hd1340
Senior Member
Posts: 334 
Likes: 426
Location: WA
|
Post by hd1340 on Feb 27, 2024 21:49:51 GMT 10
Been following this with interest as it's going to affect a lot of people. Tabled in parliament last week, suspect it will get pushed through without any considerations to feedback. Their buyback values don't even come close to half the value of any of my firearms.Paid a visit to one of our local gun clubs Saturday. Some of their intent below.
Retrospective removal of written consent for all shooters will punish every shooter, landholder, and sporting club in the state without evidence supporting the need of such a measure. New letter required every year for each firearm you own, property owners will be quizzed as to what reason each calibre is required for on their property.Property owners only allowed to give out 3 letters.
Mandatory mental health checks will divert critical health services away from West Australians who need them, especially for those in regional areas where services are scarce. Possibly annually.
Mandatory mental health checks may have the perverse outcome of increasing reluctance in the community to seek support for genuine mental health concerns.
Placing arbitrary caps on the number of firearms a licensee may own are not supported by evidence and ignores the fact every licensed firearm in the State has had its genuine need established. 5 guns for recreational shooters, 10 for primary producers and shooting club shooters.
Restricting a licensed firearm to be used only in the setting for which it has received written authority places unnecessary bureaucratic burden on landholders who wish to engage shooters.
|
|
malewithatail
VIP Member
Posts: 3,963
Likes: 1,380
Location: Northern Rivers NSW
|
Post by malewithatail on Feb 28, 2024 7:24:50 GMT 10
I remember when.......if you had a property, u could have as many weapons as u wanted, semi autos as well, no registration or license needed. Hell, I used to carry a semi auto behind the seat in my landrover, no license or registration.
Its all about control, under the guise of protection.
Silence, wisdom's one satisfactory substitute.
|
|
tactile
Senior Member
Posts: 1,069
Likes: 483
|
Post by tactile on Feb 28, 2024 12:12:54 GMT 10
Mandatory mental health checks may have the perverse outcome of increasing reluctance in the community to seek support for genuine mental health concerns. Isn't that the point tho? If people are nuts they wont be able to keep their guns? If people dont get help for their mental health issue that's not anyone else's problem. Those people WITH guns AND mental health issues...well that is our problem.
Not sure about the rest of the legislation, but this I would support. I doubt it will happen tho, cost too much to implement?
|
|
bushdoc2
Senior Member
Posts: 381
Likes: 469
|
Post by bushdoc2 on Feb 28, 2024 12:19:15 GMT 10
Mandatory mental health checks may have the perverse outcome of increasing reluctance in the community to seek support for genuine mental health concerns. Isn't that the point tho? If people are nuts they wont be able to keep their guns? If people dont get help for their mental health issue that's not anyone else's problem. Those people WITH guns AND mental health issues...well that is our problem.
Not sure about the rest of the legislation, but this I would support. I doubt it will happen tho, cost too much to implement?
Sorry, no. It will drive people away from mental health. Cops and farmers are prone to mental health issues. If they seek help, they may lose their gun/livelihood, so often they don't seek help until too late, due to the stigma.
|
|
bug
Senior Member
Posts: 2,316
Likes: 1,934
|
Post by bug on Feb 28, 2024 14:30:13 GMT 10
Firearms "reform" is never any such thing. It is invariably a ham fisted attempt to disarm the populace.
|
|
bug
Senior Member
Posts: 2,316
Likes: 1,934
|
Post by bug on Feb 28, 2024 14:32:07 GMT 10
Isn't that the point tho? If people are nuts they wont be able to keep their guns? If people dont get help for their mental health issue that's not anyone else's problem. Those people WITH guns AND mental health issues...well that is our problem.
Not sure about the rest of the legislation, but this I would support. I doubt it will happen tho, cost too much to implement?
Sorry, no. It will drive people away from mental health. Cops and farmers are prone to mental health issues. If they seek help, they may lose their gun/livelihood, so often they don't seek help until too late, due to the stigma.
Defence too. For those silly enough to believe that our government is worth laying their life down for, seeking mental health support will mean an end to most activies and they may as well discharge. |
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Feb 28, 2024 17:54:56 GMT 10
Mandatory mental health checks may have the perverse outcome of increasing reluctance in the community to seek support for genuine mental health concerns. Isn't that the point tho? If people are nuts they wont be able to keep their guns? If people dont get help for their mental health issue that's not anyone else's problem. Those people WITH guns AND mental health issues...well that is our problem.
Not sure about the rest of the legislation, but this I would support. I doubt it will happen tho, cost too much to implement?
I've been on the wrong side of a spurious "mental health" allegation and had my firearms seized.
At the end I got all my gear back but it CREATED a fair amount of mental stress and cost me $1200 in legal costs.
The system gets abused pretty often. And given the prevalence of "mental health" issues in the community and among people who own firearms ... if there were a serious causative correlation with gun murder ... the gun murder rate would be sky high. And it isn't. There is no causative correlation.
Should people with mental illness be prevented from driving cars? Lest they mow down pedestrians on the streets or have head-ons willy-nilly on the nations highways? Guns are just a tool. Which for some reason The Powers That Be are mad keen to take away from everyone for no good reason. If the real reason were safety then the sale of petrol and glass bottles would be tightly restricted - so many people cut themselves on broken glass and get burnt in fires. And plenty of bona-fide psycho's love committing arson with accelerants. Yet ... fuel stations are selling fuel to everyone without any mental health checks.
Fun fact: did you know that if you are under 16 you cannot buy a knife from woolworths  For "safety" reasons. LOL!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Stealth on Feb 28, 2024 21:17:12 GMT 10
Fun fact: did you know that if you are under 16 you cannot buy a knife from woolworths For "safety" reasons. LOL!!!!
Years back I was on a course for work and didn't have my eating irons with me for some reason. Forgot to pack 'em I guess. I didn't want to eat at the mess and went to the local Woolies to buy some food and mess kit. I picked up a kids utensil set. Ie. A knife that had no serration, no sharp edge, it was literally a piece of flat metal with no sharp edges because it was designed for toddlers. I grabbed that one because my smallest at the time was still figuring out using cutlery and I thought I could just hand them over when I got home. I didn't have any food that needed cutting and it was perfect for smearing vegemite on my morning toast (providing I didn't set off the alarm in the room with the toaster lmao) and decided it'd be perfect to hand on when I got back. Got to the self checkout and couldn't go any further because I had to provide ID for the BLUNT KNIFE 🤣🤣🤣. I was stunned! When the lass came to buzz it through, I said to her "You could do more damage with a plastic knife than this, why do I need ID for it?" and she just sighed heavily and said "You tell me and we'll both know". I still giggle about that little piece of red tape idiocy even now. Anyway, back to the point. Mandatory mental health checks seem sensible but the problem is that we all know it's going to be a form that you tick 'sometimes, always or never' and then get on with your day. Then you factor in that for those with mental health issues it's not hard to know how you're supposed to answer, and as a result it'd be extremely easy for them to game the system and get through anyway. I don't think these checks will do anything other than increase the impost on an already strained mental health system. I can't imagine someone in the middle of a mental health crisis wants to hear "We'd love to help you, but we have thirty mandatory health screens to conduct today and we just don't have the time to fit you in". It seems like the current status with extra steps. Reducing the number of firearms you can own under a gun cap seems... I don't know. I'm on the fence on that one. Reasonable because if you have two good firearms that suit your needs and you just want five, is it worth having three extra weapons out in the wild that are less likely to be in regular use than the two favourites? I don't know, I've never been responsible for more than two at a time and I prefer to keep it that way. They're tools, but they're also a huge responsibility. So I can't imagine a time or place where I need or want more than a maximum of two at hand. One for close up, one for 10m+. I'm a pretty average shot with a pistol, I'd rather a long barrel heh. But I'm a one-gun-girl. I like to have MY gun and know it very well. There's only space for one in my heart at any one time lol. So I can give room that there's people who might have legitimate reason to have more than two firearms registered to them at a time such as sports folk. Genuine question though, for what reason would it be sensible to own ten as a primary producer? Unless I'm missing something, you can only shoot one at a time. Is it so that you can provide equipment for shooters coming onto your land? I'd have thought most shooters would have their own kit and prefer to use that regardless. I guess I could see a reduced reload timeframe being valuable if you already have a few firearms loaded and ready to go but even then, it seems overkill. Happy to be cleared up on that one, I've not been a primary producer before and for all that we went spotlighting a lot when I was a kid for local farms, there was never more than one per shooter and not because there weren't options, it was just the preference. |
|
tactile
Senior Member
Posts: 1,069
Likes: 483
|
Post by tactile on Feb 28, 2024 22:54:12 GMT 10
Sorry, no. It will drive people away from mental health. Cops and farmers are prone to mental health issues. If they seek help, they may lose their gun/livelihood, so often they don't seek help until too late, due to the stigma.
Not sorry, no. ANYONE with mental health issues should lose access to their guns until they are sorted. I dont care what their profession is.
|
|
norseman
VIP Member
Posts: 2,237
Likes: 1,888
|
Post by norseman on Feb 29, 2024 6:21:42 GMT 10
Sorry, no. It will drive people away from mental health. Cops and farmers are prone to mental health issues. If they seek help, they may lose their gun/livelihood, so often they don't seek help until too late, due to the stigma.
Not sorry, no. ANYONE with mental health issues should lose access to their guns until they are sorted. I dont care what their profession is.
|
|
|
|
Post by ausprep130 on Feb 29, 2024 14:14:12 GMT 10
Sorry, no. It will drive people away from mental health. Cops and farmers are prone to mental health issues. If they seek help, they may lose their gun/livelihood, so often they don't seek help until too late, due to the stigma.
Not sorry, no. ANYONE with mental health issues should lose access to their guns until they are sorted. I dont care what their profession is.
I think the concerns are; Anyone who has ever had a mental health issue may be prevented from ever using\possessing a gun even if the health issue was temporary and/or decades earlier. And like most laws that are introduced, the law starts off quite specific but over time it is made more generic. eg: the definition of 'mental health issues' may have originally been meant to describe 'schizophrenic psychopath', and I think everyone would agree that a 'schizophrenic psychopath' should not have access to guns, but over time it could potentially include simply being 'annoyed at missing your train' OR 'annoyed because you got cut off in traffic'. And for anyone who doesn't quite understand how easily this can occur, here's a quick semi-hypothetical explanation. a Mental Health Act has a definition for 'mental health' a Firearms Act has a definition for 'mental health' which refers to Mental Health Act definition of 'mental health' a Social security Act has definition of 'disability' and refers to the Mental Health Act definition of 'mental health' a Medicare Act has a definition . . . . and so on. All good at the start until someone wants to expand the definition of mental health to include ....... Sounds reasonable from Medicare point of view. ..... then someone wants to expand the definition of mental health to include ....... Sounds reasonable from a Social Security point of view. ..... then someone wants to expand the definition of mental health to include ....... Sounds reasonable from a Medicare point of view. And so on, until finally the definition of mental health is so broad reaching that it includes things most ordinary people would consider ridiculous from a Firearms Act point of view - but it is too late and the Police and govt are quite happy to leave things as they are as it prevents people from having access to guns. |
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Mar 1, 2024 9:17:45 GMT 10
Genuine question though, for what reason would it be sensible to own ten as a primary producer? Unless I'm missing something, you can only shoot one at a time. Is it so that you can provide equipment for shooters coming onto your land? I'd have thought most shooters would have their own kit and prefer to use that regardless. I guess I could see a reduced reload timeframe being valuable if you already have a few firearms loaded and ready to go but even then, it seems overkill. Happy to be cleared up on that one, I've not been a primary producer before and for all that we went spotlighting a lot when I was a kid for local farms, there was never more than one per shooter and not because there weren't options, it was just the preference. I can see why folks wonder about the 10 gun thing. Where it occurs my experience has been this: 1. Often more than 1 shooter in a farming family but only 1 licence holder. (I have no idea why) So the 1 licence holder ends up with other family members items on their list. 2. "The best tool for the job" means even a single farmer will likely own a .22 (birds rabbit foxes - at close range) and putting down small livestock), 12 gauge (birds, rabbits, foxes), .410 (snakes around the sheds), small calibre centrefire (foxes, roos and hares at longer ranges) and a .30 cal centrefire (larger ferals that can't be mustered and sold). 3. Accumulated history - A 50 year old farmer today likely still has his/her fathers and grandfathers rifles in their possession. Quite a few .303, 12G and .22's in this category. Also stuff like 8 X 57, 7 X 57, 303/25 and 30/30. And this was the sad part about the Howard era gunlaw changes and buy-backs - a lot of nice, sensible browning semi-auto A5's belonging to previous generations of farmer got outlawed and scrapped. Great tool for shooting foxes flushed from cover under spotlight.
|
|
malewithatail
VIP Member
Posts: 3,963
Likes: 1,380
Location: Northern Rivers NSW
|
Post by malewithatail on Mar 1, 2024 10:12:24 GMT 10
We are primary producers, and have the appropriate c class licenses to possess semi-automatic weapons. There are 4 of us licensed here, and a gun cabinet full of weapons, its a matter of horses for courses.
How many is too many ? We have at present the following. 12 G, snakes, .22's, 5 of 'em, air rifles-cane toads and fun/small rats, 303, its law that u cant be cruel to an animal and a .22 isn't necessarily gonna put a crook cow down easily and quickly, hence the 303. The right tool for the job, isn't that how its supposed to work ? And yes, I was stupid enough to hand in the Browning .22 semi auto 10 shot repeater rifle at the buy back. Perfect weapon for foxes, rabbits and even snakes.
And ammo, is 1,000 rounds to much ? No, not for a working farm with a rabbit problem, 1,000 rounds will last 2 nights with 1/2 doz shooters spotlighting.
I sometimes wonder if these Polyfilths realize just exactly where their food comes from and what it takes to grow and protect it from harm. Maybe they are scared the people might see through their neferous schemes and rise up against them ?
And yes, I do carry when out in the paddocks, I love rabbit stew !
My mind has a few bad sectors, sorry world.
|
|
bug
Senior Member
Posts: 2,316
Likes: 1,934
|
Post by bug on Mar 1, 2024 12:43:27 GMT 10
They know. They do. not. care. Far more votes in with the gun haters.
The only parties opposing this stuff is shooters and fishers and also the lib dems.
|
|
frostbite
VIP Member
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 7,119
Member is Online
|
Post by frostbite on Mar 1, 2024 17:38:56 GMT 10
I have 9 pistols, soon to be 10. Do I need all of them? Absolutely. I currently have 5 pistol trainees and about to start a school kid doing pistol shooting as part of his Duke of Ed Award once NSW Dept of Education vett me. I might end up being a very busy boy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stealth on Mar 1, 2024 21:33:16 GMT 10
I can see why folks wonder about the 10 gun thing. Where it occurs my experience has been this: 1. Often more than 1 shooter in a farming family but only 1 licence holder. (I have no idea why) So the 1 licence holder ends up with other family members items on their list. 2. "The best tool for the job" means even a single farmer will likely own a .22 (birds rabbit foxes - at close range) and putting down small livestock), 12 gauge (birds, rabbits, foxes), .410 (snakes around the sheds), small calibre centrefire (foxes, roos and hares at longer ranges) and a .30 cal centrefire (larger ferals that can't be mustered and sold). 3. Accumulated history - A 50 year old farmer today likely still has his/her fathers and grandfathers rifles in their possession. Quite a few .303, 12G and .22's in this category. Also stuff like 8 X 57, 7 X 57, 303/25 and 30/30. And this was the sad part about the Howard era gunlaw changes and buy-backs - a lot of nice, sensible browning semi-auto A5's belonging to previous generations of farmer got outlawed and scrapped. Great tool for shooting foxes flushed from cover under spotlight.
Makes sense. I wonder if point 1 comes into play with regular reliability over the rest of the points lmao. But yeah, they do all seem realistic reasons. |
|
spatial
Senior Member
Posts: 2,396
Likes: 1,560
|
Post by spatial on Mar 2, 2024 7:12:46 GMT 10
I can see why folks wonder about the 10 gun thing. Where it occurs my experience has been this: 1. Often more than 1 shooter in a farming family but only 1 licence holder. (I have no idea why) So the 1 licence holder ends up with other family members items on their list. 2. "The best tool for the job" means even a single farmer will likely own a .22 (birds rabbit foxes - at close range) and putting down small livestock), 12 gauge (birds, rabbits, foxes), .410 (snakes around the sheds), small calibre centrefire (foxes, roos and hares at longer ranges) and a .30 cal centrefire (larger ferals that can't be mustered and sold). 3. Accumulated history - A 50 year old farmer today likely still has his/her fathers and grandfathers rifles in their possession. Quite a few .303, 12G and .22's in this category. Also stuff like 8 X 57, 7 X 57, 303/25 and 30/30. And this was the sad part about the Howard era gunlaw changes and buy-backs - a lot of nice, sensible browning semi-auto A5's belonging to previous generations of farmer got outlawed and scrapped. Great tool for shooting foxes flushed from cover under spotlight.
Yip, NO one talking about human hunting requirements. well over the last few years they have been relentless publishing minimum calibre for humane game hunting. So for each class of animal you need the correct caliber. For example shooting roos with .223 is acceptable but if you want to deal with a pig problem you need something more powerful. The premises being the smaller the caliber used the better for cost, noise and safety.. I was considering getting .338 for water buffalo as that is what is recommended, the humble .308 is not up to the task according to minimum humane hunting requirements. .338 are banned from most ranges and would be banned in WA.. newzealandsafaris.com/shot-placement-for-australian-water-buffalo/#:~:text=To%20make%20an%20ethical%20shot,338. To make an ethical shot on an Australian Water Buffalo Bull it is recommended to use a minimum of .375 caliber although some hunters may use a .338. On our Australian Water Buffalo hunts we have seen that the .338 caliber is moving much too quickly to achieve maximum expansion of projectile which should be bonded, or, first shot even a solid but this can be left to the experts to discuss in depth. What can you hunt (includes recommended caliber) This section presents some of the most common species that can be legally hunted in Australia. Most are classified as feral or pest animals and can be hunted any time. www.ssaa.org.au/resources/hunting/what-you-can-hunt/ |
|
hd1340
Senior Member
Posts: 334
Likes: 426
Location: WA
|
Post by hd1340 on Mar 2, 2024 16:44:10 GMT 10
Visited local today, said Feb was busiest month they've ever had.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinifex on Mar 2, 2024 17:20:02 GMT 10
I can see why folks wonder about the 10 gun thing. Where it occurs my experience has been this: 1. Often more than 1 shooter in a farming family but only 1 licence holder. (I have no idea why) So the 1 licence holder ends up with other family members items on their list. 2. "The best tool for the job" means even a single farmer will likely own a .22 (birds rabbit foxes - at close range) and putting down small livestock), 12 gauge (birds, rabbits, foxes), .410 (snakes around the sheds), small calibre centrefire (foxes, roos and hares at longer ranges) and a .30 cal centrefire (larger ferals that can't be mustered and sold). 3. Accumulated history - A 50 year old farmer today likely still has his/her fathers and grandfathers rifles in their possession. Quite a few .303, 12G and .22's in this category. Also stuff like 8 X 57, 7 X 57, 303/25 and 30/30. And this was the sad part about the Howard era gunlaw changes and buy-backs - a lot of nice, sensible browning semi-auto A5's belonging to previous generations of farmer got outlawed and scrapped. Great tool for shooting foxes flushed from cover under spotlight.
Yip, NO one talking about human hunting requirements. well over the last few years they have been relentless publishing minimum calibre for humane game hunting. So for each class of animal you need the correct caliber. For example shooting roos with .223 is acceptable but if you want to deal with a pig problem you need something more powerful. The premises being the smaller the caliber used the better for cost, noise and safety.. I was considering getting .338 for water buffalo as that is what is recommended, the humble .308 is not up to the task according to minimum humane hunting requirements. .338 are banned from most ranges and would be banned in WA.. newzealandsafaris.com/shot-placement-for-australian-water-buffalo/#:~:text=To%20make%20an%20ethical%20shot,338. To make an ethical shot on an Australian Water Buffalo Bull it is recommended to use a minimum of .375 caliber although some hunters may use a .338. On our Australian Water Buffalo hunts we have seen that the .338 caliber is moving much too quickly to achieve maximum expansion of projectile which should be bonded, or, first shot even a solid but this can be left to the experts to discuss in depth. What can you hunt (includes recommended caliber) This section presents some of the most common species that can be legally hunted in Australia. Most are classified as feral or pest animals and can be hunted any time. www.ssaa.org.au/resources/hunting/what-you-can-hunt/The .308 and 303 have taken more buff than .338 rounds have ever been fired in oz. 303 during the hide trade of the 20s and 30s. Then the .308 during BTEC in the 80s. But of course, back then men were men and magnums were but a penis compensator. My personal experience is that .308 is perfect for taking feral bulls … of the Santa size … because accurate shooting is much easier with that calibre. In much the same vein … the hilux will do way more for you than a Dodge Ram or F250. |
|
hd1340
Senior Member
Posts: 334
Likes: 426
Location: WA
|
Post by hd1340 on Mar 3, 2024 17:20:17 GMT 10
Just gets better and better. Both indoor ranges in Perth temporarily closes lead contamination of surrounding environment, storage issues, range upgrades depending on who you listen to. One has 850 members how many of them are going to be able to meet their yearly attendance requirements. At the local pistol club this morning, 3 member emailed a local member of parliament voicing their concerns. No response from the local member but all 3 had visits from local police for storage checks.Just a coincidence of course.
|
|
For "safety" reasons. LOL!!!! 
