WA mental health checks becoming mandatory

[on_one_wheel]

Screenshot_20230209_181305.jpg (286.75 KiB) Viewed 1460 times

Screenshot_20230209_181323.jpg (283.47 KiB) Viewed 1460 times

[Oldbloke]

On the basis of that, one would be forgiven for a belief thay they're a pack of crooked pissheads.

And there's this:

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/ar ... /1w6gjyywb

Does not surprise me one iota.

[pagun]

Tbh they already do a mental health check in SA. Still plenty of numbers jobs end up with a firearms licence

No they dont

[pagun]

If this keeps going only the crims will have guns stashed awsy somewhere and we will be back to bow hunting again

Not in SA. They banned it about 6 months ago.

No they didnt

[pagun]

A good legal challenge will eat her alive.
She’s got no ground to stand on. She’s appropriated a notoriously violent gangland culture from a foreign country to draw statistics.
And then transposed that into rural Western Australia. It has no relevance outside her own fantasy.
We don’t have crips and bloods roaming the countryside.
She’s an idiot.

The US has moved from an Inner City Gangland Culture, to an Open Borders Narco-Gang Culture and a Nationwide Soft On Violent Crime Culture.

In New York, the Legislature passed a law requiring gun license applicants to turn over all of their social media accounts for scrutiny and a three year look-back so they can check for "Extremist Views". That's the kind of slippery slope you are all in for if your measure stands. Holding the wrong views and opinions will get you banned.

Hopefully the dont ask for our enoughgun transcripts lol

[womble]

Entered my office to find client had arrived early dressed in camo. The walls of my office and desk had guns drawn all over them with crayons.
Eventually convinced my client to come out from under my desk by rattling a jar of snap caps.
When asked why he needed this referral, client launched into a rant about myself telling him what he needs, ran out the door screaming “get to the chopper.

[bladeracer]

Entered my office to find client had arrived early dressed in camo. The walls of my office and desk had guns drawn all over them with crayons.
Eventually convinced my client to come out from under my desk by rattling a jar of snap caps.
When asked why he needed this referral, client launched into a rant about myself telling him what he needs, ran out the door screaming “get to the chopper.

Cool story

Courier pulled up yesterday, I stepped outside and he says "Are you off to war?"
I explained I dress like this every day.
He gets my parcel from his van so I ripped it open to show him more Auscam trousers and T-shirts
Platatac didn't have the camo cap I ordered so they sent me olive green, bugger.
I dress for my comfort and practicality, not anybody else's.

[Toadstool]

Cool story

Courier pulled up yesterday, I stepped outside and he says "Are you off to war?"
I explained I dress like this every day.
He gets my parcel from his van so I ripped it open to show him more Auscam trousers and T-shirts
Platatac didn't have the camo cap I ordered so they sent me olive green, bugger.
I dress for my comfort and practicality, not anybody else's.

Was sure you were being fictitious until the last 2 sentences, now i don't have a clue

[bladeracer]

Cool story

Courier pulled up yesterday, I stepped outside and he says "Are you off to war?"
I explained I dress like this every day.
He gets my parcel from his van so I ripped it open to show him more Auscam trousers and T-shirts
Platatac didn't have the camo cap I ordered so they sent me olive green, bugger.
I dress for my comfort and practicality, not anybody else's.

Was sure you were being fictitious until the last 2 sentences, now i don't have a clue

Nope, all true. I don't mind plain green gear but I prefer to be wearing something that breaks up my shape in the bush.
Can't see anything odd about the last sentence, it should apply equally to everybody - nobody's choices should be dictated by other people.

[Toadstool]

Can't see anything odd about the last sentence, it should apply equally to everybody - nobody's choices should be dictated by other people.

Ah its just that you followed a post with a made up story (crap, at least I think it is right!??) with what looked like another one. The last sentences were just more 'normal' so that's why I wasn't sure

[bladeracer]

Can't see anything odd about the last sentence, it should apply equally to everybody - nobody's choices should be dictated by other people.

Ah its just that you followed a post with a made up story (crap, at least I think it is right!??) with what looked like another one. The last sentences were just more 'normal' so that's why I wasn't sure

Oh, I missed the connection there
Yes, I hope Womble's anecdote wasn't true...unlike Uncle Bulgaria, he can remember the days when he wasn't behind the times

[womble]

Pure speculation as to how a mental health check might transpire with a sterotypical enough gun forum member.

I think the whole concept itself is a pointless endeavour and somewhat naive. We already have all the checks and balances in place.
When they’ve failed it’s been an unfortunate oversight from those tasked with imposing them. Pretty much every time.
Humans error. It happens. Sometimes with tragic consequences. Everyone tries their best to ensure the wrong people don’t have access to firearms. Lafos take on that responsibility also.
But a government dealing out blame wont help anyone.
As said it’s naive and hopefully wiser minds will prevail.

[Oldbloke]

National register is on the agenda too.

https://sportingshooter.com.au/news/it- ... -registry/

And.

https://sportingshooter.com.au/news/com ... ead%20More

[Oldbloke]

https://sportingshooter.com.au/news/was ... ead%20More

[rc42]

Any national registry will be a giant waste of public money for no benefit to anyone except the IT companies coding, installing and supporting it.

The current state registries are in utter disrepair with updates being the lowest priority work for weapons licensing divisions that can't even keep up with their high priority work. I've never even heard of a safe inspection where attending police had accurate data in their paperwork.

I suspect that none of the states will want the condition of their existing registries made public after all of the chest beating and propaganda surrounding why they think they are so important for 'public safety'.

[bigpete]

Tbh they already do a mental health check in SA. Still plenty of numbers jobs end up with a firearms licence

No they dont

They do as part of your background check when you apply to go for a gun licence. I had a friend 4 years ago get knocked back because she'd spent time in a mental institution

[pagun]

Tbh they already do a mental health check in SA. Still plenty of numbers jobs end up with a firearms licence

No they dont

They do as part of your background check when you apply to go for a gun licence. I had a friend 4 years ago get knocked back because she'd spent time in a mental institution

Aaaa right. I guess me workcover stress incidents wernt flagged.

Did she appeal? (the decision, not did you like her lmaaaaaa)

[bigpete]

Tbh they already do a mental health check in SA. Still plenty of numbers jobs end up with a firearms licence

No they dont

They do as part of your background check when you apply to go for a gun licence. I had a friend 4 years ago get knocked back because she'd spent time in a mental institution

Aaaa right. I guess me workcover stress incidents wernt flagged.

Did she appeal? (the decision, not did you like her lmaaaaaa)

Lol,she was appealing but turned out to be a using bitch. So I have no idea what happened in the end.

[S O K A R]

Pure speculation as to how a mental health check might transpire with a sterotypical enough gun forum member.

I think the whole concept itself is a pointless endeavour and somewhat naive. We already have all the checks and balances in place.
When they’ve failed it’s been an unfortunate oversight from those tasked with imposing them. Pretty much every time.
Humans error. It happens. Sometimes with tragic consequences. Everyone tries their best to ensure the wrong people don’t have access to firearms. Lafos take on that responsibility also.
But a government dealing out blame wont help anyone.
As said it’s naive and hopefully wiser minds will prevail.

I might be alone here, but I think it has very little to do with "public safety".
In my mind its pretty simple, they want less gun owners so by introducing mental health checks as a mandatory condition on a license that would potentially have to be supplied every 1-2 years, they can reduce that number drastically in the guise of "public safety".
As said, the current system works fine.
A few tweaks here and there would suffice...

They do as part of your background check when you apply to go for a gun licence. I had a friend 4 years ago get knocked back because she'd spent time in a mental institution

Indeed, because I had to visit a psychologist due to a workplace issue within 12 months of applying for my license I was flagged.
I had to provide a letter from said psychologist to prove my mental health was putting no one in danger if I owned a firearm.

Lol,she was appealing but turned out to be a using bitch. So I have no idea what happened in the end.

Isn't that the majority of women these days?

[animalpest]

[/quote]

Isn't that the majority of women these days? [/quote]

Ouch

[pagun]

Indeed, because I had to visit a psychologist due to a workplace issue within 12 months of applying for my license I was flagged.
I had to provide a letter from said psychologist to prove my mental health was putting no one in danger if I owned a firearm.

[/quote]

so basically they already do these tests..
So if its already legal whats this new thing theyre doin? or wasnt it legal before...?

[S O K A R]

so basically they already do these tests..
So if its already legal whats this new thing theyre doin? or wasnt it legal before...?

My opinion would be the same as I stated above, they want increased powers to knock back license applications and terminate current licenses in the guise of "public safety".
I imagine this new legislation if introduced would give them the power to "pull the plug" at any moment of their choosing with any excuse they wish & it will be up to you the firearm owner to jump through the hoops/costs associated with getting them back.
I assume there will be a few who will say "just take them" because they don't have the means to fight it.

"Oh you have a speeding ticket? we're going to take your license/guns as we believe your willingness to break the law makes you a risk to society."
"Mr smith, we believe that post you made on social media in 2014 about your political view makes you a potential threat to society, so we are going to take your guns"
I imagine this is the future for gun owners, these types of statements.
ASIO have already come out claiming that "anti vaxers" aka those who didn't give into the pressure to get the shot are the biggest domestic threat to national security due to being radicalized during the lock downs amongst other things.
So those firearms owners that didn't get it could potentially end up in hot water over that.

I believe this legislation will be put in place for no other reason then to increase the powers of the police to take your license should you do something they don't agree with or cause trouble for them.
To me it has nothing to do with public safety, as womby the wombat said we already have the infrastructure in place to deal with individuals who shouldn't have access to firearms, just needs a few tweaks here and there with potentially a few more staff so they can stay on top of it.

Hopefully people come to their senses and it doesn't see the light of day, but considering there are things already in place to tackle individuals with mental health issues I would fear that there is an agenda at play.
Would be great if any increase in powers were used for what they claim it will be used for, but with how licensing treats shooters in some states I would be concerned that it could potentially be abused.

Obviously this is all pure speculation, none of it may happen.
But they don't have the best track record when it comes to treating firearms owners fairly, so does make one wonder.

[Boundry Rider]

Indeed, because I had to visit a psychologist due to a workplace issue within 12 months of applying for my license I was flagged.
I had to provide a letter from said psychologist to prove my mental health was putting no one in danger if I owned a firearm.

so basically they already do these tests..
So if its already legal whats this new thing theyre doin? or wasnt it legal before...?[/quote]


For the re-write of the firearms act this year, this is one of many ways the McSmegol government will reduce firearms in the community, which is their ultimate goal.
WA firearms owners will be subjected to periodical mental heath checks for license renewal. The period is not set, 60 months would satisfy public safety, however public safety being clearly NOT the underlying agenda it could be set at a more onerus annual period.
You can be sure that firearms owners will be required to obtain this cert in their own time and at their own expense.

[animalpest]

There are a few grey areas.
For example, farmers employees can use those firearms on the property. But they are not the licensee.

Those working under a Corporate License (e.g. banks, security firms, government agencies) are not the licensee.

[Boundry Rider]

There are a few grey areas.
For example, farmers employees can use those firearms on the property. But they are not the licensee.

Those working under a Corporate License (e.g. banks, security firms, government agencies) are not the licensee.

Are you referring to the above as under the current act, or have you insight into the formulation of the new act?
This announcement by the police minister was referring to be included in the new act written to be enacted 2023.
Also the "working group" for the mental health requirement is insidiously vacant of any member representing the firearms owners or dealers. The minister confirmed this on air in a 6PR interview with Gary Atstead.

[womble]

I cant find the article I read earlier in the week, vic based. But it was touted as a good news story.
Saying police had removed this many guns this year, the number I can’t recall, but phrased along the lines of taken out of the community. And canceled 1,000 licences.
The 1,000 stuck in my mind as a perfectly round number. What are the chances they would land on that number in the course of cancellations of licences for genuine concerns.
A similar story in nsw listed 1,100 licences.
Probably just typical tabloid media. But it does make you wonder if there’s politics at play. One can imagine a back room deal where 1,000 licences was the trade of to get something through.

[Lazarus]

One can imagine a back room deal where 1,000 licences was the trade of to get something through.

Absolutely, yet another quota.

Like the others they "don't" have.

[Pennsylvania Yank]

In the US there are thousands of gun laws on the books. Any new laws are just to punish and disarm the lawful citizen. There is little doubt about that. We had a mass shooting at Michigan State University a couple of days ago. The perp was a 43 year old black man who killed himself later and had a letter in his pocket explaining his actions that the public won't ever see unless someone leaks it. It's hard to find a news story today that even mentions it. In fact, the very fact that the shooter was black and used a handgun means the media will bury this story very quickly. It just does not fit the government/media narrative. Shootings by white males with AR15's are in the news and talk shows and mentioned at political events for weeks and months and years.

This man was on police radar for many years. He was homeless at times, other times living with his father, he would routinely fire his gun out the window of his home in the city for target practice in his back yard. Police were called by neighbors, who it seems did nothing. Investigations now also found that he had a history of mental illness issues.

This mass shooter was arrested for illegal felony possession of a concealed firearm years ago but the prosecutor was a Soros backed loon who fast tracked him for an early release and later had implemented a new equity policy in charging to address "racial inequality". At the time, she said this about the new policy:

<<<<Dewane became prosecutor at the end of last year after Carol Siemon stepped down from the role. She had faced criticism from local police chiefs and sheriffs in August 2021 after implementing a new policy that dialed back most felony firearm charges.

"The new policy concerning Felony Firearm charging is related to dramatic racial inequity in how this and certain other laws have been charged and is not in any way linked to the goal that we share of keeping the public safe," Siemon said in a statement at the time. "The purported link between this policy and any future rise in gun violence is disingenuous and erroneous."<<<

So at the same time that the anti-gun lobby wants to ban all guns for self defense, they are dialing back felony gun charges for real criminals. This man, being black and falling under nonsense "racial equity" guidelines, was allowed to plea to a misdemeanor and instantly had 5 years shaved off his sentence and was not banned from buying guns in the future since the felony charge was not pursued, otherwise he'd still be in jail today instead of being a mass murderer. There is no institutional racism in America. It's all a sham.

This is why crime is spiking in America. Soft on crime prosecutors by design who drop felony charges and allow cashless bail for violent criminals.. George Soros and others who massively fund these kinds of left wing prosecutor races across America who implement these kinds of diabolical racial equity in charging policies are going to rot in Hell eventually but not before they destroy the country.

[NorthWester]

Interesting that the NSC has posts about both the Mental Health Checks and now the high power rifle debacle, but SSAA WA has nothing at all. You would think they would have something posted given this is happening in this state. The head office page of SSAA does have an article though. I guess I was expecting that the local branch would.

I'd also expect that the SSAA WA who have their stickers posted on many LGS would have set up a petition by now that WA LFAO's can sign.

For me the biggest issues I see with the introduction of regular checks, besides further delays, costs and perhaps confidential information breaches, is it would likely mean a visit to a registered psychologist to get a letter each year. Given there are approx. 90,000 gun owners in WA, that would mean an additional 90,000 appointments, potentially each year. A boon for the local Psyc's but one they will not be able to handle anytime soon. Likewise if this was palmed off to the local GP's. It's hard enough getting a doc appointment now, let alone after this.

But for me the real issue I have is that many of the LFAO's who might need a helping hand with their mental heath, sill simply choose not to get assessed or bring it to anyones attention through fear of loosing their firearms and the fact that in WA it would be near impossible to get them returned or relicensed. This will mean more suicides, not less.

[womble]

I disagree, ssaa have published several very well informed articles over the last week. And their radio interview with 6pr in Perth certainly didn’t pull any punches.
They’re going hard after the police minister and tearing everything he says to shreds.
And they’ve got a whole lot of stuff into the leading newspapers.
I’ve never seen ssaa go this hard before. They’ve always been compliant and respectful and worked for common ground.
But this time it’s really important. This is a breach of trust that’s been solidified for decades.

Whereas as the nsc posted something brief on their own website 10 days ago claiming they wrote to some mp’s about it and that’s it ?
Really get the impression they’re being kept out of the loop. They’re not really crash hot at building connections and contacts.
I hope I’m wrong but maybe now’s the time to put some of that money to good use.

This is a threat we’ve never faced before. There was no crime where innocent victims were killed. Nothing happened.
And yet they’re dealing out punishment to everyone once again. It’s unprecedented.
Some poor bastard who reloads an exotic caliber for target shooting and never hurt anybody in his life is being punished. For what.
Because he’s alone. Vulnerable. And being targeted by bullies. No other reason.
And they will come to his family home. And they will gang up on him. Because now he’s a criminal too, merely for the purpose of treating him like one. No other reason, but for an excuse to exercise their power over him and demean him publicly.
Because nothing is beneath wapol.
Everybody has to put pen to paper. Every lafo in the country. Hand written, politely and singed with sincerity. But proudly reject this shame that has been cast apon you. You have done no wrong, caused no harm.
Wapol started this fight. We will end it. Make your stand. Let this be the catalyst that unifies us.

This is the design of their offensive. Publicly shaming with media backing.
In this country we have a small minority of pro gun, an even smaller minority of anti gun.
And in between a giant mass of indifference and general apathy.
Honestly their design is not winning over that giant mass. They’re not impressed by this behaviour.
This design is also their weak point and we can breach it. It will be their undoing.

Do appreciate the nsc wring letters of course, but they have a war chest of our money. Hopefully they see the seriousness of what’s at hand. Step up.