W.A. new 5 & 10 firearm limits

[bladeracer]

Looks like a 5 limit for hunters.
Bloody hell.


https://sportingshooter.com.au/news/con ... sultation/

If they get the laws they're pushing even that will be too many as you won't be able to hunt anywhere anyway.

[Jackaroo]

I regularly shoot with five guys in their 80's competing in Single Action and they can sometimes whip my arse and many others 20 years their junior. How bloody OUTRAGEOUS to make it mandatory that when someone reaches 80 years of age their guns are confiscated by the Govt and their licence cancelled......what is Australia suddenly worse than Nth Korea???????????

[womble]

Interesting way to encourage seniors to leave the state. I think you’d have a solid case for discrimination though.

[Oldbloke]

Interesting way to encourage seniors to leave the state. I think you’d have a solid case for discrimination though.

They know that moving IS and leaving family just isnt going to happen for the vast majority.

Interesting thought, but the cost of fighting the gov would be huge.

[womble]

Interesting way to encourage seniors to leave the state. I think you’d have a solid case for discrimination though.

They know that moving IS and leaving family just isnt going to happen for the vast majority.

Interesting thought, but the cost of fighting the gov would be huge.

Just makes your case stronger.

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.

[Dess787]

So what is the approval process for these new laws ? They don't just get announced and come into effect do they ?

[Oldbloke]

So what is the approval process for these new laws ? They don't just get announced and come into effect do they ?

Just need to pass both lower and upper house.
And ATM the gov has the votes in both.

[Die Judicii]

Look on the bright side at least all those threads titled "if you could only have 5 guns what would they be" may be of some practical use now.

I'd be guessing this was where the WA boofheads got the idea and Max number from.

Afterall,,,,,,,,,, would they have the brain cells to have come up with it as an origininal thought ????

Sooner or later the voting power will have to have an effect,,, surely ?

[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.

[Jackaroo]

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

How is it possible in Australia in 2023 to discriminate against an 80+ cohort sector of the Australian community?

Name another enacted law that so discriminates so vehemently and unjust based solely on nothing more than a persons age.

[Oldbloke]

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

How is it possible in Australia in 2023 to discriminate against an 80+ cohort sector of the Australian community?

Name another enacted law that so discriminates so vehemently and unjust based solely on nothing more than a persons age.

You are right IMO 80+ are being discriminated against.

This is just my understanding.
Once the Act passes through both houses (and ALP has the numbers) i dont think there is much that can be done.

But if the law is unconstitutional then perhaps someone could fight a case. ($$$$) Then if you win in the high court (?) I think all that would need to happen is the WA gov go back and make a change to the Act.
And that could potentually be worse. (Its only 3 or 4 firearms now?)

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)

[Dess787]

How long will it take for the new ACT to go through the houses ? Weeks ? months ?

[Fionn]

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

How is it possible in Australia in 2023 to discriminate against an 80+ cohort sector of the Australian community?

Name another enacted law that so discriminates so vehemently and unjust based solely on nothing more than a persons age.

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.

[Oldbloke]

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

How is it possible in Australia in 2023 to discriminate against an 80+ cohort sector of the Australian community?

Name another enacted law that so discriminates so vehemently and unjust based solely on nothing more than a persons age.

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.

Yep, im afraid i have to agree. Driving would be another. But the argument would be for safety reasons in both cases.

Many times its been proposed that once you hit saaay
80 (?) You need to retest your driving licence. Dont disagree actually. Firearms could be same.

[Fionn]

Yep, im afraid i have to agree. Driving would be another. But the argument would be for safety reasons in both cases.

Many times its been proposed that once you hit saaay
80 (?) You need to retest your driving licence. Dont disagree actually. Firearms could be same.

I think personally it will be something similar, once you hit a certain age you require a medical or such for a firearms licence. I don't think it would be a blanket age ban.

But that's often the problem with government, you can't rely on them making sensible decisions.

[Fionn]

How long will it take for the new ACT to go through the houses ? Weeks ? months ?

Months.

Here is how laws are made in Western Australia and its similar in the rest of Australia.

https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/WebCMS ... ve-process

To make a law, Parliament enacts legislation which is also known as statutes or Acts of Parliament.

An Act of Parliament starts as a Bill in one of the Houses. A Bill is the draft of a proposed law. Most Bills deal with management of public affairs and the implementation of Government policy and are introduced by a Minister, but a member of either House is entitled to introduce a Private Member's Bill.

To become an Act, a Bill must pass through a number of formal stages. These are -

The Introduction and First Reading
A Minister or member of either House may introduce a Bill. This is usually agreed to without debate. Immediately after introduction, the Bill is "read" a first time; that is, the Clerk reads the title of the Bill.

The Second Reading
The member/Minister in charge of the Bill starts the second reading debate with a speech that explains the intended effect of the proposed legislation. All members are entitled to make one speech during that debate with the member/Minister in charge of the Bill having a right of reply in which the various arguments raised in debate are answered.

The Second Reading is the most important stage through which a Bill passes because the whole principle or policy of the Bill is at issue. At the end of the Second Reading the main vote on the Bill is taken.

Committee of the Whole House
When a Bill has passed the Second Reading, the House forms itself into a 'Committee', presided over by the Chairman of Committees.

The Bill is then dealt with clause by clause to ensure that when it becomes an Act, it will carry out Parliament's intention. At this stage, amendments can be moved to the clauses of the Bill. In some cases a Bill may be committed to the Committee of the Whole House more than once, mostly to tidy up amended clauses.

Referral to Other Committees
In the Legislative Council, Bills may be referred to an appropriate standing committee for its consideration and report to the Committee of the Whole House. This is a good example of how the Legislative Council performs its review function. Similarly, in the Legislative Assembly, Bills may be referred to a select committee or a legislation committee.

It is possible to bypass the Committee of the Whole House stage when a Bill is not controversial. In other words, if all Members of a House agree with the Bill, it need not be referred to the Committee of the Whole House and may proceed directly to the Third Reading.

The Third Reading
Once the House has dealt with the Bill in the Committee of the Whole House, the next stage is the Third Reading. Although this stage is mainly formal, the Bill is occasionally debated again when its subject matter is controversial.

Presentation to the Other House
The Bill is then sent to the other House where, following receipt by Message (a formal means of communication between the Houses) rather than introduction, the same procedure takes place.

Assent by the Governor
Having passed through both Houses, the Bill is presented to the Governor, who assents to it in the name and on behalf of the Monarch. On assent, the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.

Proclamation
Some Acts of Parliament specify that they, or portions of them, do not come into operation until they are proclaimed by order of the Governor (on the advice of the Executive Council). A notice of proclamation must be published in the Western Australian Government Gazette.

Disagreements between the Houses
If the two Houses cannot agree on amendments made to a Bill, each may appoint a number of members to meet and try to settle the difference. This procedure is known as a Conference of Managers. If the Conference of Managers fails to reach agreement, the Bill fails.

Financial (Money) Bills
Under section 46 of the Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899, all Bills that involve expenditure of public moneys must originate in the Legislative Assembly. This is to ensure that management of public expenditure remains in the hands of the Government (which is formed from the party or coalition of parties having a majority in the Legislative Assembly). Although money Bills must originate in the Legislative Assembly, the Legislative Council can veto the Bills and may amend certain types of money Bills. The interpretation of section 46 has been the source of many disputes between the two Houses.

[Oldbloke]

Mmmm, interesting. I knew there was a couple of "readings" and at times went through a "committee" process. And law isnt simple, but surprised its that long winded.

[Fionn]

Act's are generally very hard to change, Regulations are much easier. I haven't looked into WA laws and Regs enough to know if it would require a change to the Act or Regs.

Regs can be changed within weeks and don't need to go through the above process.

[Jackaroo]

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.

Completely different story to someone who is losing something and getting something compulsorily taken away.
They may have shot their whole lives, it might be the only thing that they have in regards to social activity, they might be the Club President
or Club Secretary of their club, THEY are being wholly discriminated against solely based on age for a mandatory losing of something that
could amount to their health and well being and enjoyment of life.
Be nice being 76, then 77, then 78, then 79 and knowing that in months you will mandatorily lose what you enjoy to do which may be an integral part of your life simply because you're turning 80.

[Oldbloke]

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.

Completely different story to someone who is losing something and getting something compulsorily taken away.
They may have shot their whole lives, it might be the only thing that they have in regards to social activity, they might be the Club President
or Club Secretary of their club, THEY are being wholly discriminated against solely based on age for a mandatory losing of something that
could amount to their health and well being and enjoyment of life.
Be nice being 76, then 77, then 78, then 79 and knowing that in months you will mandatorily lose what you enjoy to do which may be an integral part of your life simply because you're turning 80.

I agree, next no more fishing for those who cant swim, or are over 80. Where does it end.

To be fair Fionn was just pointing out its happening already. He didnt say he agreed.

Government seems to have the ability to do it and only time they are made accountable is during an election.

All this BS can easily be fixed. Convince all the clubs and associations to work together.

[Jackaroo]

I agree, next no more fishing for those who cant swim, or are over 80. Where does it end.

To be fair Fionn was just pointing out its happening already. He didnt say he agreed.

Government seems to have the ability to do it and only time they are made accountable is during an election.

All this BS can easily be fixed. Convince all the clubs and associations to work together.

I wasn't having a go at Fionn, apologies if it came across like that.

Oz's problem is that we have a small population and even smaller population that are gun owners ,,,, but the BIGGEST problem is that with that small population of gun owners we are fragmented into an unbelievably incredible amount of shooting peak bodies and shooting organisations that are populated with 'seat warmers' that enjoy their status and travel allowances, accommodation and free meals and will not work together with the each other. Time and time again this has proven to hurt us all.
We are ridicously splintered and fragmented and nothing has changed since the Romans when they worked out that to divide, was to conquer.

[on_one_wheel]

It's about time they did something to curb the horrendous spate of firearms offences committed by the elderly in this country.
You can't walk down the street without seeing some silly old demented bastard waving his boom stick around because he's mistaken it for an umbrella on his way out of the house.

[womble]

Right so on your 80th birthday you are deemed a threat to society.
Good job Wapol, keeping us safe from the geriatric crime wave that has been sweeping the state

[womble]

Not unlike the crime wave of lafos who bought a 6th firearm and instantly went on an crime spree .
Another job well done Wapol, you saved us again and foiled their evil plans.

[Bazz]

Monday 16th of October is apparently the date the Cook Gov't will make the announcement over here on what's the final proposal. Mandatory health checks for seniors (and possibly all of us not seniors), limits etc. I'm not holding my breath on anything remotely reasonable....

The way I see it, I've got about 10 days to convince the family there's a better life over east. Can anyone confirm if the tunnel has been completed?

[womble]

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.

[womble]

There’s two relatively immediate effects from these new laws.
One being an increase in the number of firearms being reported lost or stolen.
The other an increase in firearms trading, good for business. No small increase either, when everyone reshuffles to get their top 5 list. A lot of rinse and repeat with cream on top for dealers.
With that comes a lot of movement of firearms and that’s not so great from a policing perspective.
Longer term people will pool together in various ways to share own firearms. And down the rabbit hole of even more loopholes to close, whilst simultaneously achieving nothing to fight crime. Far removed from any actual criminal activity until you can find ways to criminalise it in your desperate manifestation of an authoritarian police state.

Certainly no immediate effect on public safety. There’s no link between murders and people who own 6 firearms. It truly is that ridiculous.
Long term effects on public safety theres certainty no positives. Just an increase in unregistered and unregulated firearms. There is a potential for those to end up in the wrong hands. It’s rare, but it happens. There’s no lawful market left for them now.

If you want to ensure safe responsible firearms ownership in your community rule number one is engage with that community.
Let them know you care and trust them to be responsible. Build a bond and hold them to it and they will step up to it.
It’s really not that difficult to get them on your side.

All I’ve seen so far is the exact opposite. Condemnation , belittling and sheer arrogance.
Quite remarkably naive, immature and foolhardy.
Nethertheless worthy of their reputation as the world’s dumbest. And that really is a great shame. Because only recently they restored faith in their competence when they saved an abducted child from a remote campsite. And were rightly proud of themselves. Genuinely amazing and impressive work worldwide.
Their pride matters. The reputation of your police force matters. It’s important.
Tasking your members with ineffective duties targeting innocent people is demoralising.

As said earlier, need to have a look at your minister. He does not inspire confidence. Needs to be addressed. Needs someone of moral fortitude to intervene.

[bladeracer]

There’s two relatively immediate effects from these new laws.
One being an increase in the number of firearms being reported lost or stolen.
The other an increase in firearms trading, good for business. No small increase either, when everyone reshuffles to get their top 5 list. A lot of rinse and repeat with cream on top for dealers.
With that comes a lot of movement of firearms and that’s not so great from a policing perspective.
Longer term people will pool together in various ways to share own firearms. And down the rabbit hole of even more loopholes to close, whilst simultaneously achieving nothing to fight crime. Far removed from any actual criminal activity until you can find ways to criminalise it in your desperate manifestation of an authoritarian police state.

Certainly no immediate effect on public safety. There’s no link between murders and people who own 6 firearms. It truly is that ridiculous.
Long term effects on public safety theres certainty no positives. Just an increase in unregistered and unregulated firearms. There is a potential for those to end up in the wrong hands. It’s rare, but it happens. There’s no lawful market left for them now.

If you want to ensure safe responsible firearms ownership in your community rule number one is engage with that community.
Let them know you care and trust them to be responsible. Build a bond and hold them to it and they will step up to it.
It’s really not that difficult to get them on your side.

All I’ve seen so far is the exact opposite. Condemnation , belittling and sheer arrogance.
Quite remarkably naive, immature and foolhardy.
Nethertheless worthy of their reputation as the world’s dumbest. And that really is a great shame. Because only recently they restored faith in their competence when they saved an abducted child from a remote campsite. And were rightly proud of themselves. Genuinely amazing and impressive work worldwide.
Their pride matters. The reputation of your police force matters. It’s important.
Tasking your members with ineffective duties targeting innocent people is demoralising.

As said earlier, need to have a look at your minister. He does not inspire confidence. Needs to be addressed. Needs someone of moral fortitude to intervene.

I don't know whether "share owning" firearms will work in WA. You can't borrow firearms from other people, you need to be co-licenced with the specific firearm, which might well count as being one of your five.

[womble]

Unbelievable. That’s like not being able to borrow someone else’s car even though you have a drivers license.
The deprivation of any slight of liberty or individual autonomy in this state is terrifying. And it’s way too close to home.

[bladeracer]

Unbelievable. That’s like not being able to borrow someone else’s car even though you have a drivers license.
The deprivation of any slight of liberty or individual autonomy in this state is terrifying. And it’s way too close to home.

That's been the case in WA for many, many years, back to the early nineties at least.