Tougher Laws in W.A?

[Archie]

So I'm watching late night television last night and a news bulletin shows a story with the W.A. police commissioner calling for tougher gun laws for all due to a very organised break-in at a gun shop where about 130 handguns were stolen. WTF!!!
You blokes in W.A know anything about this?

This copper wants tougher laws, but not for all.
I can safely assume he didn't call for politicians to lose their right to conceal carry a handgun for self-defence.
One would think that in WA, the toughest part of Australia for gun laws, the politicians would show a bit of solidarity with the public and give up their own guns.
Whenever I see a politician, I wonder if they're "carrying".
Because if they are, that makes them the greatest hypocrites of all time.

Whenever I see a politician, I wonder if they're "carrying" an ounce of common sense. In your case I don't need to wonder. This idea of yours is ridiculous. Got an example? One, documented example from a credible source?

We're talking about a bunch of people that can't actually get around to checking their citizenship is in order. They aren't masterminds, they're muppets. Half of them are half drunk half the time, and all of them are argumentative. You seriously think someone wouldn't have given the game away with a negligent discharge by now. Do you honestly think that if they were walking around with concealed handguns it wouldn't be widely known by now? And I mean widely known outside of the paranoid conspiracy nut community.

[duncan61]

Well said.

[Lorgar]

@bladeracer, Daddybang and 1886

I'm not perpetuating a myth, only attempting to establish the facts.
Merely citing legislation does not always indicate what is actually allowed. Bladeracer has therefore not answered the question of whether politicians are allowed to carry merely by indicating it isn't expressly permitted in statutes.
In my last comment, I made it clear I thought it was a good idea if people asked politicians whether they had some sort of exemption to carry.
Ask, got that? Not accuse, but ask. See the difference?
But yes, I definitely have the "impression" they do have an exemption. This impression has not been formed without reason-
-I have read or taken part in several debates about this topic, and no-one until now has expressly said that it is only a myth. The issue has been sidestepped, joked about or ignored, but no one has ever come out and denied it until now. Why not?
-Other countries do have special legislation for politicians, such as Germany.
-Politicians are capable of being total hypocrites on this matter for example this woman:

You say you're attempting to establish the facts, but you don't seem to want to hear them, mate.

1) You said politicians have a right to concealed carry, Bladeracer asked you to provide a link to legislation outlining this.

You refused.

2) Blaceracer referenced several of our Acts and how they did not permit conceal carry for politicians.

You responded by saying citing legislation doesn't refute what you said. If citing legislation doesn't confirm what the law is, then what does?

Instead you're suggesting there is some unwritten agreement, whispered behind closed doors, that all political and law enforcement agencies agree to that the public is unaware of?

3) You said yourself you are "under the impression".

So it's an impression, you're not certain? You have nothing to confirm it? Why hold to the idea then, contrary to the legislation you're being directed to?

4) You say your impression is informed because:
a) You've taken part in debates in the subject
b) No one has previously suggested it was a myth
c) Other countries have special legislation for politicians
d) Politicians are capable of being hypocrites.

Your participation in debates has no bearing on what is or is not the law.

That no one has contradicted your impression is equally meaningless.

Other countries... are other countries. The laws of Germany or anywhere else you might reference in response mean nothing in Australia.

As with all your other examples, the character flaws of people who happen to be politicians is irrelevant.


Do you want establish the facts? Really? Or do you just want people to agree with you and lend support to this secret legislation conspiracy?

Because it would seem they've been reasonably well established, and all you've done so far is ignore information you've been presented with and doggedly stick to your unsupported impression.

Something to think about. Cheers

[Blackened]

This has veered way off topic, guys.

The OPs question is about tougher Laws in W.A.

If you want to continue discussing concealed carry by politicians start a new topic so you're not hijacking this one.

[Oldbloke]

Well done Lorgar.

[duncan61]

Lets get back on topic.Can anyone suggest what these :Tougher laws:will be.I live here and think the system works fine.I have had the same firearms for years.If I wish to purchase an Adler or Pardus 5 shot lever there are dozens of them in my LGS.I say the bunnies have got out of control at the farm and it will get approved.I have not had an I.D. card for some time cos I lost my wallet and it was my fault.I can get a replacement in no time as I will do next week at the post office.I have still been buying shotgun ammo and licenced 3 firearms recently at Barrys shop without a card that were in storage cos me mate got in some bother with a domestic 3 years ago and is still trying to clear it all up.I have done a co user for him to help.I can have handguns and big bore safari rifles and keep them at home and hang them on the wall as long as I lock them away in a gunsafe when I go out.Call me a fudd but I have yet to see a W.A. shooter complain about the laws here.It used to be real hard to get any rifle above hornet till the new A/B system.Now its a piece of cake.

[1886]

duncan61, These new "policy laws" don't affect shooters.

They are only additional security issues dealers will have to comply with if they wish to continue to deal in handguns.

I agree as I have a laugh at our eastern friends when they have a shot at WA as they seem to be more concerned than most of us do. In reality there's not much difference other than the wait periods and ironically QLD now appears to be getting worse. We can still get what we need if all boxes are ticked so I don't have any major problems. WA Club shooters can also have what they can't.

We also currently don't have their crazy transport laws only having to take "reasonable care" and the Commissioner himself in the recent Law Reform Commission review submitted the following;

"When firearms are in transit, for instance conveyed in a car boot or back seat, the owner being present would be sufficient security. If a vehicle is left unattended for a short period (e.g. parked outside a shop to purchase goods), WA Police would expect the firearm to be removed from common view, the bolt and/or magazine separated from the firearm and the vehicle to be locked."

[bladeracer]

Lets get back on topic.Can anyone suggest what these :Tougher laws:will be.I live here and think the system works fine.I have had the same firearms for years.If I wish to purchase an Adler or Pardus 5 shot lever there are dozens of them in my LGS.I say the bunnies have got out of control at the farm and it will get approved.I have not had an I.D. card for some time cos I lost my wallet and it was my fault.I can get a replacement in no time as I will do next week at the post office.I have still been buying shotgun ammo and licenced 3 firearms recently at Barrys shop without a card that were in storage cos me mate got in some bother with a domestic 3 years ago and is still trying to clear it all up.I have done a co user for him to help.I can have handguns and big bore safari rifles and keep them at home and hang them on the wall as long as I lock them away in a gunsafe when I go out.Call me a fudd but I have yet to see a W.A. shooter complain about the laws here.It used to be real hard to get any rifle above hornet till the new A/B system.Now its a piece of cake.

Why do you need "to say that the bunnies are out of control" to purchase a lever-action shotgun?
Why on earth do you need an ID card to purchase ammo?
I lived twenty-eight years in WA and I complained about their laws, even after I left and went back to visit.
It may be "a piece of cake" for you. That does not mean it is a piece of cake for other shooting enthusiasts. Only caring about yourself is what defines a FUDD, how about doing something to help us grow the number of shooters instead.

[duncan61]

Debating on the Internet is something I am new at.I am enjoying this forum so I feel the need to respond.I have lost track of the new shooters I have helped.Because I have worked with an Italian family that has a lot of land I can do property letters for people I trust.I respect your opinion because your posts are intelligent and informed.Perhaps one day I could fly to Victoria and spin some yarns.Regards Duncan

[Jandamurra]

You say you're attempting to establish the facts, but you don't seem to want to hear them, mate.

1) You said politicians have a right to concealed carry, Bladeracer asked you to provide a link to legislation outlining this.

You refused.

This is highly misleading. I candidly admitted I was not able to cite the legislation and have explained ad nauseun why citing the legislation might not be relevant here.

2) Blaceracer referenced several of our Acts and how they did not permit conceal carry for politicians.

You responded by saying citing legislation doesn't refute what you said. If citing legislation doesn't confirm what the law is, then what does?

See above. There's only so much I can do. Another example of the way laws can be ignored by our guardians is when various people, including John Howard, publically declared Martin Bryant to be the perpetrator, and the sole perpetrator, of the Port Arthur Massacre (PAM). Get over it, it happens.

Instead you're suggesting there is some unwritten agreement, whispered behind closed doors, that all political and law enforcement agencies agree to that the public is unaware of?

I like the way you finish with this one. You make it sound as though the very idea of the public being unaware of something is so incredible as to defy belief. It's not only lack of knowledge as such, but inability to evaluate its importance that can be a great obstacle to improving people's awareness of various issues. Sheer force of habit and mental inertia among most people are a major advantage for those wishing to avoid certain debates, such as whether it is true that politicians are allowed to carry guns for self-defence.

3) You said yourself you are "under the impression".

So it's an impression, you're not certain? You have nothing to confirm it? Why hold to the idea then, contrary to the legislation you're being directed to?

You are going around in circles again here.

4) You say your impression is informed because:
a) You've taken part in debates in the subject
b) No one has previously suggested it was a myth
c) Other countries have special legislation for politicians
d) Politicians are capable of being hypocrites.

Your participation in debates has no bearing on what is or is not the law.

Of course it doesn't.

That no one has contradicted your impression is equally meaningless.

You left out "until now".That no-one contradicted my impression until now indicates there was no need to until I persisted long enough.

Other countries... are other countries. The laws of Germany or anywhere else you might reference in response mean nothing in Australia.

I explained why I mentioned these in my last post.

As with all your other examples, the character flaws of people who happen to be politicians is irrelevant.

No, they are central to the whole question. If they can be lying hypocrites about one thing, they can be lying hypocrites about other things.


Do you want establish the facts? Really? Or do you just want people to agree with you and lend support to this secret legislation conspiracy?

Because it would seem they've been reasonably well established, and all you've done so far is ignore information you've been presented with and doggedly stick to your unsupported impression.

Something to think about. Cheers

[Lorgar]

Nothing of substances there again mate, just more conspiracy.

You're obviously not willing to change your opinion so I won't waste any more of either of our time discussing it further.

Good luck with that.

[Gwion]

Nothing of substances there again mate, just more conspiracy.

You're obviously not willing to change your opinion so I won't waste any more of either of our time discussing it further.

Good luck with that.

Well done and nice try.