Cancelling of WA Property Letters

[HairyScotsman]

G'day all,

Recently I read that with the coming update of our gun laws here in WA, WAPOL will be cancelling all previously issued property letters for recreational hunting purposes. They plan to create a central database of property letters whereby each property will only be able to issue a set number of letters depending on property size. This would in turn effectively push most of us into a club or give it the old "too hard basket" and sell our guns.
I can only find the one article on the subject and it comes from ABC, not the most trustworthy source of information, but with what's coming, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
If anyone has any other info or thoughts on the matter, please feel free to share

[Noisydad]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…
Hide yourself in the wheel well of a jet, hang onto the chassis of a truck or stash yourself in a shipping container and head east and claim political refugee status when you get over here.

[animalpest]

It is unclear whether all property letters will be cancelled and you need a new one, whether you need to renew every year or three.

If all property letters are cancelled then there will be a lot of shooters in strife.

This issue is because a few decided there was a loophole and exploited it purely for monetary gain. And have stuffed it for everyone else.

Selling property letters was not illegal but was bound to attract criticism from some. And given you couldn't shoot on the property anyway, and in some cases thousands of property letters issued for single property, it was bound to cause an issue.

Blame the greediness from a few

[Boundry Rider]

Buying property letters isn’t driving this.

It started once high ranking police discovered firearms owners are tuning long arms to a high degree after the arrest of the moron behind the motorplex assassination, and is now driven by the woke progressive labor faction poster boys on the front bench as seen in media releases.

[Oldbloke]

Hang on. The WA gov set up the system. Wholly their fault. They didn't think it through.
Needing a letter for every rifle is plain stupid. One letter or game licence should cover them all just like Vic.

It's the government that needs a regular mental assessment, not the LAFOs.

[geoff]

How on earth could they possibly expect to be able to process tens of thousands of shooters mobbing them with new letters? Insane. Absolutely insane.

It already takes them two months to process an addition. If they sent us all a letter tomorrow saying hey, your licence no longer permits you to use those guns, they must stay locked up until you send us a new letter and we approve it.......it would take them years. Genuinely years. To get through that mountain of paperwork.

Poorly thought out, maladministered. Classic WA trying to reinvent the wheel....

[mchughcb]

It is unclear whether all property letters will be cancelled and you need a new one, whether you need to renew every year or three.

If all property letters are cancelled then there will be a lot of shooters in strife.

This issue is because a few decided there was a loophole and exploited it purely for monetary gain. And have stuffed it for everyone else.

Selling property letters was not illegal but was bound to attract criticism from some. And given you couldn't shoot on the property anyway, and in some cases thousands of property letters issued for single property, it was bound to cause an issue.

Blame the greediness from a few

The other week I hunted on a property with 72 other hunters at the same time. Wasn't that big to be honest on a few hundred acres. Then I repeated that on another 8 properties of similar size.

[Over The Hill]

How on earth could they possibly expect to be able to process tens of thousands of shooters mobbing them with new letters? Insane. Absolutely insane.

It already takes them two months to process an addition. If they sent us all a letter tomorrow saying hey, your licence no longer permits you to use those guns, they must stay locked up until you send us a new letter and we approve it.......it would take them years. Genuinely years. To get through that mountain of paperwork.

Poorly thought out, maladministered. Classic WA trying to reinvent the wheel....

They wont care if the changes aren't viable for licence holders. The intention is to reduce the number of firearms and licence holders, not to re-licence everything that is already out there. I wouldn't expect they will get mobbed with tens of thousands of new letters because the property owners either wont want to issue new letters or will be limited in what they can do anyway. Licence holders with firearms on "open" licences will be stranded without "valid" justification and with no ability to obtain new letters then they will be forced to put their guns into dealer storage or sell them. Transferring to a club supported licence may be an option however they will be restricted to club range use only and clubs wil only have limited ability to absorb extra members anyway. Most clubs are only looking for new members interested in regular club shooting/competition and not interested in taking on people who only want the support for their firearms and the occasional sighting in shoot. Some clubs mandate a minimum regular attendance to maintain club support for long arms but not all do at present however I think this might change in the future. The property letter requirement has always been an issue here in WA however the blatant selling of letters (and lets not forget that the person signing the letter is not only authorising but are also making a statement about how long they have personally known the recipient which for most purchased letters is never) has contributed to the crackdown and those purchasing letters have done themselves no favours by their social media posts where after having finally receiving their licence and picking up their new guns happily boast & post on FB that they now have their new toys and are now looking for somewhere to go use them. Unfortunately I dont see this ending well for anyone in WA who has an interest in firearms and/or their use. After this crackdown on "open" licenced firearms then expect a move on club supported and collectors guns to follow.

[Toadstool]

When you don't think WA can get much worse, they always outdo themselves.

I'm someone that paid for a property letter to buy my .22LR rifles. I had intially purchased some shot guns and an air rifle using my own property (about 18 acres), but paid for a letter when getting a 22.

It's a complete load of crap. I bought them for foxes. I have free roaming chooks in the paddock so gotta shoot any foxes that eat them. Range is always about 50-100 metres so shotguns arn't exactly the best option. It's the perfect scenario for a 22lr, and so far it's been downing them nicely.

My point it. If they are gonna cancel all letters (instead of just stopping future ones) they need to redo their land size requirements. There is absoutely no reason an 18 acre property shouldn't be allowed a 22lr. The argument of 'but they can shoot further than the boundary' is down right retarded. A 22lr can shoot further than the boundaries on a 1000 acre property if you're close enough to the edge...

I feel people in my position, on smaller rural properties get shafted the most with some arbitary size requirment.

[Boundry Rider]

I got refused a .17HMR on 60 acres, so I sent them a 650,000 acre letter from a cattle station I hunt in the rangelands -just flipping the bird really.
How useless is regs that refuse a .22LR on 18 acres or .17HMR on 60 acres.
Walcatraz- no idea

[bladeracer]

Most clubs are only looking for new members interested in regular club shooting/competition and not interested in taking on people who only want the support for their firearms and the occasional sighting in shoot.

There won't be people holding firearms just needing to sight in occasionally as their firearms won't be allowed to be used anywhere except at clubs, no hunting without an "acceptable" property letter. I suspect this will also prohibit a WA firearm owner who only holds firearms on club licences from hunting interstate as well.

[bladeracer]

When you don't think WA can get much worse, they always outdo themselves.

I'm someone that paid for a property letter to buy my .22LR rifles. I had intially purchased some shot guns and an air rifle using my own property (about 18 acres), but paid for a letter when getting a 22.

It's a complete load of crap. I bought them for foxes. I have free roaming chooks in the paddock so gotta shoot any foxes that eat them. Range is always about 50-100 metres so shotguns arn't exactly the best option. It's the perfect scenario for a 22lr, and so far it's been downing them nicely.

My point it. If they are gonna cancel all letters (instead of just stopping future ones) they need to redo their land size requirements. There is absoutely no reason an 18 acre property shouldn't be allowed a 22lr. The argument of 'but they can shoot further than the boundary' is down right retarded. A 22lr can shoot further than the boundaries on a 1000 acre property if you're close enough to the edge...

I feel people in my position, on smaller rural properties get shafted the most with some arbitary size requirment.

Their property size requirements are not law, just their own made-up internal policy. Somebody should've taken them to task over it years ago. All other states have no size minimums and it doesn't cause any problems, even with significantly higher population densities.

[Oldbloke]

Slightly off topic.
Remember the WA bunker raid.
Was total BS.
Guy was all legal.

Resized_Screenshot_20230530-073730_Adobe_Acrobat.jpeg (285.85 KiB) Viewed 34463 times

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... nRuOZDQlq_

[womble]

Viva la Spanish Mackerels
Arriba arriba andale !!

[bigrich]

Hang on. The WA gov set up the system. Wholly their fault. They didn't think it through.
Needing a letter for every rifle is plain stupid. One letter or game licence should cover them all just like Vic.

It's the government that needs a regular mental assessment, not the LAFOs.

that's about it . people in power making decisions on things they no nothing about . and being driven by populist opinion polls/opinions

as for government needing mental health assessment , it's just plain human ignorance and stupidity

[bigrich]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…
Hide yourself in the wheel well of a jet, hang onto the chassis of a truck or stash yourself in a shipping container and head east and claim political refugee status when you get over here.

that's about it . this type of thinking will eventually creep into eastern states , hopfully not for some time yet . when there's pigs raiding yards and wheelie bins (pigs are smart, they'll work out to knock bins over) in outer suburbs , and domestic animals/pets being attacked by ferals i'll be interested to hear the pollies spin on it . as it is suburbs around logan and north/western brisbane are being increasingly encrouched upon by deer . i've beard some water resorvoirers around brisbane and beuadesert have deer culling going on quietly already by government shooters using suppressed firearms . the general public are quick to rant over gun laws , but when i tell people about the numbers destroyed from airel culling and inform them about 1080 baiting their shocked . media doesn't report on THAT , but they'll buy into "firearm fear" for viewer ratings

this is what happens with labour government .........

[Oldbloke]

"this is what happens with labour government ......... "


Wrong.

All three parties.

[bigrich]

"this is what happens with labour government ......... "


Wrong.

All three parties.

your probably right , but WA labour seems pretty close to being commies at times the way they make decisions with no public consultation what so ever

[Oldbloke]

This seems appropriate.


Two Crocodiles


Two Crocodiles were sitting at the side of the River. The smaller one turned to the bigger one and said, "I can't understand how you can be so much bigger than me. We're the same age, we were the same size as kids - I just don't get it."

'Well,' said the big Croc, 'what have you been eating?'

'Politicians, same as you,' replied the small Croc.

'Hmm. Well, where do you catch them?'

'On the other side of the river near the Parliament car park in Canberra.

'Same here. Hmm.....How do you catch them?' asked the big Croc.

'Well, I crawl up under one of their big Lexus, BMW or Mercedes cars and wait for one to unlock the car door. Then I jump out, grab them by the leg, shake the s**t out of them and eat 'em!'

'Ah!' says the big Crocodile, 'I think I see your problem. You're not
getting any real nourishment. See, by the time you finish shaking the s**t out of a Politician, there's nothing much left but an arsehole with a briefcase.

[Fionn]

Their property size requirements are not law, just their own made-up internal policy. Somebody should've taken them to task over it years ago. All other states have no size minimums and it doesn't cause any problems, even with significantly higher population densities.

I agree, this is what shooting groups should be focused on doing, well except for the NSC as they would most likely try to challenge a permit for a 300 Winchester Magnum for 2 acres.

[Fionn]

A significant portion of the issue at hand can be attributed to the prevailing "me" mentality that has increasingly permeated Australian society over the past couple of decades. This self-centered mindset has gradually eroded the freedoms we once enjoyed. An illustrative example of this phenomenon can be found in the practice of selling property letters. While this system can function adequately if everyone adheres to fairness and considers the well-being of others, problems arise when individuals adopt a purely self-interested perspective and exploit the opportunity to sell letters en masse for personal gain. Law enforcement authorities, regrettably, turned a blind eye to this practice for an extended period until it became a source of ridicule, forcing them to intervene.

A similar dynamic emerges when discussing why the police should exercise more discretion. The reason behind their limited use of discretion lies in the fact that people tend to take advantage of it. By exercising discretion, a police officer assumes a certain level of risk, prompting them to question the rationale behind taking such risks.

Numerous instances have occurred that exemplify this dilemma. Consider a scenario where an individual is pulled over for speeding, exceeding the speed limit by, say, 26 kilometers per hour on a deserted, straight road with ideal driving conditions. Applying some discretion, the officer considers the person's commendable driving history and their lack of access to public transportation due to their remote residence. Consequently, the officer reduces the recorded speed to 24 kilometers per hour over the limit, sparing the individual from losing their driving license. However, instead of appreciating the lesson and learning from the experience, the person takes the matter to court, accusing the officer of misrepresenting the recorded speed as 26 kilometers per hour over the limit.

These examples illustrate how exercising discretion can backfire, thereby discouraging police officers from assuming any risks. Consequently, adhering strictly to the established protocols becomes the safer course of action, eliminating the potential for unwelcome consequences.

As mentioned in the previous discussion thread, which unfortunately was deleted, the proposed legislation aiming to restrict firearms in Western Australia holds a strong argument in its favour and most here could not come up with a deceit argument against it other then how it would personal effect them.

[animalpest]

[quote="Fionn"]A significant portion of the issue at hand can be attributed to the prevailing "me" mentality that has increasingly permeated Australian society over the past couple of decades. This self-centered mindset has gradually eroded the freedoms we once enjoyed. An illustrative example of this phenomenon can be found in the practice of selling property letters. While this system can function adequately if everyone adheres to fairness and considers the well-being of others, problems arise when individuals adopt a purely self-interested perspective and exploit the opportunity to sell letters en masse for personal gain. Law enforcement authorities, regrettably, turned a blind eye to this practice for an extended period until it became a source of ridicule, forcing them to intervene.

A similar dynamic emerges when discussing why the police should exercise more discretion. The reason behind their limited use of discretion lies in the fact that people tend to take advantage of it. By exercising discretion, a police officer assumes a certain level of risk, prompting them to question the rationale behind taking such risks.

Numerous instances have occurred that exemplify this dilemma. Consider a scenario where an individual is pulled over for speeding, exceeding the speed limit by, say, 26 kilometers per hour on a deserted, straight road with ideal driving conditions. Applying some discretion, the officer considers the person's commendable driving history and their lack of access to public transportation due to their remote residence. Consequently, the officer reduces the recorded speed to 24 kilometers per hour over the limit, sparing the individual from losing their driving license. However, instead of appreciating the lesson and learning from the experience, the person takes the matter to court, accusing the officer of misrepresenting the recorded speed as 26 kilometers per hour over the limit.

These examples illustrate how exercising discretion can backfire, thereby discouraging police officers from assuming any risks. Consequently, adhering strictly to the established protocols becomes the safer course of action, eliminating the potential for unwelcome consequences.

As mentioned in the previous discussion thread, which unfortunately was deleted, the proposed legislation aiming to restrict firearms in Western Australia holds a strong argument in its favour and most here could not come up with a deceit argument against it other then how it would personal effect them.[/quote

Agree with most of what is being said Fionn. Don't have personal experience with discretion by police so can't comment.

Often the issue is that it does personally effect them so hence people's issue with it. Other than "it's unfair" there has been no rational argument so far against it.

[Toadstool]

Other than "it's unfair" there has been no rational argument so far against it.

Is that a reason to stop something though? Could say that about anything. Make shooting clubs illegal, no longer allowed to own firearms for that purpose. That would be unfair, but no 'rational' argument against that. Take up golf instead. We can't have the risk of any guns falling into criminal hands.

What's sad is the majority of the WA public would support anything that restricts firearms

[bladeracer]

Other than "it's unfair" there has been no rational argument so far against it.

Is that a reason to stop something though? Could say that about anything. Make shooting clubs illegal, no longer allowed to own firearms for that purpose. That would be unfair, but no 'rational' argument against that. Take up golf instead. We can't have the risk of any guns falling into criminal hands.

What's sad is the majority of the WA public would support anything that restricts firearms

If firearms were a genuine danger to the public we wouldn't be allowed to own millions of them, they would've banned them a century ago. None of the firearm laws are about public safety.

[animalpest]

I am currently at a place where there are about 1500 people and am walking around with a rifle in plain view with an offsider doing the same. And all I get from people walking pass is "ooo what sort of gun is that" or a simple "good morning".

Good communications can often stop hysteria

[mchughcb]

I am currently at a place where there are about 1500 people and am walking around with a rifle in plain view with an offsider doing the same. And all I get from people walking pass is "ooo what sort of gun is that" or a simple "good morning".

Good communications can often stop hysteria

I just wear a shirt saying I'm authorised.
Nobody questions that.

[womble]

There’s no rational argument for it.
The implication is that a licensed law abiding citizen who currently owns 5 firearms will become a danger to society when he obtains a 6th is absurd.
It dose’nt even justify a response or counter argument because of it’s absurdity.
There’s no evidence to support it It’s just arbitrary baseless legislation for the sake flexing power over people.
A government bending democracy toward tyranny just because they can. No other reason. There’s no basis is in any of this recent legislation for the greater good.
How does banning rare and obscure calibers instead of commonly accessible ones have any effect in making the community safer.
It dose’nt. There’s no reality in that.
This government is simply exploiting fears and anxieties of their own creation. But they’re not real.

Respectfully Fionn, perhaps you can put forward your reasoning for your support.

[Fionn]

There’s no rational argument for it.
The implication is that a licensed law abiding citizen who currently owns 5 firearms will become a danger to society when he obtains a 6th is absurd.
It dose’nt even justify a response or counter argument because of it’s absurdity.
There’s no evidence to support it It’s just arbitrary baseless legislation for the sake flexing power over people.
A government bending democracy toward tyranny just because they can. No other reason. There’s no basis is in any of this recent legislation for the greater good.
How does banning rare and obscure calibers instead of commonly accessible ones have any effect in making the community safer.
It dose’nt. There’s no reality in that.
This government is simply exploiting fears and anxieties of their own creation. But they’re not real.

Respectfully Fionn, perhaps you can put forward your reasoning for your support.

I don't support it, but they is very little argument against it as the evidence to support it is pretty simple, its a reasonable and rational decision, given the laws and how firearm ownership works in Western Australia.

A lot of people don't seem to understand how firearm ownership operates in Australia, they seem to incorrectly believe its similar to America, its not, its a very different.

Australian system operates on a permissioning basis, where the government grants individuals permission to own firearms. Consequently, the government has the authority to establish rules and regulations to ensure public safety. The intention behind these regulations is to strike a balance between allowing responsible individuals to engage in legitimate recreational activities such as hunting while minimizing the risks associated with firearm misuse.

A 5 firearm limit for sole reason to use for hunting is reasonable and most people would agree, or more likely still think its too many for purpose of hunting.

Given you can only hunt on properties that have given you permission and in that permission, they have listed the calibers and vermin that can be hunted at the property a 5 firearm limit seems reasonable.

Also given that fact that many? people in WA seem to have used property letters for properties they have never hunted on (or been allowed to), their is a very good case that these people should have their firearms seized and licences cancelled as they haven't demonstrated the reason to own the firearms.

[Fionn]

If firearms were a genuine danger to the public we wouldn't be allowed to own millions of them, they would've banned them a century ago. None of the firearm laws are about public safety.

Most firearms laws are about public safety, that's kind off the point of them. The reason they weren't banned a century ago, is mostly because the laws are pretty effective in ensuring public safety.

They are adjusted as necessary to ensue they are still relevant and working how they should, such as cancelling of WA Property Letters and firearms limits.

[bladeracer]

Also given that fact that many? people in WA seem to have used property letters for properties they have never hunted on (or been allowed to), their is a very good case that these people should have their firearms seized and licences cancelled as they haven't demonstrated the reason to own the firearms.

One very significant issue is that simply to have Hunting on your licence in WA you require a property letter, even if you only ever intend to hunt in another state. As all Western Australians can freely visit Victoria anytime they wish to and hunt on public land, requiring no permission from anybody, should be sufficient reason that none of them should require property letters.