference votes go to that major candidate. If the major candidate is in a marginal seat, that is gold.

They do it knowing that they are basically controlling 100% of the population with 3% of the vote, and smile about it. I assume that's what is happening against shooters, And I think we need to make it work for us.

All we need is the right people to stand for election and be as shonky as everyone else already is.

[Bill]

What I find disappointing is there seems to be little to no vision for Shooters in Sydney, where is the Mission statement and their plans for the future ??

Whats the 5, 10 and 20yr goal for Indoor shooting faclities in the biggest market in Australia ??

Where is the plan for a new 100m AIR CONDITIONED 50 lane shooting centre for Sydney that can handle the future growth of the Sport and includes al; caibres upto 0.60 ??.

Right now I see nothing on there website, am I missing something here ??