Oldbloke wrote:https://sifa.net.au/wa-proposes-new-firearm-laws-that-will-have-major-unintended-consequences/?fbclid=IwAR0IgpzOe1rtMSajA6ko4iVVGQ1TqNWwNbDq1iEGO_9xwQmOWD5plvv9evE
cz515 wrote:Hey why do we care about WA, it's no longer a part of Australia
cz515 wrote:Hey why do we care about WA, it's no longer a part of Australia
geoff wrote:It's an interesting amendment to be sure. I would recommend any and all read the actual amended bill - WAPOL have their own agenda, as does the Minister, as does SSAA. I'm not sure any party is really telling the whole story, based on my own interpretation.
Certainly lots to be concerned about.
The redefinition of ammunition is a good thing though - no longer considering a spent cartridge as ammunition benefits us all greatly.
I am not personally concerned that they are banning reloading per se, like a lot seem to think, my chief concern is that my reloading press and dies etc are considered Firearms Technology as far as I can tell. That section is absolute trash.
bladeracer wrote:geoff wrote:It's an interesting amendment to be sure. I would recommend any and all read the actual amended bill - WAPOL have their own agenda, as does the Minister, as does SSAA. I'm not sure any party is really telling the whole story, based on my own interpretation.
Certainly lots to be concerned about.
The redefinition of ammunition is a good thing though - no longer considering a spent cartridge as ammunition benefits us all greatly.
I am not personally concerned that they are banning reloading per se, like a lot seem to think, my chief concern is that my reloading press and dies etc are considered Firearms Technology as far as I can tell. That section is absolute trash.
The WA law already excludes brass - new or spent - from the definition though, only WAPOL decided it wasn't. The law defines ammunition components as those items propelled from a firearm.
geoff wrote:bladeracer wrote:geoff wrote:It's an interesting amendment to be sure. I would recommend any and all read the actual amended bill - WAPOL have their own agenda, as does the Minister, as does SSAA. I'm not sure any party is really telling the whole story, based on my own interpretation.
Certainly lots to be concerned about.
The redefinition of ammunition is a good thing though - no longer considering a spent cartridge as ammunition benefits us all greatly.
I am not personally concerned that they are banning reloading per se, like a lot seem to think, my chief concern is that my reloading press and dies etc are considered Firearms Technology as far as I can tell. That section is absolute trash.
The WA law already excludes brass - new or spent - from the definition though, only WAPOL decided it wasn't. The law defines ammunition components as those items propelled from a firearm.
You're incorrect there bladeracer, the law currently does not exclude brass, certainly not explicitly:
This is a poor definition that is open to such wide interpretation and that's how we got into this mess. The proposed amendment is more descriptive and excludes spent casings and primers:
People in WA have been charged and convicted of unsafe storage offences pertaining to spent casings rolling around in a ute or spent primers on their reloading bench.
I'm by no means on Team Government here....The new definition isnt perfect, or even that great, but it is objectively better than the old one at least. That's about as much as we are going to be able to hope for in the McGowan Kingdom. There's a huge and valid argument to be made that components not assembled shouldn't eb considered ammunition, and I support that, but it'll never happen.
Even if it did, there are constructive intent provisions later in the amendment that would nullify it anyway.
bladeracer wrote:"Designed for discharge _from_ a firearm" excludes the brass case, the case is not discharged from the firearm. If they said discharge _in_ a firearm it would likely include the case. Anybody in WA that has been charged for possession of empty brass should've fought it on this alone.geoff wrote:bladeracer wrote:geoff wrote:It's an interesting amendment to be sure. I would recommend any and all read the actual amended bill - WAPOL have their own agenda, as does the Minister, as does SSAA. I'm not sure any party is really telling the whole story, based on my own interpretation.
Certainly lots to be concerned about.
The redefinition of ammunition is a good thing though - no longer considering a spent cartridge as ammunition benefits us all greatly.
I am not personally concerned that they are banning reloading per se, like a lot seem to think, my chief concern is that my reloading press and dies etc are considered Firearms Technology as far as I can tell. That section is absolute trash.
The WA law already excludes brass - new or spent - from the definition though, only WAPOL decided it wasn't. The law defines ammunition components as those items propelled from a firearm.
You're incorrect there bladeracer, the law currently does not exclude brass, certainly not explicitly:
This is a poor definition that is open to such wide interpretation and that's how we got into this mess. The proposed amendment is more descriptive and excludes spent casings and primers:
People in WA have been charged and convicted of unsafe storage offences pertaining to spent casings rolling around in a ute or spent primers on their reloading bench.
I'm by no means on Team Government here....The new definition isnt perfect, or even that great, but it is objectively better than the old one at least. That's about as much as we are going to be able to hope for in the McGowan Kingdom. There's a huge and valid argument to be made that components not assembled shouldn't eb considered ammunition, and I support that, but it'll never happen.
Even if it did, there are constructive intent provisions later in the amendment that would nullify it anyway.
bladeracer wrote:It is a component of ammunition, no argument, but at no point was it ever designed to be discharged from a firearm.
It is designed to be discharged within a firearm, never from one.
Oldbloke wrote:bladeracer wrote:It is a component of ammunition, no argument, but at no point was it ever designed to be discharged from a firearm.
It is designed to be discharged within a firearm, never from one.
It is an interesting point. BUT how deep are your pockets? Lawyers are not cheap.
bladeracer wrote:Oldbloke wrote:bladeracer wrote:It is a component of ammunition, no argument, but at no point was it ever designed to be discharged from a firearm.
It is designed to be discharged within a firearm, never from one.
It is an interesting point. BUT how deep are your pockets? Lawyers are not cheap.
I find it a very simple defense, it should be sufficient for the Police to drop the case before it goes to court.
If Police want the law to include empty brass - which they most certainly do - then they need to petition to change the law, instead of making up their own.
WA is the toilet for firearm owners.
geoff wrote:bladeracer wrote:Oldbloke wrote:bladeracer wrote:It is a component of ammunition, no argument, but at no point was it ever designed to be discharged from a firearm.
It is designed to be discharged within a firearm, never from one.
It is an interesting point. BUT how deep are your pockets? Lawyers are not cheap.
I find it a very simple defense, it should be sufficient for the Police to drop the case before it goes to court.
If Police want the law to include empty brass - which they most certainly do - then they need to petition to change the law, instead of making up their own.
WA is the toilet for firearm owners.
Far be it for me of all people to ever appear to take the side of the police, but where do you think the revised definition, explicitly excluding spent brass, came from? It wasn't the Minister and it certainly wasn't the Premier