Oldbloke wrote:First they waste tax payers money paying for them.
Then run them through a mincer.
Then blow them up.
What's next? An acid bath or nuclear explosion.
Really,,,,, talk about costly advertising. (Propaganda)
alexjones wrote:Oldbloke wrote:First they waste tax payers money paying for them.
Then run them through a mincer.
Then blow them up.
What's next? An acid bath or nuclear explosion.
Really,,,,, talk about costly advertising. (Propaganda)
Spot on mate. That explosion is worth millions of dollars and will not stop one single criminal committing a crime. Just a publicity stunt.
geoff wrote:I've blown a lot of s**t up in my time.
Some of it even intentionally
If a shotfirer did that on a mine site he would be just about stripped of his ticket. What a garbage blast
Crap everywhere.
1886 wrote:That apparent destruction of some firearms by explosion as per that vid was purely a typical Labor publicity stunt and total BS.
If several hundred or more firearms were exploded outdoors in that open fashion there would have been a shower of bits and pieces exiting that cloud, eg steel barrels and actions don't get totally atomized in such an open explosion nor would many wooden stocks etc, yet not one apparently escaped from the cloud.
Papalia and his Commissioner clearly want to demonstrate that they are total sensationalists with no clue whatsoever.
1886 wrote:But still no bits flying around.
It was all total BS and an explosion that was possibly not even related to the commentary.
Florey55 wrote:"Tighter storage requirements' for WA? They already have to store empty brass cases to the same level as loaded ammunition / firearms...
animalpest wrote:Florey55 wrote:"Tighter storage requirements' for WA? They already have to store empty brass cases to the same level as loaded ammunition / firearms...
Brass is now not classed as ammunition
geoff wrote:The revised definition of ammunition in the current Act - which was circa 2022 I think? - specifically excludes spent cases
The definition of ammunition in the new Act does not have that same carve out. The way I interpret the Act and that definition is that brass will again be considered a licensable/securable item?
"does not include any of the following —
(i) ammunition incapable of being fired, including an inert cartridge, a dummy round, and a drill round that does not contain a primer or propellant;
(ii) a prescribed paintball pellet;
(iii) any other thing prescribed by the regulations;"
The comment about not containing a primer or propellant refers to drill round, which a spent cases is not. I guess it depends on how far "incapable of being fired" goes - is that just in that moment or in its acute state of being spent, it is incapable of being fired? Or is it pertinent that you could technically load it and fire it again?
I'm no lawyer so I'm curious to hear some smarter opinions than mine on that reading. They made it really easy for us with the 2022 amendment. Very clear. No idea why they couldn't have kept that definition.
geoff wrote:The revised definition of ammunition in the current Act - which was circa 2022 I think? - specifically excludes spent cases
The definition of ammunition in the new Act does not have that same carve out. The way I interpret the Act and that definition is that brass will again be considered a licensable/securable item?
"does not include any of the following —
(i) ammunition incapable of being fired, including an inert cartridge, a dummy round, and a drill round that does not contain a primer or propellant;
(ii) a prescribed paintball pellet;
(iii) any other thing prescribed by the regulations;"
The comment about not containing a primer or propellant refers to drill round, which a spent cases is not. I guess it depends on how far "incapable of being fired" goes - is that just in that moment or in its acute state of being spent, it is incapable of being fired? Or is it pertinent that you could technically load it and fire it again?
I'm no lawyer so I'm curious to hear some smarter opinions than mine on that reading. They made it really easy for us with the 2022 amendment. Very clear. No idea why they couldn't have kept that definition.
Florey55 wrote:"Tighter storage requirements' for WA? They already have to store empty brass cases to the same level as loaded ammunition / firearms...
Oldbloke wrote:Don't argue.
Just get a gigantic chain saw.
alexjones wrote:I still prefer WA over VIC. In my mind VIC should be top of the list to succeed. VIC is full of freedom hating commies. WA is mostly just full of apolitical people AKA sheep.
Taking about succession though. Take away brisbane, sydney and melbourne and join the remaining area together, that would be one pretty cool country. Would have good freedom gun laws and a lot of industry.
Capital city could be cairns or something like that.
Once you leave the capital cities nearly everybody in the regions wants to just be left alone to live their life without harming others.
Oldbloke wrote:Umm, Western Victoria looses a most of SF to NP in 2030.
There is still a push to convert about half of the remaining to NP.
IMO in 15 - 20 years we will be identical to QLD