There are links below to both the Written Hansard & the Video Hansard.
As always, don't take my word for it, go see & check for yourself. We'll outline some points but only some of the bits that stand out.
Like, the original idea of the new Legislation...It was originally portrayed as giving the WAPolice all the tools necessary to combat Organised Crime/Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs. It was mostly portrayed as the latter but think we can assume it could also quite rightly be applied to any organised crime group.
Interesting that the first few parts the Minister for Police Paul Papalia MLA mentions are on crimes/alleged crimes committed by legally registered firearms owners & end up with the statement "Many incidents of this nature confirm that being a licensed firearms holder does not prevent someone from offending."
At this point I take exception to the intent or possible inferred meaning here. If he says many, and we're to be rather specific & focused, he should say exactly how "Many incidents of this nature..." is...exactly, unless his intent is to suggest that many and any legal owners can & possibly will commit gun crime.
If we were to follow that effort, I'll list all the legal breaches of anyone having served in the Navy or in the WA Parliament & say he should be on notice because the "Many incidents of this nature confirm that being a ex Navy person & a Membeer of Parliament does not prevent someone from committing all manner of crimes"
He used a theatrical mechanism...and he should know better and not do so.
He went onto say in Parliament "I reiterate that the focus of this legislation is on outlaw motorcycle gang members, terrorists and
serious domestic violence offenders."
Well I have no problem with that, if that indeed is the target group you intend to capture & no law abiding firearms owner is affected in anyway.
Now if a licenced firearms owner breaks the law within the Firearms Legislation...watch closely Minister, nice and closely...
THEY'RE LAW BREAKERS, CRIMINALS. NOT A LAW ABIDING FIREARMS OWNER LIKE THE REST OF US.
SO WITH THAT CLEARLY POINTED OUT PLEASE ENSURE THE AMENDED LAWS YOU WANT TO BRING IN TARGET THEM & OTHER CRIMINALS. MAKE SURE THE NEW LAWS DO NOT AFFECT US IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. NONE, NADA, ZERO.
Now lets look at the positives recorded in Hansard.
Minister Papalia said...
"If the Sporting Shooters Association or any individual legitimate and responsible licence holder finds some unforeseen implication, we will have the capacity to respond by regulation."
That's positive but its not drum tight yet but it does say "we will have the capacity to respond by regulation." Yes Capacity, but the promise to address & correct it would be a nice additional concessional assurance. I trust in the Minister's good will.
The minister went on to say in Parliament...
"I recognise that the Sporting Shooters Association is a representative body and that it actually has paid-up members. The Western Australia Firearm Traders Association is also a responsible body. I will, as will the police and my office, continue to engage with those bodies as we move down the pathway of implementing the bill, and into the future. I already have talked to them about regular meetings with respect to discussing how firearms are managed in Western Australia, which will enable a two-way flow of information"
In highlight, another positive point.
Another positive point, RELOADING.
The minister made a statement that is very clear.
"There has been no change to the provisions that would prevent a personal firearm licence holder from continuing to reload ammunition for their own personal use."
I take this on face value with the good intent I believe it clearly appears to have. If you reload your own ammunition, you still can. No changes. Relax.
There are sections that will have to be looked at and I hope the Minister decides not to define a spent casing or new casings as "ammunition".
The minister was asked about folding stocks to which he replied...
"I am in agreement with Inspector Walker’s observation that people do not have a device with a folding stock so it aids them in cleaning a firearm. It is so that they can shorten it and potentially conceal it. In our case, that is what we are concerned about. The reasoning behind prohibiting a device with a folding stock is that it could enable someone to conceal a firearm and employ it more readily in a criminal act."
Folding Stocks should be referred to as the proper term "Folding Butt Stock". were already illegal here. I think it was an oddity to do so, especially in the case of bolt action rifles because if it folds sideways the same direction as the bolt, the stock will prevent cycling the bolt or interfere. Also, a folding stock has no ability to mitigate recoil. Very rarely are they more accurate than a fixed stock. Their best advantage is storage. in vehicles etc. If criminals favour folding stocks when executing a crime, they will have a folding stock on their illegal firearm. Most firearms used in gun crimes are illegal.
This is kinda trying to prevent lawful owners having a type of stock they're mostly unlikely to want to use, that is legal in other Australian states so it lessens the chances of a criminal having one on his illegal gun. For what its worth, rifles are not the most common criminal choice, let alone rifles with folding stocks. Lot of statistics on the Criminals choice...but hey, jump the shark.
The minister was asked to define Stock. This would have been the perfect opportunity to clear things up, the difference between a Stock, a Buttstock and a Folding Butt Stock.
What he said was...
"I am in agreement with Inspector Walker’s observation that people do not have a device with a folding stock so it aids them in cleaning a firearm. It is so that they can shorten it and potentially conceal it. In our case, that is what we are concerned about. The reasoning behind prohibiting a device with a folding stock is that it could enable someone to conceal a firearm and employ it more readily in a criminal act."
The problem shooters have been trying to get across is all "stocks" are detachable. Many Stocks are held to the Barrel/Action by 2 screws. If they ban detachable stocks are many are thinking it makes no sense. All guns would have illegal stocks. Nonsensical.
A Buttstock and a Stock aren't the same thing. Some firearms with detahcable buttstocks, like some lever actions. They are then inoperable as a firearm. If he's keen to nad Folding Buttstocks, they already are. This was an opportunity to clear this up. Pity. Many "take down" long arms & they are inoperable when split. I hope owners of these aren't going to get caught up in stock, butt stock issues & owners being banned from changing the stock or buttstock as they always have.
Some of the downsides and cool your jets, its not all over yet...but maybe it is.
If you need to replace a stock or a trigger mechanism you will need permission of the Police Commissioner. If you think that is going to be cost free, you're easier going to me because I'm quite sure instead of you buying a new replacement stock, undoing the 2 screws, swapping stocks & doing the two screws up is being down by you...well way I'm reading it NO.
You're going to have to take it or send it to a repairer, apply for permission, when permission if granted, its changed in the best part of 15 minutes then you pay the bill & probably the application to replace fee to WAPolice, then pick it up...because lets face it, if it has to go via courier or post in regional WA its probably not getting fixed.
The only part that should require permission & a Gunsmith or Dealer/Repair is the barrel & maybe some triggers and definitely the barrel as its a serialised part. The Stock? No. If this goes through, it will have to be reversed & removed by a future Govt. I cannot fathom how made most if not all firearms owners will see this as.
Not to mention, I cannot see how this has any bearing at all on OUTLAW MOTORCYCLE GANGS, TERRORISTS & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENDERS whilst leaving lawful firearms owners unaffected. None of this targets criminals who mostly use illegal firearms.
The minister and opposition MPs waxed lyrical but the fact is, you cannot replace the stock on a firearm UNLESS you are a licenced repairer AND you have permission of the Police Commissioner.
Undoing those 2 screws, swapping the stock, doing up the 2 screws will be breaking the law. Possessing an used Stock will (as a major firearms part) be illegal.
Now if you think that is weird, get your head around this.
A rendered firearm is not a licenced firearm. You can remove & swap stocks on a firearm rendered innocous. So with that logic a stock from a rendered firearm is not a major firearms part. Possession of an used stock from a rendered firearm is not illegal but a stock that is from or for your working licenced firearm now has to be handed in or seek retrospective approval for it.
The simple, sensible thing here, is to not classify a stock as a major firearms part. It cannot be, it sould never be. If I had to replace a stock I have to apply to the Police Commissioner, await approval, then drive to the nearest repairer because I cannot post it and wait. Then pay the bill I've incurred for travel, lost time waiting for permission & freight and the cost of the repairer unding two screws, swapping stocks, then doing up 2 screws. In the case of Mosin Nagants, polishing the trigger sear is wise thing to do. You have to remove the bolt, the magazine, its housing, seperate the barrelled action from the stock, then polish the trigger sear, re-assemble. That maybe illegal for just removing the stock.
Its even weirder if thats ok to do as long as the same stock goes back on.
Then once you've consumed all this, stopped your head from spinning...
Ask yourself this.
HOW IS THIS TARGETING OUTLAW MOTORCYCLE GANGS, TERRORISTS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENDERS WITHOUT AFFECTING LAW ABIDING FIREARMS OWNERS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, FORM, COST OR DETRITMENT? HOW?
The inherrent faults within this bill are staggering as they are breath taking and I've only gone through stocks. It is clear that this bill must go on hold & be referred to committee or be widely amended.
It's staggering when the rules do not seem to understand the difference between stock, butt stock & folding stock and that a innocous part like a stock is now considered a major firearm part,
There's some reasons to relax. But wow...there's some other breath taking dud balls that are mind blowing.
Minister Papalia said...
"If the Sporting Shooters Association or any individual legitimate and responsible licence holder finds some unforeseen implication, we will have the capacity to respond by regulation."
That's positive but its not drum tight yet but it does say "we will have the capacity to respond by regulation." Yes Capacity, but the promise to address & correct it would be a nice additional concessional assurance. I trust in the Minister's good will.
The minister went on to say in Parliament...
"I recognise that the Sporting Shooters Association is a representative body and that it actually has paid-up members. The Western Australia Firearm Traders Association is also a responsible body. I will, as will the police and my office, continue to engage with those bodies as we move down the pathway of implementing the bill, and into the future. I already have talked to them about regular meetings with respect to discussing how firearms are managed in Western Australia, which will enable a two-way flow of information"
In highlight, another positive point.
Another positive point, RELOADING.
The minister made a statement that is very clear.
"There has been no change to the provisions that would prevent a personal firearm licence holder from continuing to reload ammunition for their own personal use."
I take this on face value with the good intent I believe it clearly appears to have. If you reload your own ammunition, you still can. No changes. Relax.
There are sections that will have to be looked at and I hope the Minister decides not to define a spent casing or new casings as "ammunition".
The minister was asked about folding stocks to which he replied...
"I am in agreement with Inspector Walker’s observation that people do not have a device with a folding stock so it aids them in cleaning a firearm. It is so that they can shorten it and potentially conceal it. In our case, that is what we are concerned about. The reasoning behind prohibiting a device with a folding stock is that it could enable someone to conceal a firearm and employ it more readily in a criminal act."
Folding Stocks should be referred to as the proper term "Folding Butt Stock". were already illegal here. I think it was an oddity to do so, especially in the case of bolt action rifles because if it folds sideways the same direction as the bolt, the stock will prevent cycling the bolt or interfere. Also, a folding stock has no ability to mitigate recoil. Very rarely are they more accurate than a fixed stock. Their best advantage is storage. in vehicles etc. If criminals favour folding stocks when executing a crime, they will have a folding stock on their illegal firearm. Most firearms used in gun crimes are illegal.
This is kinda trying to prevent lawful owners having a type of stock they're mostly unlikely to want to use, that is legal in other Australian states so it lessens the chances of a criminal having one on his illegal gun. For what its worth, rifles are not the most common criminal choice, let alone rifles with folding stocks. Lot of statistics on the Criminals choice...but hey, jump the shark.
The minister was asked to define Stock. This would have been the perfect opportunity to clear things up, the difference between a Stock, a Buttstock and a Folding Butt Stock.
What he said was...
"I am in agreement with Inspector Walker’s observation that people do not have a device with a folding stock so it aids them in cleaning a firearm. It is so that they can shorten it and potentially conceal it. In our case, that is what we are concerned about. The reasoning behind prohibiting a device with a folding stock is that it could enable someone to conceal a firearm and employ it more readily in a criminal act."
The problem shooters have been trying to get across is all "stocks" are detachable. Many Stocks are held to the Barrel/Action by 2 screws. If they ban detachable stocks are many are thinking it makes no sense. All guns would have illegal stocks. Nonsensical.
A Buttstock and a Stock aren't the same thing. Some firearms with detahcable buttstocks, like some lever actions. They are then inoperable as a firearm. If he's keen to nad Folding Buttstocks, they already are. This was an opportunity to clear this up. Pity. Many "take down" long arms & they are inoperable when split. I hope owners of these aren't going to get caught up in stock, butt stock issues & owners being banned from changing the stock or buttstock as they always have.
Some of the downsides and cool your jets, its not all over yet...but maybe it is.
If you need to replace a stock or a trigger mechanism you will need permission of the Police Commissioner. If you think that is going to be cost free, you're easier going to me because I'm quite sure instead of you buying a new replacement stock, undoing the 2 screws, swapping stocks & doing the two screws up is being down by you...well way I'm reading it NO.
You're going to have to take it or send it to a repairer, apply for permission, when permission if granted, its changed in the best part of 15 minutes then you pay the bill & probably the application to replace fee to WAPolice, then pick it up...because lets face it, if it has to go via courier or post in regional WA its probably not getting fixed.
The only part that should require permission & a Gunsmith or Dealer/Repair is the barrel & maybe some triggers and definitely the barrel as its a serialised part. The Stock? No. If this goes through, it will have to be reversed & removed by a future Govt. I cannot fathom how made most if not all firearms owners will see this as.
Not to mention, I cannot see how this has any bearing at all on OUTLAW MOTORCYCLE GANGS, TERRORISTS & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENDERS whilst leaving lawful firearms owners unaffected. None of this targets criminals who mostly use illegal firearms.
The minister and opposition MPs waxed lyrical but the fact is, you cannot replace the stock on a firearm UNLESS you are a licenced repairer AND you have permission of the Police Commissioner.
Undoing those 2 screws, swapping the stock, doing up the 2 screws will be breaking the law. Possessing an used Stock will (as a major firearms part) be illegal.
Now if you think that is weird, get your head around this.
A rendered firearm is not a licenced firearm. You can remove & swap stocks on a firearm rendered innocous. So with that logic a stock from a rendered firearm is not a major firearms part. Possession of an used stock from a rendered firearm is not illegal but a stock that is from or for your working licenced firearm now has to be handed in or seek retrospective approval for it.
The simple, sensible thing here, is to not classify a stock as a major firearms part. It cannot be, it sould never be. If I had to replace a stock I have to apply to the Police Commissioner, await approval, then drive to the nearest repairer because I cannot post it and wait. Then pay the bill I've incurred for travel, lost time waiting for permission & freight and the cost of the repairer unding two screws, swapping stocks, then doing up 2 screws. In the case of Mosin Nagants, polishing the trigger sear is wise thing to do. You have to remove the bolt, the magazine, its housing, seperate the barrelled action from the stock, then polish the trigger sear, re-assemble. That maybe illegal for just removing the stock.
Its even weirder if thats ok to do as long as the same stock goes back on.
Then once you've consumed all this, stopped your head from spinning...
Ask yourself this.
HOW IS THIS TARGETING OUTLAW MOTORCYCLE GANGS, TERRORISTS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENDERS WITHOUT AFFECTING LAW ABIDING FIREARMS OWNERS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, FORM, COST OR DETRITMENT? HOW?
The inherrent faults within this bill are staggering as they are breath taking and I've only gone through stocks. It is clear that this bill must go on hold & be referred to committee or be widely amended.
It's staggering when the rules do not seem to understand the difference between stock, butt stock & folding stock and that a innocous part like a stock is now considered a major firearm part,
There's some reasons to relax. But wow...there's some other breath taking dud balls that are mind blowing.
- The Actual Bill before Parliament -
Link -> Progress of Bills (parliament.wa.gov.au) - The Law Reform Commission's REVIEW OF THE
FIREARMS ACT
1973 (WA)
PROJECT 105 FINAL REPORT
Link -> LRC-Project-105-Final-Report.pdf (www.wa.gov.au) - And an older report from the Auditor General in regards Firearms Control but this had recommendations on the WAPolice side which I hope have been addressed in full -
Link -> Firearm-Controls.pdf (audit.wa.gov.au)
No comments:
Post a Comment