W.A. new 5 & 10 firearm limits

[NorthWester]

I think they could be easily challenged with existing discrimination laws. Throw in some slander and defamation with their very public denigration of lafos.
You’re not factoring in the world’s dumbest police force.[/quote]

The Police Commissioner has previously applied for an exemption to the Disability and Discrimination Act in relation to exercising his powers to revoke firearms licences. Thankfully this was rejected. See link below.

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/exemption-decision-wa-firearms-act

[Fionn]

Lots of laws lawfully discriminate against people and not all discrimination is unlawful.

Simple example is against the law for someone under 18 to be served alcohol in a pub.

It's discrimination based on age, but lawful.

Those are poor examples, no one under 18 has ever been able to be served alcohol. A four year old can't drive a car
down to the shops etc etc etc etc . They never had those rights and aren't losing them.

No they are not poor examples, they are simple examples like I said. A more complex example would be drivers over the age of 80 are required to get a medical.

Its still age based discrimination.

[Fionn]

All of these new proposed laws are fairly easy to challenge in court and overturn.
The public safety justification is based on less guns overall in the society equals less gun homicides, suicides.
Generally that’s true worldwide in most countries, not all. And not so in Western Australia. There’s no statistics to back that with.
Actually since the 96 debacle they’ve increased in Western Australia, marginally.
So really this is easy money for some good lawyers.
It’s just a waste of the state’s money to push ahead with this. They can’t supply the resources to implement it in a timely manner. And it’s fairly apparent that the minister is not listening to expert advice. So perhaps he’s not coping with the job.

Under what grounds would the laws be able to be challenged and overturned in court?

Justification is only necessary to get the laws passed in parliament when the government needs support or to appease the public, but as I said before I don't think the majority would be against the new laws.

The resources to implement it wouldn't be that great, a bit of work at the introduction, but that would return to a lower level then they are currently after the laws are in practise.

I think they could be easily challenged with existing discrimination laws. Throw in some slander and defamation with their very public denigration of lafos.
You’re not factoring in the world’s dumbest police force.

Its not slander or defamation when its directed towards a group of people, Slander and defamation have to be directed to an individual to be call this.

[Jackaroo]

No they are not poor examples, they are simple examples like I said. A more complex example would be drivers over the age of 80 are required to get a medical.

Its still age based discrimination.

Still a poor example, there would be utter outrage if one mandatorily lost their legally owned car, property that they had paid for by confiscation by the government, enforced by a States Police Force and their drivers license summarily cancelled from the mere fact of an Australian citizen having reached their 80th birthday,

[Fionn]

No they are not poor examples, they are simple examples like I said. A more complex example would be drivers over the age of 80 are required to get a medical.

Its still age based discrimination.

Still a poor example, there would be utter outrage if one mandatorily lost their legally owned car, property that they had paid for by confiscation by the government, enforced by a States Police Force and their drivers license summarily cancelled from the mere fact of an Australian citizen having reached their 80th birthday,

The difference is that you don't need permission to own a car, but you do need permission to own a firearm.

But taking your point that you claim its discrimination based on age, the easiest way to address the problem is make medicals and mental health assessment mandatory for every licensed firearm owner.

This approach is a win/win for the WA government, they can claim they took on feedback/advice that imposing an age limit was discriminatory so they applied the requirements to everyone.

I believe this is the path they will try and go down.

[womble]

I give up.
Just build a bigass wall to stop this cancer spreading.
If we’re going to have an east and west Germany / North and South Korea type situation we might as will do it properly.

[Oldbloke]

W.A. members should read this. Perhaps something can be done if shooters get off their arses.

https://politicsreloaded.com/2023/10/06 ... -gun-laws/

[bladeracer]

W.A. members should read this. Perhaps something can be done if shooters get off their arses.

https://politicsreloaded.com/2023/10/06 ... -gun-laws/

Does anybody know if that is correct, that only 20% of shooters belong to a club in WA?

[Dess787]

Most gun clubs have around 300 members. I dont think there are more than 30 clubs in WA of note, so that's around 9000 people,

[bladeracer]

Most gun clubs have around 300 members. I don't think there are more than 30 clubs in WA of note, so that's around 9000 people,

That's bad then if they get their way with their proposed property laws. It's going to be way worse than I'd expected if they manage to restrict property owners to only allowing five or ten people to have access to each property if more than 80% of WA firearm owners are reliant on property letters to hold a licence.

[Faedy]

I went to the local club today.
I reckon 75% of people there were 1st timers.
Great to see the interest to join up.

[Dess787]

I went to the local club today.
I reckon 75% of people there were 1st timers.
Great to see the interest to join up.

There are limits as to how many new members clubs can push through their club at a given time. E.g. ISSF clubs usually require a certain amount of air pistol/centre fire shoots and they have only so many club guns

IPSC clubs have the IPSC training course and again are limited at how many new members can go through the training at one time, limited by instructor ratio

[Faedy]

Correct
Need to attend a select no of times at this club.
You can use your own guns or club guns.
Great set up

[Dess787]

The problem with all of these law changes related to weapons is they never get reversed even when proven ridiculous. It's a one way street

Nunchaku are still banned in a lot of countries . Butterfly knives are also banned when much more dangeous concealing knives are not.

[Oldbloke]

The problem with all of these law changes related to weapons is they never get reversed even when proven ridiculous. It's a one way street

Nunchaku are still banned in a lot of countries . Butterfly knives are also banned when much more dangeous concealing knives are not.

Jump to 6.40 lol

https://youtu.be/EVIOmU3l0Zo?si=dFz8GksfmxNersNJ

[moopere]

Why do thet get away with this rubbish?
1. The media supports it.
2. There arnt enough of us to swing the election results. In any case people dont usually vote for a hobby. They vote fot their finances or a job etc.
3. All the clubs, associations etc are failing to work together.
4. SSAA needs to grow balls (along with the other big associations) and show some leadership.
5. And a small percentsge of us do the wrong thing, giving the rest of us a bad name. (and the media just love it)

I'm quite black pilled about the whole situation.

Point 2

The reality is, as you point out, theres not enough of us left and of those few even fewer who would make this an election issue. We exist now only at the pleasure of our lords and masters.

Point 3 could work, but only if it were to leverage point 2 - ie, pull the clubs together and fight at the electoral level. We need the equivalent of the NRA in the USA. But even the gigantic and powerful US NRA leans heavily on the US second amendment ... something we don't have.


Point 4

I think the SSAA at this point is not much more than controlled opposition. So many clubs require SSAA membership, so the money must be flowing freely, but I don't see them mounting high profile legal challenges or supporting the sport from the powers intent on crushing it.


Ultimately, its point 2 that matters. Everything else is just wishes, hopes and dreams. Without MP's who are willing to take up the fight, there is basically no hope and individual like minded MP's who don't benefit from a large support base will simply get clipped.