NSC Funded SAT case lost

Questions about Western Australian gun and ammunition laws. W.A. Firearms Act 1973.

NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by animalpest » 24 Aug 2022, 11:39 pm

If I recall correctly, it was the NSC that funded a WA Police rejection of an application to licence for a 300 WM. The matter was taken to the WA SAT.

Well today, this case's decision has been published. And the case was lost.
Professional shooter and trapper
Trainer and consultant
animalpest
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1025
Western Australia

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by deye243 » 24 Aug 2022, 11:55 pm

No doubt just a prelude as to what is coming for them as far as I know they are having a big review on firearms laws
User avatar
deye243
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2209
Victoria

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Faedy » 25 Aug 2022, 12:13 am

Oh dear
I'm just about to apply for an additional. 308 and .300winmag and my son is applying for his first. 300winmag.
Time will tell how this goes
Faedy
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 212
Western Australia

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by cz515 » 25 Aug 2022, 12:32 am

I wonder if we hear about this via their press release machinery
When good men and women can’t speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when ego and self-preservation are more important than national security — then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil
User avatar
cz515
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1032
Victoria

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Oldbloke » 25 Aug 2022, 1:01 am

cz515 wrote:I wonder if we hear about this via their press release machinery


They won't be announcing it here. That's for sure.

Yes I found this.

https://nationalshooting.org.au/nsc-sup ... -marksman/
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Oldbloke » 25 Aug 2022, 1:10 am

NSC Web site.
Dated 11.3. 2021

The NSC is supporting a fight in WA over the use of .300 Win mags (.308 Winchester Magnums) against an officer who believes he knows more about pest eradication than those who do the work.

In fact he has made some startling statements that we are confident will expose WAPol’s lack of knowledge about firearms.

Adrian is a pest controller. He has a .270 rifle which he uses up to 200m and .338 that he uses for his work at longer distances, but has applied to the WA Police to use 300 Win mag with his Remington 700 for shoots out in the middle range to 500m.

The problem is WA Police believes that his .338 is suitable for distances less than 500m.

As Adrian argues, the 338 is not suitable for close range, and in any case is considerably more expensive at $18 a round, to shoot than the 300 calibre at $3 a round.

However, the WA Police do not see it this way.

Up against a confident expert
Adrian’s case is being fought on the police side by an officer who believes he knows what he is saying.

He has told Adrian that he knows what he is talking about, because he (the officer) is or was a military trained marksman. He also told Adrian that he doesn’t need a .338 because a .270 is deadly at 1,000m and is used in Afghanistan…

Less funny is the belief that a regulator charged with firearm safety would somehow think it is safe or prudent to use a large calibre at close range.

NSC brings in its legal team
Adrian’s case is at its early stages, however the NSC has brought in its barrister to advise Adrian and offer support.

Adrian has done his homework, including obtaining a statement on the use of the 300 Win Mag from Victorian armoury expert, Len Steele.

Len is someone well known in Victorian circles, having given evidence in Victorian and Tasmanian courts on firearm matters since 1983 and 2017 respectively.

On Monday 8 March, the parties were required to attend a mediation session, where a resolution with WAPol seemed unlikely.

They didn’t disappoint. There was no resolution, but this may turn out to be a good thing, because we are about to find out exactly what WAPol knows about ballistics. So far it would appear that the officer in charge of this case has no idea about long distance shooting.

It is our understanding that among the problems is that the officer thought there were places against which you could ‘rest’ a rifle when taking a shot when you are in the scrub, and an apparent lack of appreciation about what happens when a barrel gets hot. This is consistent with the idea that a .270 is deadly up to 1,000m, which we understand was repeated at the session.

That’s why we’re excited about this case. We’ll keep an eye on it and continue to help Adrian as much as possible
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by deye243 » 25 Aug 2022, 2:15 am

No different than Victorian coppers i have had many a conversation on the side of the road with them about my firearms and it just sounds like the same bulls**t rhetoric
User avatar
deye243
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2209
Victoria

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by cz515 » 25 Aug 2022, 7:34 am

Oldbloke wrote:
cz515 wrote:I wonder if we hear about this via their press release machinery


They won't be announcing it here. That's for sure.

Yes I found this.

https://nationalshooting.org.au/nsc-sup ... -marksman/


Mate as usual you are replying to a question no one asked.

But thanks for the post atleast it gives me the original story about the event
When good men and women can’t speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when ego and self-preservation are more important than national security — then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil
User avatar
cz515
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1032
Victoria

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Lazarus » 25 Aug 2022, 9:00 am

G'day OB,
Thanks for that.

As usual, popo who probably know less about firearms than your average Hollywood producer, pontificating to someone who actually bloody knows firearms.

Sure, a .270 is "deadly" at 1K, so's a .223 but deadly to what, that is the question this knob smoker doesn't get.

I piss and moan about Nanny South Wales restrictive regulations, but the fascists have infested Westralia.

I read the Greens gun policy last week, christ help us if the latte manbuns get any real power.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Oldbloke » 25 Aug 2022, 9:06 am

cz515 wrote:
Oldbloke wrote:
cz515 wrote:I wonder if we hear about this via their press release machinery


They won't be announcing it here. That's for sure.

Yes I found this.

https://nationalshooting.org.au/nsc-sup ... -marksman/


Mate as usual you are replying to a question no one asked.

But thanks for the post at least it gives me the original story about the event


Perhaps next time I won't bother. I recall being criticised some time back for not sharing info.
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Larry » 25 Aug 2022, 10:36 am

That is really bad news for WA. Having lost the case is not just bad for that person but is sets a precedent and the cops now know they can knock back this calibre and or be tough on multiple similar calibres.
Larry
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 775
-

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by animalpest » 25 Aug 2022, 10:55 am

Lazarus wrote:G'day OB,
Thanks for that.

As usual, popo who probably know less about firearms than your average Hollywood producer, pontificating to someone who actually bloody knows firearms.

Sure, a .270 is "deadly" at 1K, so's a .223 but deadly to what, that is the question this knob smoker doesn't get.

I piss and moan about Nanny South Wales restrictive regulations, but the fascists have infested Westralia.

I read the Greens gun policy last week, christ help us if the latte manbuns get any real power.


You shouldn't assume these things.
Professional shooter and trapper
Trainer and consultant
animalpest
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1025
Western Australia

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Lazarus » 25 Aug 2022, 11:11 am

animalpest wrote:
You shouldn't assume these things.


That's a fairly broad statement, which things should I refrain from assuming?
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Oldbloke » 25 Aug 2022, 12:31 pm

I think we need to wait until there is more info made available
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by on_one_wheel » 25 Aug 2022, 3:01 pm

animalpest wrote:If I recall correctly, it was the NSC that funded a WA Police rejection of an application to licence for a 300 WM. The matter was taken to the WA SAT.

Well today, this case's decision has been published. And the case was lost.


Can you link an information source?
I can't seem to find anything about the case being finalised.
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3562
South Australia

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Lazarus » 25 Aug 2022, 3:36 pm

""He has told Adrian that he knows what he is talking about, because he (the officer) is or was a military trained marksman. He also told Adrian that he doesn’t need a .338 because a .270 is deadly at 1,000m and is used in Afghanistan…""

I've been looking for any references to .270s being used in Afghanistan, by anyone, nothing.

Everything from Martinis, SMLEs and shotguns through to AKs, no .270s.

Just because I can't find anything doesn’t mean there wasn't somebody in the country with one but......
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by mchughcb » 25 Aug 2022, 4:11 pm

Arguments with WAPOL on firearms is like arguing with a Victorian Health Bureaucrat about covid policy. It has nothing to do about safety and all to do about control of the masses.

Nobody gives a poop in Victoria if I want to use my 7x57R or 416 Rem Mag on deer. Seriously Nobody cares and I certainly don't want or need to listen to some twat telling me otherwise.
User avatar
mchughcb
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 1523
Victoria

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by animalpest » 25 Aug 2022, 8:12 pm

Lazarus wrote:
animalpest wrote:
You shouldn't assume these things.


That's a fairly broad statement, which things should I refrain from assuming?


Your first sentence, which in itself is a "broad statement".
Professional shooter and trapper
Trainer and consultant
animalpest
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1025
Western Australia

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Lazarus » 25 Aug 2022, 8:49 pm

animalpest wrote:
Lazarus wrote:
animalpest wrote:
You shouldn't assume these things.


That's a fairly broad statement, which things should I refrain from assuming?


Your first sentence, which in itself is a "broad statement".



You're right, I was generalising, but it was generalisation based on experience with popo over the years.

Some, without question, do have a high degree of knowledge and experience, however based on the the alledged assertion by the unnamed officer above he doesn't exactly sound like one of them.

Additionally, if "Adrian" shoots for a living (admittedly another assumption) then he would be likely to know a little more about the subject than someone who thinks a .270 would be a humane option at 1000m in every case.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by animalpest » 25 Aug 2022, 9:11 pm

That is also an assumption that Adrian "shoots for a living" based on the NSC calling him a "pest controller". If a person shoots the occasional rabbit or whatever is a "pest controller" then it is correct.

The NSC on this forum attacked the credibility of this forums members. Perhaps, just perhaps, they have done the same here. With people who may not be able to publicly defend themselves on forums such as this one.

Karma
Professional shooter and trapper
Trainer and consultant
animalpest
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1025
Western Australia

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Lazarus » 25 Aug 2022, 10:06 pm

animalpest wrote:That is also an assumption that Adrian "shoots for a living" based on the NSC calling him a "pest controller". If a person shoots the occasional rabbit or whatever is a "pest controller" then it is correct.

The NSC on this forum attacked the credibility of this forums members. Perhaps, just perhaps, they have done the same here. With people who may not be able to publicly defend themselves on forums such as this one.

Karma


Yes, I did note in my last comment that it was only an assumption that Adrian was a pro shooter.

I've only just rejoined this forum after several years away so I'm not aware of any rancour between NSC and members.

""If I recall correctly, it was the NSC that funded a WA Police rejection of an application to licence for a 300 WM""

I had not heard of the NSC until rejoining and thought it was for defending shooters when popo et al overstretched their authority, why would they fund wapol against a shooter?
I'm not disputing it, just wondering what the situation was.

Incidentally, do you think the cop was right in his opinion that a .270 is a humane choice to 1000m in every instance?

If Adrian wanted a 300WM, I doubt it was to "shoot the occasional rabbit".
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Oldbloke » 25 Aug 2022, 10:16 pm

Gents.

Chill-Pills-.jpg
Chill-Pills-.jpg (50.4 KiB) Viewed 5326 times
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Lazarus » 25 Aug 2022, 10:52 pm

Oldbloke wrote:Gents.

Chill-Pills-.jpg


:lol: :drinks:
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by animalpest » 25 Aug 2022, 10:57 pm

NSC didn't fund the Police, they funded the appeal.

As far as the issue of a .270 and Afghanistan, you only
have NSC saying so that this was actually said. Bear in mind that mediation are not to be used as evidence and that NSC where not actually there, one would not only question the accuracy but the the reason why this was raised by the NSC. Look at the other statements as shown by OB. Adrian argues that a .338 is not safe at ranges less than 500m. OFFS.

Bottom line. Fight the ball, not the man.
Professional shooter and trapper
Trainer and consultant
animalpest
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1025
Western Australia

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Oldbloke » 26 Aug 2022, 1:07 am

I thought he said:

"As Adrian argues, the 338 is not suitable for close range".

No mention of target species though.

But there is this too.

"Less funny is the belief that a regulator charged with firearm safety would somehow think it is safe or prudent to use a large calibre at close range"

Bit confusing to me. But in any case each situation in the field would be different.
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by cz515 » 26 Aug 2022, 8:14 am

animalpest wrote:NSC didn't fund the Police, they funded the appeal.

As far as the issue of a .270 and Afghanistan, you only
have NSC saying so that this was actually said. Bear in mind that mediation are not to be used as evidence and that NSC where not actually there, one would not only question the accuracy but the the reason why this was raised by the NSC. Look at the other statements as shown by OB. Adrian argues that a .338 is not safe at ranges less than 500m. OFFS.

Bottom line. Fight the ball, not the man.



I was thinking the same.... why is 338 not sutiable to be used under 500m?
When good men and women can’t speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when ego and self-preservation are more important than national security — then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil
User avatar
cz515
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1032
Victoria

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Boundry Rider » 26 Aug 2022, 8:41 am

I have it on good authority that the .338 in this case is a .338 Lap. Not sure why this hasn’t been mentioned in this thread so far. I find it quite extraordinary that WAPOL want someone to use a .338 Lap over a 300WM.

Remember this is only SAT and therefore not a legal precedent as such, as the next course of action should be a proper legal application in a court representing the interests of people as opposed to SAT arbitrating government statutory process.
Escaped WALcatraz
User avatar
Boundry Rider
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 195
Queensland

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by animalpest » 26 Aug 2022, 8:42 am

Yes CZ515, it was a weird argument. That and that the cost of 338 ammo was too expensive to justify using on anything less than camels.

His argument was that the .270 was ok out to 200m and the 338 was ok past 500m so he needed something in between. Plus the cost of the 338 (ammo and barrel replacement).

He is an amateur shooter and wanted the .300wm on camels, donkeys, horses, dogs
Professional shooter and trapper
Trainer and consultant
animalpest
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1025
Western Australia

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Boundry Rider » 26 Aug 2022, 8:46 am

on_one_wheel wrote:
animalpest wrote:If I recall correctly, it was the NSC that funded a WA Police rejection of an application to licence for a 300 WM. The matter was taken to the WA SAT.

Well today, this case's decision has been published. And the case was lost.


Can you link an information source?
I can't seem to find anything about the case being finalised.


Also waiting for a link to where it is published
Escaped WALcatraz
User avatar
Boundry Rider
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 195
Queensland

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Oldbloke » 26 Aug 2022, 4:31 pm

"I was thinking the same.... why is 338 not sutiable to be used under 500m?"

Agree, that's weird.
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Next

Back to top
 
Return to Western Australia gun laws