If you could change one gun law

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

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by cavok » 23 Oct 2014, 11:47 am

Warrigul wrote:
cavok wrote:not sure why noise suppressors are used, the most useless thing ever invented. On a pistol they are useless, that's any pistol that requires a holster. Then when rifle shooting ear muffs are good, or what about the flash suppressors on the front of rifles, can't have both. Behind a .233 is fine, some larger calibres when shooting in the open is not an issue, its when shooting a ranges that have overhead tin roofs and concrete floors, the noise is unbearable. Many shooters I know like to hear the big bang, so if you have a suppressor the next guy wont.


A very ignorant statement, I won't go right into it as it has all been said many, many times before. We often critiscise the public for making ill informed comments and it is disappointing when we do it ourselves.

If you have used them you know the benefits, it is people whom have had no experience in their application and hunt minimally that have no appreciation of the positives.


Apologies if what I wrote offends you. I stand by what I wrote, on holstered pistol they are useless, yes or no. Some pistols are very noisy and the person standing nearby RO requires 2 sets of ear protection.
On a rifle with a muzzle break or flash suppressor, not much use there?
My statement is not ignorant, it is my point of view. When shooting in the great outdoors I do like to know if someone else is in close proximity or even 1 mile away, I know this by hearing the gunshot, one then proceeds with caution in that direction. Thank you. :o
“When all about you have lost their heads and you remain calm, perhaps you do not understand the problem”.
Per ardua ad astra.
User avatar
cavok
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 353
Victoria

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by mausermate » 23 Oct 2014, 12:21 pm

sorry got a double.
Last edited by mausermate on 23 Oct 2014, 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Now that's been said, who's coming for a shot?
User avatar
mausermate
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 238
New South Wales

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by Baldrick314 » 23 Oct 2014, 12:37 pm

cavok wrote:Apologies if what I wrote offends you. I stand by what I wrote, on holstered pistol they are useless, yes or no. Some pistols are very noisy and the person standing nearby RO requires 2 sets of ear protection.
On a rifle with a muzzle break or flash suppressor, not much use there?


Just because your firearm experience centres around pistols you shouldn't assume everyone else's does. For pistols a suppressor is unnecessary but for long arms it is a very useful tool.

As to your statement above of course a suppressor can't be used in conjunction with a muzzle break or flash hider, noone tried to argue that it could.
.177, .22lr, .22-250R, 2x .308W, .30-30W, 7.62x54r, 8x56r, 9x19, .357 Mag, 12GA
User avatar
Baldrick314
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 980
New South Wales

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by mausermate » 23 Oct 2014, 12:54 pm

cavok wrote:My statement is not ignorant, it is my point of view. When shooting in the great outdoors I do like to know if someone else is in close proximity or even 1 mile away, I know this by hearing the gunshot, one then proceeds with caution in that direction. Thank you. :o


I understand "point of view" and all good.

However, what if they have not fired yet? or you hear no gunfire? do you presume no one is hunting in that direction/area?

I know with me that I often only fire one shot and it is at the end. Even then, it is sometimes really hard to distinguish which direction that one shot came from.

Many hunts I don't fire any. Are you assuming that I am not there?

If you don't use gunfire as your only reason for "proceed with caution" , it would not matter if the gun was silent or not?
Now that's been said, who's coming for a shot?
User avatar
mausermate
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 238
New South Wales

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by Warrigul » 23 Oct 2014, 1:56 pm

cavok wrote:Apologies if what I wrote offends you. I stand by what I wrote, on holstered pistol they are useless, yes or no. Some pistols are very noisy and the person standing nearby RO requires 2 sets of ear protection.
On a rifle with a muzzle break or flash suppressor, not much use there?
My statement is not ignorant, it is my point of view. When shooting in the great outdoors I do like to know if someone else is in close proximity or even 1 mile away, I know this by hearing the gunshot, one then proceeds with caution in that direction. Thank you. :o


Well I would challenge that, I think it unlikely you have ever used a silencer and I doubt you have spent much time in the bush. I can go a few sessions without even firing and if it is deer season there will be in all likelihood only a single shot.

I have no interest in putting a silencer on any of my pistols, silenced pistols weren't common even before PA.

But the whole point of my post was that even if we have no interest in a particular type of shooting or equipment we shouldn't knock it(especially if we are ignorant of the benefits and applications) as it will come back to bite us all as a group in the end.
Warrigul
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1104
-

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by cavok » 23 Oct 2014, 2:12 pm

Baldrick314 wrote:
cavok wrote:Apologies if what I wrote offends you. I stand by what I wrote, on holstered pistol they are useless, yes or no. Some pistols are very noisy and the person standing nearby RO requires 2 sets of ear protection.
On a rifle with a muzzle break or flash suppressor, not much use there?


Just because your firearm experience centres around pistols you shouldn't assume everyone else's does. For pistols a suppressor is unnecessary but for long arms it is a very useful tool.

As to your statement above of course a suppressor can't be used in conjunction with a muzzle break or flash hider, noone tried to argue that it could.


The suppressor is definitely a useful tool, rip the rifle barrel out, have it threaded and away you go. Noise reduction by what, 50% great. If you have ever fired a .44 magnum would understand that a suppressor would be good, even my race gun, shooting major load, 1350ft per/s, should be mandatory, especially after 300++ rounds.

Someone else wrote I have never used a suppressor, 100% correct, totally illegal in sunny Australia. Must remember to advise army of its fantastic use, they will rip all their flash suppressors of in a minute. Silent warfare, and anyone who wants to shoot black powder and shotguns, not here you wont.
At little river all rifles without a suppressor will be banned, OH&S issues, don't want to fit one to your rifle, leave the range.
“When all about you have lost their heads and you remain calm, perhaps you do not understand the problem”.
Per ardua ad astra.
User avatar
cavok
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 353
Victoria

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by Chickenhawk » 23 Oct 2014, 2:52 pm

oowess wrote:The one thing I'd change would be taking the Government out of it all together.

I'm not a child, I can take care of myself and not do anything stupid.


This one :)
User avatar
Chickenhawk
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 149
Western Australia

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by Baronvonrort » 23 Oct 2014, 3:31 pm

It would be easier to just say which laws we should keep.

1.Background checks for criminals and mentally ill to qualify for licence.
2.Safe storage

There are some guns i don't like yet my dislike for them does not extend to saying others who might like them should not have them, if you are a law abiding firearm owner you should be allowed a greater choice of tools.
Baronvonrort
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 836
New South Wales

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by Warrigul » 23 Oct 2014, 5:19 pm

cavok wrote:
Baldrick314 wrote:
cavok wrote:Apologies if what I wrote offends you. I stand by what I wrote, on holstered pistol they are useless, yes or no. Some pistols are very noisy and the person standing nearby RO requires 2 sets of ear protection.
On a rifle with a muzzle break or flash suppressor, not much use there?


Just because your firearm experience centres around pistols you shouldn't assume everyone else's does. For pistols a suppressor is unnecessary but for long arms it is a very useful tool.

As to your statement above of course a suppressor can't be used in conjunction with a muzzle break or flash hider, noone tried to argue that it could.


The suppressor is definitely a useful tool, rip the rifle barrel out, have it threaded and away you go. Noise reduction by what, 50% great. If you have ever fired a .44 magnum would understand that a suppressor would be good, even my race gun, shooting major load, 1350ft per/s, should be mandatory, especially after 300++ rounds.

Someone else wrote I have never used a suppressor, 100% correct, totally illegal in sunny Australia. Must remember to advise army of its fantastic use, they will rip all their flash suppressors of in a minute. Silent warfare, and anyone who wants to shoot black powder and shotguns, not here you wont.
At little river all rifles without a suppressor will be banned, OH&S issues, don't want to fit one to your rifle, leave the range.



A silencer doesn't totally silence a centerfire.

FWIW I used them extensively on centerfire and rimfire rifles before they were banned in Australia and I have family members that wouldn't be without them in NZ, they have numerous benefits both from an OH&S and game taking view point. They are mandatory in Britain when less than 1km from habitation.

You do none of us any favours by dribbling rubbish, like one of the ill informed anti gun brigade, simply because you are ignorant on a subject. They were originally banned due to ignorance and mis information.
Warrigul
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1104
-

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by cavok » 23 Oct 2014, 5:29 pm

Thank you for your kind post. Ill informed is a bit harsh, and when they were banned I was not responsible, and I still believe I am entitled to my point of view,, hence calling someone ignorant is not really polite, but you have now said it.
A silencer doesn't totally silence a centerfire.
FWIW I used them extensively on centerfire and rimfire rifles before they were banned in Australia and I have family members that wouldn't be without them in NZ, they have numerous benefits both from an OH&S and game taking view point. They are mandatory in Britain when less than 1km from habitation.
You do none of us any favours by dribbling rubbish, like one of the ill informed anti gun brigade, simply because you are ignorant on a subject. They were originally banned due to ignorance and mis information.
Look out here comes Captain Fart Face!
“When all about you have lost their heads and you remain calm, perhaps you do not understand the problem”.
Per ardua ad astra.
User avatar
cavok
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 353
Victoria

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by Warrigul » 23 Oct 2014, 5:48 pm

cavok wrote:Thank you for your kind post. Ill informed is a bit harsh, and when they were banned I was not responsible, and I still believe I am entitled to my point of view,, hence calling someone ignorant is not really polite, but you have now said it.


This is my last post on the subject- you may consider ignorant as "not really polite", but quoted from the dictionary:

"Ignorant | Define Ignorant at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant

Ignorant, illiterate, unlettered, uneducated mean lacking in knowledge or in training. Ignorant may mean knowing little or nothing, or it may mean uninformed about a particular subject: An ignorant person can be dangerous"


Therefore when it comes to silencers you are ignorant and your point of view supports the anti gun fraternity.

As I said this is my last post on the subject.
Warrigul
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1104
-

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by mausermate » 23 Oct 2014, 6:14 pm

Warrigul wrote:
cavok wrote:Thank you for your kind post. Ill informed is a bit harsh, and when they were banned I was not responsible, and I still believe I am entitled to my point of view,, hence calling someone ignorant is not really polite, but you have now said it.


This is my last post on the subject-

come on Warrigul, this was just starting to get good!
way better than some of the other dribble about non gun topics that grace this forum from time to time.

BTW. M2c. I have said this on this forum before but to legalize silencers may mean their compulsory use in some places, as is the law in England. This can create trouble, cost etc. "You can't shoot, you don't have a suppressor on your gun" type of crap. Therefore, a careful and sensible plan on their use would need to be introduced. I am not sure if that is possible, considering the current anti gun lobby that exists in this country at this time.
However, my property surrounds a small village, I would love to be able to fit a suppressor to control feral animals and roo's (under permit) around the village without upsetting my neighbors.
Additionally, how could it work that one on the range has a suppressor and one not. To allow, I would think, would be to make all have.
I would love to read more...non ignorant :lol: comment.
Now that's been said, who's coming for a shot?
User avatar
mausermate
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 238
New South Wales

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by cooker » 24 Oct 2014, 7:47 am

Matt1 wrote:That is the case in NZ I believe.


We got one thing right here at least :lol:
User avatar
cooker
Private
Private
 
Posts: 78
New Zealand

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by Diamond Jim » 16 Mar 2021, 10:13 pm

1. remove bans on semis and pumps
2. remove calibre limits for handguns
3. Bring WA into line with other states: PTA, like-for-like, hunting in state forests, duck and quail seasons
Listing your firearms is as good as a fingerprint. Why supply a DNA sample?
User avatar
Diamond Jim
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 254
Western Australia

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by pomemax » 16 Mar 2021, 10:32 pm

For what it is worth you can have a Sound moderator /Silencer in NSW .
IF you have the correct Paper work I know of 2 people that have them One on a .22 CZ
and the other on a 7.62 x 39 semi Auto .
pomemax
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1039
New South Wales

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by deye243 » 16 Mar 2021, 10:37 pm

A return to the same gun laws I grew up with pre 1986.
deye243
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1127
Victoria

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by Farmerpete » 17 Mar 2021, 12:46 am

I personally would like to see the scrapping of the classification system.
It seems entirely contradictory to say ok we believe your not going to go on a killing spree so we'll let you own a gun but in the interest of public safety you can only own certain guns.
I cant understand how denial of certain types of firearms from fit and proper persons improves public safety
Farmerpete
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 277
Queensland

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by bigpete » 17 Mar 2021, 4:10 am

Put all muzzloader firearms,including pistols,into category A
bigpete
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1815
South Australia

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by Bugman » 17 Mar 2021, 6:16 am

Semi auto rifles and shotties and that includes pump action shotgun, should be allowed.
User avatar
Bugman
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 523
New South Wales

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by ChrisPer » 17 Mar 2021, 11:07 am

All of the above.
Plus for WA: a shooters licence for CATEGORY like the other states.
That way I could store my Army son's private rifle in my safe, and a farmer whose rifle is malfunctioning can borrow mine until his is fixed, and I can carry my mate's rifles home if he is injured trailriding.

Also, the delay in WA! We used to do ordinary additions or an original licence for a low-power in an HOUR. Why do they need to steal three months of our lives to run a corrupt system to make things harder for ORDINARY GOOD GUYS?

Answer: they don't. Its an abuse of power for Police policy instead of leaving the public the freedom that the Act and Regulations have not extinguished..
ChrisPer
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 12
Western Australia

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by boingk » 17 Mar 2021, 9:02 pm

deye243 wrote:A return to the same gun laws I grew up with pre 1986.


We have a winner.

Faiing that, repeal of Howards law.

- boingk
Nil
boingk
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 335
Other

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by deye243 » 17 Mar 2021, 11:44 pm

boingk wrote:
deye243 wrote:A return to the same gun laws I grew up with pre 1986.


We have a winner.

Faiing that, repeal of Howards law.

- boingk


20210318_004303.jpg
20210318_004303.jpg (161.02 KiB) Viewed 541 times
deye243
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1127
Victoria

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by womble » 18 Mar 2021, 5:54 am

I would be entirely satisfied with that if it was Victoria specific. Provision that all new applicants are throroughly vetted. Because that was’nt the case then.

But thats actually exactly what NZ introduced post Tarrant. What we had here up till 96 in victoria.
I genuinely believe that would bring about a lot of improvements throughout society here. Particularly in teaching young people to be responsible.
We expect them to be responsible but we don’t don’t entrust them with responsibility anymore.
There’s really no better way than giving them the ultimate responsibility to live up to.
And that’s far wider reaching than just our clusterfuck of a firearms act. That’s just where it began.
Today we teach them from a young age that we don’t trust them.

Queensland and Tasmania had different laws relating to high powered semi-auto though pre 96, or lack thereof.
Just give me all the bacon and eggs you have.
User avatar
womble
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 542
Victoria

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by Shootermick » 18 Mar 2021, 8:05 pm

Lorgar wrote:Suppressors.

I'd still like my ears to work over the next few decades.


I’ll second that one.
I emailed the Vic firearms register last year to see if an exemption for suppressors was available to primary producers, be good for a bit of pest control. I’ve already got my cat c and thought a suppressor may not be out of the question either.
Obviously, it was.
Shootermick
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 357
Victoria

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by on_one_wheel » 18 Mar 2021, 8:22 pm

The problem with suppressors is that they turn a regular shooter into an instant assassin.

I've seen the movie, I know it's true.
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2257
South Australia

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by Shootermick » 18 Mar 2021, 8:30 pm

on_one_wheel wrote:The problem with suppressors is that they turn a regular shooter into an instant assassin.

I've seen the movie, I know it's true.


Bunny assassin is all I wanted to be.
Shootermick
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 357
Victoria

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by Larry » 19 Mar 2021, 6:57 am

The semi Auto roll back would be the most symbolic rule change that could ever be made. One that I think every shooter would feel they have had a win whether they directly wanted one or not. It would also be the one rule change that would super charge the firearm industry in Australia. Can you imagine the number of guns that would be purchased in record time if that were to come in? Not to mention all the other peripheral equipment that goes along with every gun sale. All those great accessories.
Larry
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 207
-

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by Ziege » 19 Mar 2021, 10:07 am

simple I would add a whole new one, at constitution level saying,

"the right to own, posses, carry, use, manufacture, sell or buy, trade any rifle, pistol, gun, bow, crossbow, or variant thereof, can not, will not, shall not be infringed, banned, restricted, prohibited, limited, in any capacity whatsoever by any one at any time in any government level or organisation now or in the future regardless of sentiments, opinions or incidence."

then they can suck my fat one all day long.
Ziege
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 965
Western Australia

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by womble » 19 Mar 2021, 3:01 pm

It’s necessary to do away with appearance laws.
I believe it’s doable because it has allowed individual states to make a mockery of uniform gun laws.
It will continue to deteriorate because the firearms sold here are manufactured o/s.
They are not manufactured to meet our domestic appearance laws. Technically that’s not even possible unless we commission manufacturers o/s with stipulations to build to this particular standard for our domestic market.
But we don’t have a standard of “appearance” to adhere to.
Simply because no-one has ever been able to clarify these laws. And theres a long history of that and it has been inherently problematic.
No doubt there many other good arguments to put forward. Appearance is really only relevant to a point in time.

Also with some hard swallowed diplomacy, it’s something we could get a big united push for.
Because we would have to go large and go hard. Relevant people would have to call in favours.
And why not. They are overdue.
Just give me all the bacon and eggs you have.
User avatar
womble
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 542
Victoria

Re: If you could change one gun law

Post by Shootermick » 19 Mar 2021, 5:25 pm

One strange part of the license categories is that you can have a pump action centrefire rifle on cat b, but need cat c for a pump action shotgun. Is one really any more dangerous than the other???
A long range 308 for example vs a short range but wide pattern 12 gauge.??
In Victoria anyway, I’m not sure about the other states.
Shootermick
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 357
Victoria

PreviousNext

Back to top
 
Return to Western Australia gun laws