Oldbloke wrote:Looks like a 5 limit for hunters.
Bloody hell.
https://sportingshooter.com.au/news/con ... sultation/
If they get the laws they're pushing even that will be too many as you won't be able to hunt anywhere anyway.
Oldbloke wrote:Looks like a 5 limit for hunters.
Bloody hell.
https://sportingshooter.com.au/news/con ... sultation/
womble wrote:Interesting way to encourage seniors to leave the state. I think you’d have a solid case for discrimination though.
Oldbloke wrote:womble wrote:Interesting way to encourage seniors to leave the state. I think you’d have a solid case for discrimination though.
They know that moving IS and leaving family just isnt going to happen for the vast majority.
Interesting thought, but the cost of fighting the gov would be huge.
Dess787 wrote:So what is the approval process for these new laws ? They don't just get announced and come into effect do they ?
Larry wrote:Look on the bright side at least all those threads titled "if you could only have 5 guns what would they be" may be of some practical use now.
womble wrote:All of these new proposed laws are fairly easy to challenge in court and overturn.
The public safety justification is based on less guns overall in the society equals less gun homicides, suicides.
Generally that’s true worldwide in most countries, not all. And not so in Western Australia. There’s no statistics to back that with.
Actually since the 96 debacle they’ve increased in Western Australia, marginally.
So really this is easy money for some good lawyers.
It’s just a waste of the state’s money to push ahead with this. They can’t supply the resources to implement it in a timely manner. And it’s fairly apparent that the minister is not listening to expert advice. So perhaps he’s not coping with the job.
Fionn wrote:
Under what grounds would the laws be able to be challenged and overturned in court?
Jackaroo wrote:Fionn wrote:
Under what grounds would the laws be able to be challenged and overturned in court?
How is it possible in Australia in 2023 to discriminate against an 80+ cohort sector of the Australian community?
Name another enacted law that so discriminates so vehemently and unjust based solely on nothing more than a persons age.
Jackaroo wrote:Fionn wrote:
Under what grounds would the laws be able to be challenged and overturned in court?
How is it possible in Australia in 2023 to discriminate against an 80+ cohort sector of the Australian community?
Name another enacted law that so discriminates so vehemently and unjust based solely on nothing more than a persons age.
Fionn wrote:Jackaroo wrote:Fionn wrote:
Under what grounds would the laws be able to be challenged and overturned in court?
How is it possible in Australia in 2023 to discriminate against an 80+ cohort sector of the Australian community?
Name another enacted law that so discriminates so vehemently and unjust based solely on nothing more than a persons age.
Lots of laws lawfully discriminate against people and not all discrimination is unlawful.
Simple example is against the law for someone under 18 to be served alcohol in a pub.
It's discrimination based on age, but lawful.
Oldbloke wrote:
Yep, im afraid i have to agree. Driving would be another. But the argument would be for safety reasons in both cases.
Many times its been proposed that once you hit saaay
80 (?) You need to retest your driving licence. Dont disagree actually. Firearms could be same.
Dess787 wrote:How long will it take for the new ACT to go through the houses ? Weeks ? months ?
Fionn wrote:Lots of laws lawfully discriminate against people and not all discrimination is unlawful.
Simple example is against the law for someone under 18 to be served alcohol in a pub.
It's discrimination based on age, but lawful.
Jackaroo wrote:Fionn wrote:Lots of laws lawfully discriminate against people and not all discrimination is unlawful.
Simple example is against the law for someone under 18 to be served alcohol in a pub.
It's discrimination based on age, but lawful.
Those are poor examples, no one under 18 has ever been able to be served alcohol. A four year old can't drive a car
down to the shops etc etc etc etc . They never had those rights and aren't losing them.
Completely different story to someone who is losing something and getting something compulsorily taken away.
They may have shot their whole lives, it might be the only thing that they have in regards to social activity, they might be the Club President
or Club Secretary of their club, THEY are being wholly discriminated against solely based on age for a mandatory losing of something that
could amount to their health and well being and enjoyment of life.
Be nice being 76, then 77, then 78, then 79 and knowing that in months you will mandatorily lose what you enjoy to do which may be an integral part of your life simply because you're turning 80.
Oldbloke wrote:
I agree, next no more fishing for those who cant swim, or are over 80. Where does it end.
To be fair Fionn was just pointing out its happening already. He didnt say he agreed.
Government seems to have the ability to do it and only time they are made accountable is during an election.
All this BS can easily be fixed. Convince all the clubs and associations to work together.
Fionn wrote:womble wrote:All of these new proposed laws are fairly easy to challenge in court and overturn.
The public safety justification is based on less guns overall in the society equals less gun homicides, suicides.
Generally that’s true worldwide in most countries, not all. And not so in Western Australia. There’s no statistics to back that with.
Actually since the 96 debacle they’ve increased in Western Australia, marginally.
So really this is easy money for some good lawyers.
It’s just a waste of the state’s money to push ahead with this. They can’t supply the resources to implement it in a timely manner. And it’s fairly apparent that the minister is not listening to expert advice. So perhaps he’s not coping with the job.
Under what grounds would the laws be able to be challenged and overturned in court?
Justification is only necessary to get the laws passed in parliament when the government needs support or to appease the public, but as I said before I don't think the majority would be against the new laws.
The resources to implement it wouldn't be that great, a bit of work at the introduction, but that would return to a lower level then they are currently after the laws are in practise.
womble wrote:There’s two relatively immediate effects from these new laws.
One being an increase in the number of firearms being reported lost or stolen.
The other an increase in firearms trading, good for business. No small increase either, when everyone reshuffles to get their top 5 list. A lot of rinse and repeat with cream on top for dealers.
With that comes a lot of movement of firearms and that’s not so great from a policing perspective.
Longer term people will pool together in various ways to share own firearms. And down the rabbit hole of even more loopholes to close, whilst simultaneously achieving nothing to fight crime. Far removed from any actual criminal activity until you can find ways to criminalise it in your desperate manifestation of an authoritarian police state.
Certainly no immediate effect on public safety. There’s no link between murders and people who own 6 firearms. It truly is that ridiculous.
Long term effects on public safety theres certainty no positives. Just an increase in unregistered and unregulated firearms. There is a potential for those to end up in the wrong hands. It’s rare, but it happens. There’s no lawful market left for them now.
If you want to ensure safe responsible firearms ownership in your community rule number one is engage with that community.
Let them know you care and trust them to be responsible. Build a bond and hold them to it and they will step up to it.
It’s really not that difficult to get them on your side.
All I’ve seen so far is the exact opposite. Condemnation , belittling and sheer arrogance.
Quite remarkably naive, immature and foolhardy.
Nethertheless worthy of their reputation as the world’s dumbest. And that really is a great shame. Because only recently they restored faith in their competence when they saved an abducted child from a remote campsite. And were rightly proud of themselves. Genuinely amazing and impressive work worldwide.
Their pride matters. The reputation of your police force matters. It’s important.
Tasking your members with ineffective duties targeting innocent people is demoralising.
As said earlier, need to have a look at your minister. He does not inspire confidence. Needs to be addressed. Needs someone of moral fortitude to intervene.
womble wrote:Unbelievable. That’s like not being able to borrow someone else’s car even though you have a drivers license.
The deprivation of any slight of liberty or individual autonomy in this state is terrifying. And it’s way too close to home.