NSC Funded SAT case lost

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

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by on_one_wheel » 29 Aug 2022, 10:05 am

Boundry Rider wrote:So now a link has been posted, people have had a chance to read through the transcript and adult content is able to be posted.

How was the case lost?


I'm still waiting to be further spoon fed by geoff
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3561
South Australia

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by on_one_wheel » 29 Aug 2022, 10:22 am

Boundry Rider wrote:
animalpest wrote:Yep, lots of shooters today think they are snipers and want to shoot at animals up to 1500m away.


A shooter I know of took that very argument to appeal a rejection about 5-6 years ago and somehow won his application for a 338LAP. Not sure of the points of argument that were won and lost but this was his grounds for genuine need, and he got his rifle without too much fuss.

Don’t know of many that would even find an animal at that distance, and no it wasn’t applied for in camel country.


I couldn't imagine myself shooting animals at extended ranges, I don't like seeing animals suffering.
However, my guess would be, perhaps flighty brumbys that have a flight zone the size of Tasmania?

Iv seen brumbys like that somewhere NW of Marree but there was no sense of urgency to destroy them, the stallion ploughed right through the dog fence getting tangled for almost long enough to get himself shot (we weren't out shooting at the time so the rifle was unloaded on the window rack)
After ripping a hole through that fence big enough to drive through the sense of urgency went up a notch or two.
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3561
South Australia

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by geoff » 29 Aug 2022, 1:41 pm

Boundry Rider wrote:So now a link has been posted, people have had a chance to read through the transcript and adult content is able to be posted.

How was the case lost?


The applicant put forward a weaker case than the respondent. Expecting to beat WAPOL with a whinge about ammo cost and barrel burning was always going to be a spectacular waste of time. The SAT deals with legislative administration - nowhere in our legislation is ammunition cost and barrel life a consideration.

I found the discussion about over penetration interesting. The key argument against this grounds for application were that overpen is always a potential problem and its up to the shooter to manage that by selecting the appropriate cartridge and ammunition for the job and terrain (a position I agree with) - the applicant would have been better placed to agree with this sentiment, in my opinion, and respond with "Yes, thats exactly why I choose a 300WM to use in place of my 338LM" or something to that effect and describe what he believes are the differences in overpen risk between the two rounds for his intended circumstances, and why that means he should be granted the 300WM licence. At no point in the published remarks was there any information from the applicant about bullet construction and size etc etc. The expert witnesses skilfully discredited the applicant on a point of difference which the applicant should have actually used to their advantage in my opinion.

It reads as though the applicant was not suitably prepared for this fight which is incredible, given that they've had two years to draft a better argument and this is all they came with.

Side note - there's always a heated debate about the Ella Valla property letters and it is no secret that WAPOL hate them and the shooters who use them, despite them being lawful at the time of application. So if I were charged with making life hard for someone doing something which is ostensibly legal, I might choose to look for any nooks and crannies I could find in their application without saying the quiet bit (about their bought property letter) out loud. As a hypothetical thought exercise - do we think the application might have been more successful the first time around if it were initially supported by a property letter that WAPOL deem to be more "legitimate"? We'll never know.
User avatar
geoff
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 200
Western Australia

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by Boundry Rider » 29 Aug 2022, 3:38 pm

I'm surprised that this statement recurred on multiple points as further grounds for rejection.

"Further, there was no
evidence that the applicant intended to surrender the .338 rifle in favour
of the .300 rifle"

I consider the case to be poorly defended. I think that they expected the 338Lap overall reputation would cause the 300WM to be seen as a more favourable and fit for purpose option should that situation arise, which it is for any competent shooter.
Escaped WALcatraz
User avatar
Boundry Rider
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 195
Queensland

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by S O K A R » 29 Aug 2022, 7:49 pm

Boundry Rider wrote:
animalpest wrote:Yep, lots of shooters today think they are snipers and want to shoot at animals up to 1500m away.


A shooter I know of took that very argument to appeal a rejection about 5-6 years ago and somehow won his application for a 338LAP. Not sure of the points of argument that were won and lost but this was his grounds for genuine need, and he got his rifle without too much fuss.

Don’t know of many that would even find an animal at that distance, and no it wasn’t applied for in camel country.

I know of someone here in tas that won an appeal, tas pol made his life hell moving foward as far as odd timed/very frequent inspections/future pta's etc
I've also heard stories of police in other states revoking someones licence on BS grounds after they had won an appeal...

Curious, has something similar ever happened to anyone here?
S O K A R
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 219
Tasmania

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by on_one_wheel » 29 Aug 2022, 8:21 pm

S O K A R wrote:
Boundry Rider wrote:
animalpest wrote:Yep, lots of shooters today think they are snipers and want to shoot at animals up to 1500m away.


A shooter I know of took that very argument to appeal a rejection about 5-6 years ago and somehow won his application for a 338LAP. Not sure of the points of argument that were won and lost but this was his grounds for genuine need, and he got his rifle without too much fuss.

Don’t know of many that would even find an animal at that distance, and no it wasn’t applied for in camel country.

I know of someone here in tas that won an appeal, tas pol made his life hell moving foward as far as odd timed/very frequent inspections/future pta's etc
I've also heard stories of police in other states revoking someones licence on BS grounds after they had won an appeal...

Curious, has something similar ever happened to anyone here?


Old mate from Alice Springs knows that all too well
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3561
South Australia

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by geoff » 01 Sep 2022, 12:31 pm

This is just such a terrible analysis of the decision:

https://nationalshooting.org.au/shock-c ... distances/

If he is a professional shooter, why wasn't that a factor int he SAT Decision? Anyone who's acually read it can see that they discuss the entire appeal from the perspective of a recreational shooter.

I expect nothing less from the organisation trying to convince shooters in Vic to vote Lib/Nat hahaha
User avatar
geoff
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 200
Western Australia

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by animalpest » 01 Sep 2022, 3:13 pm

geoff wrote:This is just such a terrible analysis of the decision:

https://nationalshooting.org.au/shock-c ... distances/

If he is a professional shooter, why wasn't that a factor int he SAT Decision? Anyone who's acually read it can see that they discuss the entire appeal from the perspective of a recreational shooter.

I expect nothing less from the organisation trying to convince shooters in Vic to vote Lib/Nat hahaha


He is not a professional shooter. Hence that argument never came up in the SAT case.
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 cz515 » 01 Sep 2022, 7:45 pm

In the nsc initial article they called him a pro shooter
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 animalpest » 01 Sep 2022, 9:04 pm

cz515 wrote:In the nsc initial article they called him a pro shooter


They called him a "pest controller". Inferences.
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 » 02 Sep 2022, 8:40 am

So now more about the dialogue prior to the appeal becomes available;

“The police refused Adrian permission to get the .300WM, saying that he could use the .270 pump action to cull feral animals at a range of up to 500 metres”.
I’m calling this a stupid and self serving statement/ position by WAPOL firearms.

“The SAT member stated a further reason for her decision was that Adrian had not agreed to WA Pol’s request that he relinquish his .338 in order to obtain the .300.”
So now we understand that the real reason you cannot have a 300WM between your 270Win and your 338Lap is directly due to you not obeying the directives advised by the governing body and nothing to do with public safety, best practice or the interests of the community.

I’ll bet we all have a landholder that will agree that their favorite shooter is the one who chooses the correct and adequate caliber for purpose, and here we have the governing agency denying the applicant the opportunity to do so.
Escaped WALcatraz
User avatar
Boundry Rider
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 195
Queensland

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by geoff » 02 Sep 2022, 9:31 am

animalpest wrote:
geoff wrote:This is just such a terrible analysis of the decision:

https://nationalshooting.org.au/shock-c ... distances/

If he is a professional shooter, why wasn't that a factor int he SAT Decision? Anyone who's acually read it can see that they discuss the entire appeal from the perspective of a recreational shooter.

I expect nothing less from the organisation trying to convince shooters in Vic to vote Lib/Nat hahaha


He is not a professional shooter. Hence that argument never came up in the SAT case.


I did assume as much but didn't want to state anything as a fact that I can't confirm myself. Reading the SAT decision makes it pretty clear that he's not a professional.

The NSC article is just garbage start to finish.
User avatar
geoff
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 200
Western Australia

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by cz515 » 03 Sep 2022, 8:51 am

Hey hey geoff, don't say that, you will get corn fritters all boiled up and making popcorn.

Saying that i prefer popcorn over cornpop. :lol:
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 Amityville » 04 Sep 2022, 8:18 pm

animalpest wrote:
cz515 wrote:In the nsc initial article they called him a pro shooter


They called him a "pest controller". Inferences.


The third "expert" on the panel seemed to take the middle ground on this one, I think he was referred to as a "commercial fisherman" in the SAT findings?

You seem to know a bit about the case, do you know whom engaged/paid the third expert and aslo as an expert / buiness owner in the industry would you advise an employee to use a 338 Lapua for shooting feral dogs / pigs/ goats etc at 200+ meters in a profressional capacity?
Amityville
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 24
Western Australia

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by mchughcb » 05 Sep 2022, 7:12 am

The barriers to entry just went up a notch.
User avatar
mchughcb
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 1521
Victoria

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by animalpest » 05 Sep 2022, 9:30 am

Not sure who engaged/paid for the third expert and which you are referring to.

No, I wouldn't have my employees shoot pigs and dogs with a .338 because I don't have one and don't need one.
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 Amityville » 05 Sep 2022, 11:57 am

animalpest wrote:No, I wouldn't have my employees shoot pigs and dogs with a .338 because I don't have one and don't need one.

Agree - Neither would I.

Would a 300Win MAg be suitable for shooting feral dogs / pigs on a suitably large sized property like Eudamullah station?
If one were unable to get closer than 200m but still wanted to ensure quck humane kill for accurate shots up to 500m?
Amityville
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 24
Western Australia

Re: NSC Funded SAT case lost

Post by animalpest » 05 Sep 2022, 12:10 pm

Bit overkill and you sure don't need that for dogs. My 25/06 would be suitable. Best calibre/cartridge for dogs is a .243 and anything from .222 up to that and a bit more is suitable.

A .300WM wont kill a dog any more humane.
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 geoff » 06 Sep 2022, 11:26 am

Amityville wrote:
animalpest wrote:No, I wouldn't have my employees shoot pigs and dogs with a .338 because I don't have one and don't need one.

Agree - Neither would I.

Would a 300Win MAg be suitable for shooting feral dogs / pigs on a suitably large sized property like Eudamullah station?
If one were unable to get closer than 200m but still wanted to ensure quck humane kill for accurate shots up to 500m?


I have some experience in trapping, tracking and shooting dogs in pastoral rangelands country, among other pests. Not as much as professionals in this thread of course, but I am not a yokel and it is something I have worked on maintaining good skill in. The idea that recreational shooters on a shootin trip for the weekend are going to be sniping dogs at 500m is pure unadalterated fantasy, let alone 200m. It tends to be the domain of internet hypothetical debate more than real world scenario. Calibre choice is such a rabbit hole to go down, but my 243 gets a guernsey for rangelands duties far more than any other rifle and I very rarely feel undergunned.

The recreational shooter visiting a station comes across dogs by accident (the dogs accident, not theirs). They are very wiley and wise to human presence - most rec shooters will spend days and days driving around aimlessly convincing themselves that there are no dogs to be found on the property. If you do happen across a dog, it will be the sort of interaction where it scoots across a track in front of you and stops briefly. You might be lucky to get your gun out the window in time, but probably not. You'll return to the homestead and tell stories for years about how you just missed that giant bloody dingo.

That all changes if you are in the habit of consciously tracking dog sign and running trap lines, learning the country etc. You are better off trying to trap that dog you spied 500m away than shooting it in my humble opinion. The absolute worst thing that can happen is that you miss and teach a dog to be even more shy of humans - I dont care how good of a cool guy target range sniper you are, you can't afford to muck around with dogs in the scrub and a miss is a terrible outcome if a particular dog does need to be killed.

As a rule of thumb, I would wager that if you find yourself in court arguing with the cops about whether you need a 300wm to shoot dogs on a station,it's because you probably don't. I've never been to Ella Valla or Eudamullah but I imagine that they are not reliant on fee paying amateurs from Perth to take care of dogs that are really a problem for their stock...Pastoralists who own their own shooting range, are s7 poison dealers and have a family name spread across the shooting game are probably pretty self sufficient. Which is probably also part of why WAPOL thinks their letters aren't much use.
User avatar
geoff
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 200
Western Australia

Previous

Back to top
 
Return to Western Australia gun laws