bladeracer wrote:glenn777 wrote:bladeracer wrote:Don't you have to buy a new property letter for each rifle every year?
No, it's a one off with the gun application.
You can have one property letter for multiple guns if it's big enough. I got 3 in my first application just to save in the initial ($280~) cost!
In that case I don't see why Police have any interest in how many times you'd attend the property.
Do you actually shoot on that property or is it still just a cash cow for property owners selling letters for firearm applications?
glenn777 wrote:Personally I'm lucky in that I have family who own large farms and friends also, so have no trouble getting a property letter from multiple sources.
I'm sure farmers do do it especially for inner city folk who want rec/hunt/shoot licences, most gun shops will provide you a letter for a price.
Ziege wrote:Who buys letters anyway, lame as... Get out off the couch and meet people and network. Why rely on something that is essentially on the chopping block as we speak?
TassieTiger wrote:Ziege wrote:Who buys letters anyway, lame as... Get out off the couch and meet people and network. Why rely on something that is essentially on the chopping block as we speak?
I cannot fathom “buying” letters...it makes a complete mockery of the system...wanna a gun mate? Here I’ll print and sign this for $300 but I don’t want you actually using the property...only the letter.
Maybe that’s why my mate got called Re his firearms - perhaps wapol are looking at the insane process..don’t know.
Ziege wrote:Who buys letters anyway, lame as... Get out off the couch and meet people and network. Why rely on something that is essentially on the chopping block as we speak?
TassieTiger wrote:Ziege wrote:Who buys letters anyway, lame as... Get out off the couch and meet people and network. Why rely on something that is essentially on the chopping block as we speak?
I cannot fathom “buying” letters...it makes a complete mockery of the system...wanna a gun mate? Here I’ll print and sign this for $300 but I don’t want you actually using the property...only the letter.
Maybe that’s why my mate got called Re his firearms - perhaps wapol are looking at the insane process..don’t know.
TassieTiger wrote:Maybe that’s why my mate got called Re his firearms - perhaps wapol are looking at the insane process..don’t know.
glenn777 wrote:TassieTiger wrote:Maybe that’s why my mate got called Re his firearms - perhaps wapol are looking at the insane process..don’t know.
You know what that might be it, the 'letter' he used for his rifles might be getting flagged on WAPOL's end as a 'bought' letter as there's probably a million other applications for the same farm and they're trying to weed out who actually shoots on the farm and who loopholed it..
AussieCapitalist wrote:Thats what I find annoying with he term loophole when people think its a bad thing. A loophole is simply using a law or regulation to its full potential. Like how losers complain about negative gearing like its some loophole for the rich. Negative gearing is available for all to use equally.
bladeracer wrote:glenn777 wrote:TassieTiger wrote:Maybe that’s why my mate got called Re his firearms - perhaps wapol are looking at the insane process..don’t know.
You know what that might be it, the 'letter' he used for his rifles might be getting flagged on WAPOL's end as a 'bought' letter as there's probably a million other applications for the same farm and they're trying to weed out who actually shoots on the farm and who loopholed it..
Which would be fine...if only loopholes were illegal.
What they need to do is change the law if they're not happy with it, then enforce that law, not make stuff up themselves.
Troyus wrote:Ziege wrote:Who buys letters anyway, lame as... Get out off the couch and meet people and network. Why rely on something that is essentially on the chopping block as we speak?
Hard for someone with no guns, no license to convince a random farmer you are a great guy, great shot and please give me a letter to run around with a gun on your property.
Faedy wrote:That's exactly what I did here in the S/West of WA.
Bought a farm just for shooting on. I've got zero interest in farming it.
Faedy wrote:That's exactly what I did here in the S/West of WA.
Bought a farm just for shooting on. I've got zero interest in farming it.
AussieCapitalist wrote:Thats what I find annoying with he term loophole when people think its a bad thing. A loophole is simply using a law or regulation to its full potential. Like how losers complain about negative gearing like its some loophole for the rich. Negative gearing is available for all to use equally.
bibendum wrote:BTW -
308WIN Humane destruction of Feral Dogs using frangible 125-135gr HP projectiles out to 200m.
30-06Spr Humane Destruction of Large Feral Pigs using 180-200gr Partition projectiles out to 300m.
Two examples of genuine needs as required by the Act.
animalpest wrote:I would think that when the WA Firearms Act was enacted back in 1974, the expectation was that a property letter showed you had a place to shoot or hunt legally. I doubt anyone thought of buying and selling property letters and this a relatively new thing.
So I suspect its to do with letters giving approval to shoot but the gun owner never being allowed to actually shoot there. Add hundreds of letters for the same property and no wonder they are clamping down. The genuine need or reason (always get confused which is which) becomes a farce.
These letters may reduce the legitimacy of proper letters. So the question is when people get licenced but dont have anywhere legit to shoot, what do they do?