NSC Funded SAT case lost

[on_one_wheel]

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

Agree, that's weird.

Because under 500 meters it's a highly expensive overkill, also theses the added inherent hazard of pinking away with rounds that have the potential to drive straight through smaller prey at reduced distances, ricochet and travel a very very long way.
I reckon it makes sense.

Imagine the Registry telling someone they don't need a .22lr to shoot rabbits because they already have a 50bmg which is more than capable of dropping a rabbit.

It's also comparable to telling someone they can't buy any more golf clubs because all they need is a driver and a putter.

This rubbish (our illustrious gun laws) are all under the guise of public safety, yet who are they protecting by denying him of this additional rifle?

[Oldbloke]

On.one.wheel. agree100%. I understand that.
It is suitable just over gunned I guess.But not a huge difference between 300WM and 338Lap.

But I do understand he wants some options/choice. And so he should if he wants it.


I'd like more info. It's a bit confusing to me.

[on_one_wheel]

It's a reasonable step up from .300 wm, they produce substantially more energy

Screenshot_20220826-195637_DuckDuckGo.jpg (201.25 KiB) Viewed 4791 times

Here in SA, .338 lap is considered unobtainable and 300wm is about as big as you can go. I'm not sure but .338wm might be possible here.

[Oldbloke]

Oh, I looked at it earlier in the old ADI manual.
Assuming 200gr bullet.
338 lap abt 3100fps
300 win mag abt 2800fps

Obviously about 300fps is significant. I don't know if the donkey would notice.

When I said it was confusing. I meant the way the info is presented. I'm trying to make sense of the for and against arguments.

If he wants to fill the gap, good luck to him. But to me none of the arguments are very logical. And so much of it depends on the actual hunting situation, and target animal.

[Boundry Rider]

Apparently,

It was agreed the .270 wasn’t valid for 200 - 500yards.

Advantage v disadvantage that were considered and lost:

Ammo cost: $7 v $3.50 argument =
Recreational shooting is for enjoyment therefore suck it up and pay; shooter is not obliged to take the shot; double the cost is not excessive, therefore all aforementioned is not a valid argument.

Shorter barrel life: =
Suck it up and pay, not a valid argument.

Over-penetration: =
Shooter is responsible for backdrop, not a valid argument.

Firearm weight: =
5-6kg v 8-9kg; very little difference, not a valid argument.

[Oldbloke]

The cops are arguing does not "need" and he argues he "wants".

I'm guessing the cops are saying he needs to prove he "needs" it. (Cant do the job without it) As opposed to I want it because of this nice bling etc.

I wonder what the Act and Regs say?

[Faedy]

What crap.
So bloody picky

[on_one_wheel]

Here's the thing, we've already satisfied the Registry with genuine need when we applied for our license.

What the Registry is doing is acting like typical power tripping public servants by denying subsequent permit to acquires.
Why? Is the public at danger if someone has more thay X firearms?
If he satisfies the storage requirements, has somewhere to use it, is still considered a fit and proper person.... what's the problem?

[Boundry Rider]

Unfortunatley WA requires a new application and satisfy every punctuation mark in the act & regs each additional firearm.
The initial application for your first firearm is basically only worth your superfluous plastic photo ID, and the once only training requirement.
This rejection of the additional firearm application and subsequent failure to win the application by appeal to SAT doesn't pass the pub test at all

[mchughcb]

NSC case lost, well you can't win them all. NSC has also won a few cases too.

[on_one_wheel]

I don't believe the case is actually over, I'm seeing loads of speculation but nothing to back it up.
We know the parties didn't manage to come to any agreement during mediation but there's nothing beyond that.

I'm still waiting on animalpest to let us know what his information source is but for some reason he's not responding

Ground control to animalpest, do you have a copy ?

[animalpest]

Haha, yes OOW I am here!
The case was published on SAT decision base on line.

[Boundry Rider]

I don't believe the case is actually over, I'm seeing loads of speculation but nothing to back it up.
We know the parties didn't manage to come to any agreement during mediation but there's nothing beyond that.

I'm still waiting on animalpest to let us know what his information source is but for some reason he's not responding

Ground control to animalpest, do you have a copy ?

The case is over, rejected as per the very breif points I posted earlier. At some point someone can/will post a link to the very detailed published finding.

[on_one_wheel]

Haha, yes OOW I am here!
The case was published on SAT decision base on line.

Cheers AP, well that really sux (you probably missed my earlier post when the thread got busy)
I was hoping you'd miss read NSC's latest update on the matter.
I can understand their reluctance to report losses but it's not the best form to go silent on the matter.

Just for the sake of closure, even a simple "unfortunately we've lost the case, the decision was x y z, but we'll continue to fight against unnecessary restrictive decision making that does nothing to protect the safety of the general public"

It's matters like these that make people like me fill out more PTA's due to FOMO
I'm extremely tempted to have a crack at the biggest, most powerful cal I can get my hands on in my state for the purpose of hunting larger game than my current "biggest" cal is capable of and to experience and enjoy the challenge of target shooting with a heavy recoil rifle.

In SA they ask for justification but generally don't deny permits, they only raise an eyebrow if you already have the particular cal, but can still be satisfied with a good explanation.
Fortunately here in they don't have over inflated egos like the wankers in WA

I wonder how much money those idiots at wapol wasted keeping a single firearm out of a licensed shooters hands ? My guess would be around the 10k mark.

[dnedative]

Western Australia.... oh yeah the mine site to the west I was terrified about flying over when I went on my overseas holiday - If the plane had to make an emergency landing they would of locked us all up for 2 weeks at our expense.

Not surprised they f*** over their own citizens, pretty sure there are people here who shoot foxes and rabbits with 50BMG's - Magnum sports have sold quite a few over the years. NSW police dont give a f***, Cat B's a Cat B.

[S O K A R]

If the bloke is worried about round cost, he would be better off getting rid of the 338 lap and going with the 338 win mag
Give or take around $5-6 a round, will do everything you want
To me a 338 lap is in the same ball park as a 50bmg...its not something you "need" here in aus, far better hunting rounds out there
Its more of an ego boost so you can say you have one

[cz515]

Sokar.

I thought that... but then a few people will say that's their right is to have any and all calibres they want. And who is the police to decide they cannot have X calibre.

Which opens a huge can of worms

[on_one_wheel]

It openss up a huge can of fuddery.

Big cal shooting is a discipline of its own, not many people can handle shot after shot without developing a serious flinch, dislodging retinas and turning your brain to mush.
It deserves its place in shooting disciplines.

It's a shame our resident 50cal shooting member has go e quiet.
I'd love to see his response to "you don't need that... it's just for your ego" .you'd get flamed

[S O K A R]

It's a shame our resident 50cal shooting member has go e quiet.
I'd love to see his response to "you don't need that... it's just for your ego" .you'd get flamed

My comment was aimed at hunting/vermin control lol
punching paper/steel at long distances is another bag of fish, nothing against people having big rifles

To be fair, its a forum...i'd be disappointed if I didn't offend someone at some point

[Oldbloke]

If the bloke is worried about round cost, he would be better off getting rid of the 338 lap and going with the 338 win mag (300WM)
Give or take around $5-6 a round, will do everything you want
To me a 338 lap is in the same ball park as a 50bmg...its not something you "need" here in aus, far better hunting rounds out there
Its more of an ego boost so you can say you have one

My thoughts too. And drive/walk 200 yards closer.

[animalpest]

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

[Oldbloke]

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

I say walk more. Longest ever for me would be 200 yards I reckon.

[geoff]

Its incredible reading some of the commentary on here alongside the SAT decision. You're all banging on like it's some kind of super secret squirrel information that animalpest is refusing to provide. If you want to argue passionately about it, you're welcome to put some effort in and read it:

https://ecourts.justice.wa.gov.au/eCour ... Filter/SAT

I would advise anyone from interstate who is reading that decision and commenting passionately in this thread about the findings, and what was and was not said, to maybe do a bit of googling and put two and two together.

EDIT: Some of the wording used by WAPOL here is very informative:

"does not align with community expectations."

Community expectations is one of the buzzwords they have been throwing around quite a bit lately.

[Boundry Rider]

Finally a link thanks

[geoff]

Finally a link thanks

It would have taken about 8 seconds to google "WA SAT Decisions" and open it yourself if you didn't need to be spoon fed

[animalpest]

Its incredible reading some of the commentary on here alongside the SAT decision. You're all banging on like it's some kind of super secret squirrel information that animalpest is refusing to provide. If you want to argue passionately about it, you're welcome to put some effort in and read it:

https://ecourts.justice.wa.gov.au/eCour ... Filter/SAT

I would advise anyone from interstate who is reading that decision and commenting passionately in this thread about the findings, and what was and was not said, to maybe do a bit of googling and put two and two together.

EDIT: Some of the wording used by WAPOL here is very informative:

"does not align with community expectations."

Community expectations is one of the buzzwords they have been throwing around quite a bit lately.

[Boundry Rider]

Finally a link thanks

It would have taken about 8 seconds to google "WA SAT Decisions" and open it yourself if you didn't need to be spoon fed

My info isn't web sourced.
Not my job to spoon feed a link I don't have to the forum. However I'll provide a heads up of what I know if it's relevant, and appropriate for all parties to do so.

[cz515]

Finally a link thanks

It would have taken about 8 seconds to google "WA SAT Decisions" and open it yourself if you didn't need to be spoon fed

Boom...mic drop



Sorry always wanted to say that

[Boundry Rider]

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?

[Boundry Rider]

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.