Every state and territory in breach of National Firearms Agr

[Fionn]

I don't believe any court would consider it to be "anything manufactured specifically as a component of ammunition designed for discharge from a firearm"...

If that was the case, then there would be no need to change the law to exclude it then. As I said legally it could and has been considered (as mentioned by others) ammunition under the old Act.

[bladeracer]

I don't believe any court would consider it to be "anything manufactured specifically as a component of ammunition designed for discharge from a firearm"...

If that was the case, then there would be no need to change the law to exclude it then. As I said legally it could and has been considered (as mentioned by others) ammunition under the old Act.

The change didn't exclude it, it clarified that it is already excluded.

That's the point I'm making, I don't believe it ever has been considered to be ammunition under the Act as I can't find anybody that has ever been convicted for it. Police use it to get evidence for additional charges, and they do charge people for it, but that does not mean it is the law. If you can find an instance of a conviction over "unsecured brass" then please let us know, I can't find any.

[Fionn]

The law change did exclude it, it plainly states "does not include"

It has been considered ammunition under the Act and that why it was changed.

Here is some light reading for you explaining this.

https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/3914930c3cf5dca85a58cc0e4825807400138db1/$file/tp-4930.pdf

[bladeracer]

If the previous Act did include brass why do they say here that it only "appears" to include empty cases:

Screenshot 2023-01-27 200824.jpg (22.95 KiB) Viewed 2088 times

And this where they state that at least some people already believe the definition excludes brass (as I read it myself)

Screenshot 2023-01-27 201220.jpg (30.48 KiB) Viewed 2087 times

The law change did exclude it, it plainly states "does not include"

It has been considered ammunition under the Act and that why it was changed.

Here is some light reading for you explaining this.

https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/publications/tabledpapers.nsf/displaypaper/3914930c3cf5dca85a58cc0e4825807400138db1/$file/tp-4930.pdf

[Fionn]

If the previous Act did include brass why do they say here that it only "appears" to include empty cases:

Screenshot 2023-01-27 200824.jpg

And this where they state that at least some people already believe the definition excludes brass (as I read it myself)

Screenshot 2023-01-27 201220.jpg

You would have to ask them why they said it "appears".

Note the commission doesn't dispute that the definition includes brass, In fact they agree and give the recommendation to exclude it from the Act.

The Commission is of the view that, while ammunition components should remain subject to the Firearms Legislation storage requirements, it is
reasonable for inert cartridges (called a dummy round or drill round that contains no primer, propellant, or explosive charge), spent casings (whether reusable
or not), paintball pellets and spent primers to be excluded from the definition.

The Commission also recommends that the Firearms Act provide that the Firearms Regulations may prescribe specific items that form part of, or are
excluded from, the definition of ‘ammunition’.

These recommendations are consistent with the changes to the definition of ‘firearm’ which aims to remove items that are not capable of causing harm from the ambit of the Firearms Legislation.

The people that believe it's already excluded are referring to un-reusable brass and spent primers, but again its not what the Act said, although logically it shouldn't be classed as such.

Again that is what the commission recommended also.

[Barbarian]

I've known two older shooters who were charged within the last year for unsecured 'ammunition components' in the form of fired brass. I've heard of plenty others and seen reddit or forum posts but I only know of the two following to be true.

One was a co-worker who also had a compliant safe for ammunition but the safe for the guns themselves was near the sliding door to his shed and the cops called it an 'Open Shed, in public view' and the safe itself wasn't compliant. So in this case I think the brass was just tacked on.

The other was purely for an assortment of brass, some .50bmg in a vehicle - he had a license for most but the cops only took the .50bmg brass and issued an infringement for the same because the vehicle wasn't locked. Guy in question wasn't interested in trying to fight it and just paid it. So its possible they focused on the fact that it was both .50cal and for a caliber he wasn't licensed for.

Regardless, in both cases the presence of the fired brass is not an infringement as per the WA Act.

Were any of them actually convicted for the brass though? I hear about lots of people being charged for it but if nobody is ever being convicted of it then the Police need to be taken to task for continuing to abuse the law.

In the case of the first, I helped him appeal the infringement with WAPOL directly and helped make sure his storage was actually complaint, in this case though they hadn't picked up on it, the safe wasn't adequately secured.

The second as I stated, he just paid the infringement for unsecured ammunition components. He just let them keep the cases they confiscated and wasn't interested in kicking up a stink to fight it.

The first instance was around a year and a half ago, the other perhaps 6 months before that from memory.

[Fionn]

In the case of the first, I helped him appeal the infringement with WAPOL directly and helped make sure his storage was actually complaint, in this case though they hadn't picked up on it, the safe wasn't adequately secured.

The second as I stated, he just paid the infringement for unsecured ammunition components. He just let them keep the cases they confiscated and wasn't interested in kicking up a stink to fight it.

The first instance was around a year and a half ago, the other perhaps 6 months before that from memory.

You did well for you friends, what Bladeracer doesn't understand is that under the old law, they were committing an offence, not saying it was a good law, but it was the law in WA.

What Bladeracer also doesn't understand is that if they challenged it in court they would have lost and would have a conviction for the offence recorded against them which may (assuming) cause issues in the future for them.

Far better to do as you did.

The way the law is(was) written its a simple offence to prove, to challenge the actual law itself (not the offence) would have cost them tens of thousands of dollar's with little chance of success.

But as per normal, when proven wrong, Balderacer disappears from the topic.

[Barbarian]

You did well for you friends, what Bladeracer doesn't understand is that under the old law, they were committing an offence, not saying it was a good law, but it was the law in WA.

What Bladeracer also doesn't understand is that if they challenged it in court they would have lost and would have a conviction for the offence recorded against them which may (assuming) cause issues in the future for them.

Far better to do as you did.

The way the law is(was) written its a simple offence to prove, to challenge the actual law itself (not the offence) would have cost them tens of thousands of dollar's with little chance of success.

But as per normal, when proven wrong, Balderacer disappears from the topic.

End of the day some older shooters have got complacent with their storage, a lot of people might take the stance of letting them reap what they sow but some of these folks are not as invested in their shooting as younger shooters are because of the hurdles we face, doesn’t take much to help them out to make sure that they remain in the hobby that little bit longer. Or don’t get their shotguns and .22lr’s confiscated for not keeping up with law changes when they’re simply tools for putting down the odd animal or pest.

I can see where blade is coming from, specifically the “discharged from” verbiage. One could argue that the literal meaning of discharged from to only include the projectile and powder.

Personally I don’t think a court would differentiate that from “Discharge” being used as a proxy to “firing” a weapon. But it’s also likely that the lack of actual charges historically is because the police know that their stance in court may not be as strong as they’d like.

That said, while I appreciate the update to the law recently, it does nothing to stop WAPOL making up what they like on any given day. Best you can do is photograph and film anything while you call your solicitor. My brass doesn’t take up that much space and honestly keeping it all in safes keeps it nice and organised and honestly didn’t cost that much more than an extra thin skinned cabinet.

[bladeracer]

You did well for you friends, what Bladeracer doesn't understand is that under the old law, they were committing an offence, not saying it was a good law, but it was the law in WA.

What Bladeracer also doesn't understand is that if they challenged it in court they would have lost and would have a conviction for the offence recorded against them which may (assuming) cause issues in the future for them.

Far better to do as you did.

The way the law is(was) written its a simple offence to prove, to challenge the actual law itself (not the offence) would have cost them tens of thousands of dollar's with little chance of success.

But as per normal, when proven wrong, Balderacer disappears from the topic.

I didn't disappear, I just didn't have anything to add as neither of these is an instance of somebody being convicted for possession of unsecured ammunition. I think anybody that was charged and took it to court did indeed successfully challenge it as I can't find any instance of a conviction.

I still disagree with your interpretation of the previous law, and I've already shown you that my stance is not anomalous.

[bladeracer]

End of the day some older shooters have got complacent with their storage, a lot of people might take the stance of letting them reap what they sow but some of these folks are not as invested in their shooting as younger shooters are because of the hurdles we face, doesn’t take much to help them out to make sure that they remain in the hobby that little bit longer. Or don’t get their shotguns and .22lr’s confiscated for not keeping up with law changes when they’re simply tools for putting down the odd animal or pest.

I can see where blade is coming from, specifically the “discharged from” verbiage. One could argue that the literal meaning of discharged from to only include the projectile and powder.

Personally I don’t think a court would differentiate that from “Discharge” being used as a proxy to “firing” a weapon. But it’s also likely that the lack of actual charges historically is because the police know that their stance in court may not be as strong as they’d like.

That said, while I appreciate the update to the law recently, it does nothing to stop WAPOL making up what they like on any given day. Best you can do is photograph and film anything while you call your solicitor. My brass doesn’t take up that much space and honestly keeping it all in safes keeps it nice and organised and honestly didn’t cost that much more than an extra thin skinned cabinet.

"Discharge from" means expelling or releasing something, thus does not include brass. There is no argument required, that is the definition - anything that is actually "discharged from a firearm" is classed as ammunition.

I agree, in WA you really need to go well beyond what the law specifies if you want to avoid being charged by over zealous Police.

I have something in the region of 50,000 pieces of brass in 30+ chamberings, far too much to fit into a safe, and a couple thousand empty 12ga. hulls takes up an enormous amount of cupboard space so they just live in some large cardboard boxes. I bought two 1800x900x450mm steel cupboards for my brass, and built a third one just for my rimfire ammo (I couldn't find a commercial one that was only 250mm deep). My shotshells and centrefire ammo reside in 15 MTM crates and ammo boxes. I have well over 50,000 bullets weighing over 200kg so I bought two 1800x900x500mm heavy garage shelving racks to stack those on - again, way too many to fit in a safe. Having to lock bullets up is ludicrous. WA Police recognised that for brass to be used as ammunition requires a degree of skill and equipment, but totally ignored the same facts regarding bullets.

[Barbarian]

I can see where blade is coming from, specifically the “discharged from” verbiage. One could argue that the literal meaning of discharged from to only include the projectile and powder.

Personally I don’t think a court would differentiate that from “Discharge” being used as a proxy to “firing” a weapon. But it’s also likely that the lack of actual charges historically is because the police know that their stance in court may not be as strong as they’d like.

"Discharge from" means expelling or releasing something, thus does not include brass. There is no argument required, that is the definition - anything that is actually "discharged from a firearm" is classed as ammunition.

I agree, in WA you really need to go well beyond what the law specifies if you want to avoid being charged by over zealous Police.

I have something in the region of 50,000 pieces of brass in 30+ chamberings, far too much to fit into a safe, and a couple thousand empty 12ga. hulls takes up an enormous amount of cupboard space so they just live in some large cardboard boxes. I bought two 1800x900x450mm steel cupboards for my brass, and built a third one just for my rimfire ammo (I couldn't find a commercial one that was only 250mm deep). My shotshells and centrefire ammo reside in 15 MTM crates and ammo boxes. I have well over 50,000 bullets weighing over 200kg so I bought two 1800x900x500mm heavy garage shelving racks to stack those on - again, way too many to fit in a safe. Having to lock bullets up is ludicrous. WA Police recognised that for brass to be used as ammunition requires a degree of skill and equipment, but totally ignored the same facts regarding bullets.

The Act also frequently uses the term "Discharge" in place of firing a firearm. So a reasonable court could still find that the brass cartridge case is still part of the act of discharging a firearm even if it never leaves the chamber/bore.

I wish I didn't have to lock up projectiles. While I do appreciate that the legislation is now clearer and enables me to just keep my shotgun hulls in hessian bags in the shed and I've moved most of my older brass into some surplus .50cal tins, about a dozen. The Three safes are enough to handle most of my shotgun and centerfire ammo/projies/primers. With a few boxes of each caliber and all of my rimfire ammo in the secondary compartment of my various firearms safes.

Granted I've always got two extra safes if I need to store overflow since I've put safes in both of my guest rooms too.

[Fionn]

Personally I don’t think a court would differentiate that from “Discharge” being used as a proxy to “firing” a weapon. But it’s also likely that the lack of actual charges historically is because the police know that their stance in court may not be as strong as they’d like.

Its highly unlikely that a person would be charged for the offence purely because there is an infringement for it, which makes a charge unnecessary. That being said, a charge in itself for this offence is very simple. a brass cartridge is component of ammunition designed for discharge from a firearm, the point of proof being that its a component of ammunition, designed for discharge.

To argue against this charge, you would have to proven its not a component of ammunition. as in without it that firearm can be discharged.

[Fionn]

I didn't disappear, I just didn't have anything to add as neither of these is an instance of somebody being convicted for possession of unsecured ammunition. I think anybody that was charged and took it to court did indeed successfully challenge it as I can't find any instance of a conviction.

I still disagree with your interpretation of the previous law, and I've already shown you that my stance is not anomalous.

How would you find a conviction? 99% of convictions are never published.

As I said before, you would have been ill advised to take the matter to the supreme court, unless you wanted to spend 10's of thousands for a 20% chance of success.

Your stance may not be an anomalous for people who don't know what they are talking about or with little understanding of the law or how it works, but its wrong. I have posted that the commission in reviewing the law didn't agree with your "anomalousness" but you refuse to accept it, as you know better.

[Fionn]

"Discharge from" means expelling or releasing something, thus does not include brass. There is no argument required, that is the definition - anything that is actually "discharged from a firearm" is classed as ammunition.

You are missing the fact its a component of ammunition.

WA Police recognised that for brass to be used as ammunition requires a degree of skill and equipment, but totally ignored the same facts regarding bullets.

The police enforce the laws, they don't write them and its the commission that agreed recognised that for brass to be used as ammunition requires a degree of skill and equipment, not the Police.

[bladeracer]

How would you find a conviction? 99% of convictions are never published.

As I said before, you would have been ill advised to take the matter to the supreme court, unless you wanted to spend 10's of thousands for a 20% chance of success.

Your stance may not be an anomalous for people who don't know what they are talking about or with little understanding of the law or how it works, but its wrong. I have posted that the commission in reviewing the law didn't agree with your "anomalousness" but you refuse to accept it, as you know better.

I ask people and nobody has been able to direct me to an instance of somebody being convicted over it, but lots of people do get charged with it. Invariably it is additional to other charges, and I assume gets tossed out or dropped when it gets to court. Barbarian's anecdote about somebody paying a fine rather than contest it is the first instance I've heard of somebody doing this. I don't believe that counts as a conviction though, does it?

That is your opinion. The review found that there was a significant amount of interpretation available in the previous wording, that's why they clarified it. I am not the only person that believes the previous law excluded brass. The review's statement "...the definition is overly broad as it appears to include empty brass..." makes it clear to me that the intent never was to include brass.

[Fionn]

I ask people and nobody has been able to direct me to an instance of somebody being convicted over it, but lots of people do get charged with it.

Who has been charged with it?

Invariably it is additional to other charges, and I assume gets tossed out or dropped when it gets to court.

Most likely, its common for offences with an infringement attached to be plea bargained.

Barbarian's anecdote about somebody paying a fine rather than contest it is the first instance I've heard of somebody doing this. I don't believe that counts as a conviction though, does it?

No it doesn't, its an agreement that you pay the fine and the matter is settled outside of court. Courts in most cases are the only ones that can impose a conviction except for certain laws that come with a mandatory conviction.

That is your opinion. The review found that there was a significant amount of interpretation available in the previous wording, that's why they clarified it.

Its not my opinion. my opinion is, it was a stupid law.

The review didn't find there was a significant amount of interpretation, they found that the changes should be made to be consistent with the changes to the definition of ‘firearm’ which aims to remove items that are not capable of causing harm from the ambit of the Firearms Legislation.

I have no idea how you have come to the conclusion that this means they have found their is "a significant amount of interpretation" when they clearly say the above bolded bit is the reason they recommend removing it.

I am not the only person that believes the previous law excluded brass. The review's statement "...the definition is overly broad as it appears to include empty brass..." makes it clear to me that the intent never was to include brass.

There are lots of people that have/suffer the dunning kruger effect, a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

And It wasn't the reviews statement "...the definition is overly broad as it appears to include empty brass..." its was some stakeholders, maybe people such as yourself who didn't really understand the law.