Papalia, McGowan & Cook & the Firearms Reforms Disaster

The day after what the WA Media called a very successful WA Liberal State Conference, Paul Papalia ON A SUNDAY announced that licenced firearms owners in WA would have to undergo regular mental health checks. Timing of the announcement coincidence or deliberate?
Do you hear many Ministers make media announcements on Legislative announcements a Sunday?
Many? 
Any? Can you come up with any?
Cynically I think it was clearly to steal oxygen from the Liberal Party who looked to have reached a positive turning point. It worked in steal media attention but...

Mental Health Professionals say many clinical hours are required to develop a patients baseline BEFORE a diagnosis is possible. Lets work on 10 hours because its a round number, you pick you own number. Times that by 90,000 licenced firearms owners.
That's 900,000 clinical hours on a "ongoing" basis. Lets work on a Psychologist working 1600 hours a year. That's 562 full time Psychologists that will be required on top of however many we have now.
Oh, the baseline hours for diagnosis too high? Well maybe but hey lets say it magically takes 60 minutes...that's 90,000 clinical hours. That's 56 Full Time clinical Psychologists we'll need on top of what we already have JUST to administer to law abiding licenced owners.
Even though strident anti gun lobby out of the east coast universities stated years ago that mental health checks do not have the ability to predict criminal behaviour in advance.

Strike 1 Minister.

The minister overseas a flash media press event where police fire a rifle, a big rifle.
A 50 calibre rifle which requires a 6km safety envelope for the rifle to be fired into.
So it can only be fire in regional WA. What threat are they expecting in the bush that requires such a massive operational firearm? The 50 BMG type firearms that cost between $12,000 & $20,000+ to buy, has a bipod & a top end Nightforce $2000-5000 rifle scope and the ammunition costs between $15 and $30 per shot. 
It appears so far its only use was the media press event.
Yes, they were legally owner by the public for strict, highly regulated club competitions on a remote range east of Carnarvon. No crime has ever been committed using one of these firearms.

Strike 2 Minister

The range the firearm it where it was fired for the media was on the outskirts of Perth. It was & is not rated for the 50 calibre. That's correct, it is not allowed to be fired on that range & the unconfirmed claim is the actual club that run that range hired it out to WA Police but weren't told a 50 calibre rifle would be fired there. There was only one club gun range in WA rated & lawful for this firearm. That's 100+km east of Carnarvon. The safety envelope at the Pindar range is barely 6kms & in the direction they were firing is Pindar Power Station. On top of that, the RAAF were required to stand down all flying aircraft whilst WAPol Media fired the rifle for the TV cameras.

Strike 3 Minister

The Minister & Premier McGowan mentioned they need guns off the streets. Then someone, either the Minister or a member of his department leaked a street map showing the locations of firearms owners in Perth. IT WAS PRINTED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEWSPAPER.
Now there's unconfirmed reports that there's been break ins on some of those homes within that map. If the newspaper put a map on the front page showing the location of WA MP's homes there'd quite rightly be a massive furore. It would be unacceptable to say the least. If it was supplied by a Minister or someone in their dept there'd have to be a parliamentary inquiry & likely someone's losing their job as a minister or dept official. Motive? Political capital, public support for Reforms that don't Reform

Strike 4  Minister

A large group of lawful firearms owner groups get together. They form the WA Firearms Community Alliance (WAFCA). Instead of groups competing for time with the Minister, potentially undermining each other & creating the perfect landscape for wedge politics, they have a one stop lobbying shop for LAWFUL firearms owners. It includes all sorts of stakeholders. Retailers, collectors, repairers, competition shooters, recreational hunters, pest controllers both professional & unpaid. And yes even included Primary Producers.

Now imagine my surprise, my stunned shock when straight after the WAFCA is formed the Police Minister announces a "Primary Producers Firearms Advisory Board". If "divide & conquer" was a thing, if undermining fair & orderly lobbying was a thing then creating another group & hand picking all of its members is a strategic must. He picks who's on it, he chairs it. No minutes from the meetings are available. One of the Primary Producer groups was a member of the WAFCA alliance but that lasted a few days when a choice spot for them where they appear & sit in the ministers office instead of being a small tooth on a cog behind the scenes. No matter the Primary Producer groups didn't know what the VPF List was. No matter they didn't know anything about any of the calibres on the list were. No matter they were not even aware of the Law Reform Commission report or its recommendations. Most notably Recommendation #54 on Page 55 that clearly says NOT to introduce restrictions of numbers of firearms owned. Out of their depth, clueless and understatement.
Outcome is that minister says he's bringing in Law Reform Commission recommendations when in reality he brings in planned clauses that completely against the Law Reform Commission Report. Undermines the National Firearms Agreement & declares registered firearms owners will be limited in the amount of firearms they can own. 10 for primary producers, 5 for general public. Right then & ever since the evidential research & reasoned explanation on how those plucked out numbers...completely missing.
No regard for the TWO PRIME TESTS a firearms applicant across Australia must address. All the current framework now thrown out by the minister. Applicant must be a fit & proper person (checked & approved/rejected by police) and the applicant must have a genuine need (checked & approved/rejected by police).
This is against the Law Reform Commission recommendations & the basis for the entire National Firearms Agreement and all states government processes.
Should add, one Primary Producer group did join & back the WAFCA. That was WA Grains Group.
We're yet to find any Primary Producer groups outside the 5 picked who were invited. No Sheep Stud Breeder groups, no landcare groups, no farm improvement groups, no LGA's. The majority of WA Producers are not members of the 5 groups selected. Those selected were...

Pastoralists & Graziers Association of WA
WA Farmers
Wines of WA
Kimberley Pilbara Cattlemens Association 
VegetableWA

I kid you not. I also note the Chairman of Wines WA board at the time of the PFFAB being formed was WAFarmers CEO Trevor Whittington. At the time the PFFAB being formed he was announced as the Wines WA delegate on the PFFAB. I make no accusations nor inference about Wines WA having a conflict of interest but unless they brought a elusive skill to the table they should have maintained arms length appearance. They being a group that was then receiving $3 million in state government funding & a further $500,000 in April 2024. It was announced Mr Whittington was to be Wines WA delegate but by the time the PFFAB met it was 4 possibly 5 months after Mr Whittington was replaced as the chairman of the Wines WA board.
I don't think any law was broken but the appearances of no conflict of interest was not managed properly. 
Vegetables WA...no don't get that either. 

Here's the thing if there was not an aim to divide & conquer why set a board with 2 players always at odds with one another, trying to out do each other?
Why include a NW Cattle group that is an off shoot of the 2 groups at odds with each other?
Why include a heavily state funded group who's chairman is also CEO of one the 2 groups at odds with each other?
Why include a vegetable group at all?

Why send 5 delegates?
Why not send 1-3 to represent all groups?
Why not open membership to all primary producers stakeholders, let them meeting aside & they pick 1-3 people to lobby for the entire industry? 
Because...who knows but if there was ever a plan to adopt tactics of Wedge Politics, divide & conquer THIS would be a masterclass example.

What recommendations we have found that the PFFAB member groups took to their meetings, well they're poor to say the very least.

Strike 5 Minister

The VPF Debacle. VPF is the "Very Powerful Firearms" list, the listed firearms that then banned. Only WA uses this list, no precise criteria for what makes the list is available. No statistical data showing how many of these firearms have been involved in WA Gun Crime...EVER. Best we can find is none.
One on the list was a less than successful WW2 gun that uses a heavily modified case of 50 Cal brass (necked and belted) 
The gun and its ammunition went out of production during WW2 and never made available to the public. The 2 that were legally owned in WA were in private collections under a collectors licence. With that licence you cannot possess the ammunition, it is illegal to fire the gun. They were bought as part of superannuation investments. No ammunition exists, none made for it since WW2 & the gun was dropped from service because back then, ammunition was a problem & the firearm wasn't as good as was hoped. It went out of service before the war ended. The owner's couldn't mail or courier the gun to the eastern states to sell...as Australia Post can mail it but won't & there's only a couple of couriers able to shift it & they weren't keen. The owners most likely would have to acquire permits & to whichever state had a buyer.  Eventually, due to lobbying from the WAFCA it was removed from the banned list but the list criteria and related crime stats still not forthcoming.
One member group was asked about the "55 Boys" ban & they didn't even know what "55 Boys" meant, didn't even know what "VPF" stood for. When explained they knew nothing of the list or the firearms that had been banned nor why. 
That's the level of stakeholder delegates on the PFFAB.

Strike 6 Minister

Property Letter Debacle - Yes one primary producer was selling letters, lots of them and would have made a sizable amount of money doing it. Guess what? Not acceptable but not illegal. WA is the only jurisdiction using the Property Letter system. Many of Primary Producers have been asked for a letter from avid shooters, hunters & said no. Some said yes, some said yes an awful lot. What does it mean? It means the permission letter debacle was a complete joke, should be scrapped & we should run similar systems to the eastern states. It was introduced, we think to make it more restrictive to get a firearm & yet quite the opposite happened. Some legally made money out it. Just drop the letter system Minister, he didn't, he needed another thing to flex at. He's going to amend the system that needed to be dropped. He doesn't listen. Consultation? Yes there is consultation but its token, he doesn't listen to stake holders nor represent their interests. Its like he views stakeholders as people he rules, like he's an officer in the Armed Forces and stakeholders are the lowest ranked of the enlisted.

Strike 7 Minister

Gun Crime Stats 1 - Notable we can look up all the WA Crime Stats & its fairly extensive however if this is an important rewrite of an out of date, 50+ year old Act of Parliament then the Crime States should break off Gun Crime Statistics into a seperate & very accessible list. At present the true nuts n bolts stats are...well they're somewhere. The Stats the minister used to suggest regular mental health checks were interesting. He mentioned the number of homicides, then the amount that involved a gun. I believe he said 10 of them involved mental health issues. How did he know, coroner's report or was he able to access private health records. And exactly how many were suicides? Suicides are horrible & we should do everything we can with our currently broken & depleted mental health system to reduce the chances of suicides. But they're not homicides & yet they are put into homicides. 
THEN THERE'S AN EVEN WORSE TWIST.
Now we're being told that of those gun deaths that involved mental health issues, some of them were tragically serving WA Police Officers who used their service firearm. 
Unconfirmed but if this is true there is a very big problem that needs addressing & isn't going to be if reforms due to deaths target law abiding citizens.

(Late Edit - 14th of May, Peter Collier MLC was requesting statistics, clear data & still getting nothing during debate. Some requests were outstanding from last November. SO there is a Bill that is being put through parliament & those who built the Bill do not have any data or statistics to support radical changes. There is still no evidential research explaining why the new number of firearms is set at that number. There's been several requests & the replies have varied but include among them that it would require a reallocation of  staff to find those statistics. So a Bill was built, without the statistics/data. That's not reform, that's not objective. That's not testable. That's gut reaction or its cluelessly been made up on the spot. That's not fair, wise fit for purpose legislation)

Strike 8 Minister

Gun Crime Stats 2 - What is the most common firearm used in gun crime? What percentages are stolen, smuggled in, illegallay manufactured or lawful guns used by licenced owners?
These statistics are absolutely vital to tailor make the new reforms to actual help reduce crime, injuries & deaths. Absent. Completely lacking & in the ether somewhere

Stirke 9 Minister

Reforms & the 50+ year old Act Part 1 - Its misleading & quite disengenuous to say the Act is out of date being this old. We have Acts dated back to the early part of last century. All acts are not as they were first tabled & passed. Acts are amended if & when required. Amendments are listed on the Act. Many parts of firearms restrictions ARE NOT Acts of Parliament but Acts of Adminstration or as we know them, regulations. As such they can be changed & improved by the stroke of the Minister's pen and do not go before the Parliament.
Like massive rise in firearms fees in 2022. One of them was raised by 96%
As for rewriting the Act, this one is going the way of a similar incident of a 50+ year old Act that need a complete rewrite. The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. We got a dumpster fire Act that Labor rushed through both houses of parliament it controlled & the mess it created caused it to be wholly put in the bin

Strike 10 Minister

Reforms & the 50 year old Act Pt 2 - The minister has claimed they make no apologies for bringing in the "toughest gun laws in Australia" 
Notice the operative word "toughest" because he plans on being the tough on lawful owners instead of targeting criminals. 
Reforms are supposed to be fair improvements for all stakeholders & strike a reasonable balance.
That is not the minister's aim at all.

Fair and Wise would be sticking to the Law Reform Commission recommendations & sticking with the National Firearms Agreement

It appears the improvements with the  Port Arthur response was in vain.
A fair reform would be WA have fees that reflect the average fees of all Australian States & Territories excluding WA. 
A fair reform would be if you trade in an old .22 & you which to replace it with a new .22 it's a like for like trade in. You shouldn't have to get an application like you have no firearm at all.
Simple pathway, the dealer transfers it, its reported to police for their records. You cannot possess both old & new at the same time if its a trade in.
The firearm you trade in, whoever buys your gun has to pay an application fee. Whilst you buying a mere replacement don't have to go thru a new application with paper work, fees & police approval.
If you keep the firearm & repair upgrade it, no fees...no paperwork for firearms branch.
That there is no reform allowing simple like for like is madness & costly over reach with no benefit for anyone. 

Strike 11 Minister

Reforms & the 50 year old Act Pt 3 - The appearance clause. If you have a rifle & you change the stock the absurdity is 2 fold. Despite a rifle & stock manufactirer having online tutorials on how to undo 2 screws & one bolt to swap the stock...IN WA YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT TO A GUNSMITH TO DO IT LEGALLY. 

That is absurd & should be "reformed"
Want to swap triggers out for competition? Need a gunsmith no matter how simple it is, how experienced you are. You're breaking the law.
Other absurdity is if a police officer decides your rifle with the new stock fitted now "looks" military like to them, its a now an illegal firearm, its a prohibited weapon. Even though the stock only improves ergonomics which increases safety, helps accuracy...more safety its illegal. Even though it does not increase the magazine capacity. Even though it does not increase the firing rate. Even though it doesn't alter the power of the projectile. Even though it now allows easier attachment of accesories like a light and/or optics (more safe again)...if a police officer with subjective judgement decides it looks military like in appearance, its illegal, its a prohibited firearm. You are breaking the law.
Appearance clause must be removed if its reform time. Reforms must be fair & reasonable.

Strike 12 Minister.

Well its Tuesday Feburary 13th 2024. We'll take a break on this for a while & then come back and see what else we've missed. For now there's 12 strikes of fail by the WAPolice minister just on this one Bill to Parliament. Remember a Minister is supposed to be a public servant, not a lofty public ruler. He or she is supposed to serve us with the best legislative over sight possible. 
We're not seeing this here.

Now someone is going to say that more guns means more gun crime so we need less guns as soon as possible. Thats not automatically true & not reflect in what little Firearms Statistics the minister is sharing.
To that end, I'll just leave this here...also bear in mind Mexico is so thoroughly regulated it can take nearly a year to get a lawful gun AND they have only one gun shop in the entire nation.

  

Serving As A Member Of Parliament

 I once commented to a senior journalist that I thought 10% of the WA State Parliament were good but with numbers that low we weren't well placed to recieve the best laws, the best reforms, the best management without over reach or without some using the position to refinance their own debt or get a salary that is well beyond their ability in the real world.

He was too kind to me, quite harsh on me. Said that my view was optimistic & a good reflection on me as a person & that sadly my numbers were too high, that Parliament was a "humidicrib of mediocrity"

For me, I have to admit I enjoyed his comment as it was a compliment & a humourous take.

FOR A WHILE.

After a while, if we're fortunate & blessed we wake up with further considered thought.

He wasn't being malicious, arrogant or face slappy. He was being honest, possibly not even brutally honest, just honest.

Not sure he was trying to wake me up, but he did. I should perhaps be, not more harsh, but apply more rigour. This is a very serious theatre of improving society. Its also a theatre where there is very little consequences upon those who make the decisions. Well none that are lasting. 
A director on a board, in theory, has a director evaluation programme which leads onto director training to keep a director not just sharp but improving because skills can perish. This is not really the case in Parliament & is made worse by the very grey, profoundly vague idea of fiduciary duty amongst MPs. Do they serve the electorate, their party, their branch, their faction within the party...and for many who cannot manage this space properly, its yes all of these...whilst they're standing in front of each resepctive group. 

Compounded by the reality that no one can be all things to all people & some MPs tend to lurch towards being profoundly vague and/or point to their opposing ranks for fault for their short falls  from not being clear what hill they're actually prepared to die upon, what they really stand for and will crash defending.
Their cloak of profoundly vague is their everyday wear.
Compounded more is there are some who tick the Party's demographic boxes whilst not really having the real skills or expertise to be a good legislator. 

Compounded by that some are there to restructure horrible debt or reach a professional level or pay packet they could never attain without going FIFO or getting a professionals degree or building a business and working hard in that field.

What we've lost is that being a MP definitely IS NOT A LOFTY SOCIAL STATUS whilst its very much being run like that.

THE REAL UGLY TRUTH IS A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT IS NOT OCCUPYING A LOFTY LEVEL OF SOCIAL STATUS, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE VERY LOFTY LEVEL OF SERVICE. MPs ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE RANK POLITICIANS BE WISE LEGISLATORS. UPON RETIREMENT MANY MPs GO ONTO SIT ON COMPANY BOARDS DESPITE MANY OF THEM NOT BEING COMPANY DIRECTOR TRAINED OR EXPERIENCED...THE WELL KNOWN LUCRATIVE POST POLITICS PATHWAY. ANY RESPECT THEY HOLD IS MEANT TO BE HARD EARNED, NOT A GIVEN ONCE ELECTED.

This shows many MPs to be the non violent version of boxing's journeymen.
Now that's ok if that's their thing, but we should not expect them to be or pretend to be anything else.
In these conversations with some MPs it has got prickly for them & its soon gets drifted towards the clash of ideology & all doing the best they can with the dominant number of seats in the house. I strongly disagree. This is a completely seperate issue & the go to false bolster distractor or excuse out door. I am not in favour of Socialism, it is a distinctly clear cancer on society but we have Socialists in Parliament. What we need in Parliament is REAL CONSERVATIVES vs WISE PROGRESSIVES. This is because we don't want to conserve at all costs not change at all costs. We need wise reforms & legislation that is fit for purpose. We're a long way from that. I do also think as good as some MP/Senators are they are let down very badly by employing some advisors who aren't exactly people who should be advising anyone. Some are also journeyman types, some even call themselves "Political Professionals". They're not meant to political at all, they're meant to be apolitical at work. Many aren't, many see themselves as political players. In the last few decades we've seen a big rise in the number of wide eyed "20 somethings" who are keen to get ahead. Its not unlike the Yuppy Era of the 1980s where many young people thought they were financial/business movers & shakers...there to play the game and climb high & leave all in the wake. That failed us & that same mindset group will now fail us more having migrated over to the legislative sphere. If you're finding this negative because its starting to look on the money, it gets worse. Some of these Political Professionals are now migrating over to party jobs & even worse, some are pursuing party preselection.

Yes, its perhaps a bit harsh to throw around the term "hollow theatre props" yet this is terribly apt with quite a few political professionals & some already sitting MPs.

Startling example was the lady who was a Shire Councillor, got preselection & went onto win a seat. Before her campaign event started one of her fellow shire councillors asked her why she didn't run for the Upper House. She replied that no she was running for Parliament. He was a little confused & teased out more information & the embarassment was (or should have been) rather huge for her. She did not know there were 2 houses of Parliament. In another conversation with other people it was mentioned about renting or buying a flat in Perth. This time she was confused and didn't understand why that was needed. Now the chap she was speaking to had run for preselection once but didn't win preselection. His political foray was very very short but he knew she'd have to spend a good 20 weeks in Perth with both parliament sitting & the likelihood of sitting on committees. I gather she was very distressed as she had a young family & no one told her that. She's managed to straddle work & family and only sits on one committee. Now I'm not a member of Shooters Fishers & Farmers Party but I did not some years ago Rick Mazza on his own sat on the exact number of Committees as the all the WA Nats MPs combined. Agree or disagree with Rick aside, he was not a politician, he was an actual proper legislator. He was closer to lofty service than he was to lofty social status. 
I cannot say that of the majority of "politicians"

We're in a bit of trouble at the big building on the hill.
When re-election & creating connecting pathways to post politics board positions is the prime driver, we're in big trouble. 

We are in very big trouble. 

Now I'm not sure, some enjoy the stoush that Parliament provides, some like they get paid well without going near tools unless they're photo opping with a shovel. But there are some who are taking a significant pay cut running for Parliament. Whilst they're like the rest of us, imperfect & biased but they're a little more honest & chasing things they believe in.

Until we prevent politicians having a gap between Parliament to Board seats or board seats related to a portfolio they held & have no connection with sitting MPs in their board work we're in trouble.

Until we ensure advisors are people of good standing & good experience making them capable of delivering actual advice we're in trouble

Until we have no political advisors & very non political bureacrats, we're in trouble
Some call it the "big game" or "the dance" but a the risk of hurting some people's eyes, its everything that is elsewhere called the swamp.

We're in trouble.

I should point out one leader of one party made a great noise about one fellow MP in the same party, that he was incredible, that he was forensic in his work with Bills & Committees. I felt that MP had let us down badly on a number of things as well as achieved some things for us electors that many others didn't. I also said the reason he stands out is he is probably one of the few who has been forensic with Acts & Committees which is in fact what his job is & sad he stands out because he's forensic efforts leave him as an outlier, not an average MP. Needless to say that Party Leader said privately that they will not enter into a room let alone a conversation with me. Cancel Culture techniques are not the traits of a good legislator, but the other group that has grown in number in Parties & in Parliament.

The Machivelleans. 

We're in trouble.

Just one of the submissions to the Firearm Reform Consultation Paper

There have been many submission to the Firearm Reform Consultation Paper. I gather some are short, some long. Here's one of the long ones...

Submission to Firearm Reform Consultation Paper

I am a primary producer, a recreational hunter & a competition shooter & I write this as input regarding the Consultation Paper.
I have a number of points to make, some that are outside the consultation paper & should have been included the Government's "reforms"

I am in favour of any Legislative Reforms but by virtue of being "Reforms" they must be needed, fit for purpose, deliver a positive benefit, fair &/or remove some that is unfair, negative or failing in its purpose.

With that in mind below are just some of the issues that need resolution by Reform

1. Restricting numbers of firearms owned.
   Restrictions on the number of guns MUST be removed from the reforms. We're yet to see the evidential research that a) points out the specific & verifiable fault in the current arrangements & b) there is no evidential research to definitively show the restricted number will solve the unshown problem or deliver a beneficial gain. Until that is done, this is NOT by definition a "reform" but an unnecessary, untested change based on someone's gut instinct.
   I am fine with any reform that is by definition a reform, that is a verifiable improvement or removal of an unfair or unworkable rule. This is still not shown to be a reform.
   
   Currently to gain ownership of a firearm there are the 2 Primary Tests. A person must be deemed to be a fit & proper person AND the applicant must be able to demonstrate they have a genuine need. By introducing a limited number of firearms amongst owners it goes against & makes a mockery of the National Firearms Agreement & the Law Reform Commission report from 2016. Altering the number of firearms in the community may seem a good idea to reduce gun crime however there's no evidential research proving that conclusion. To be honest I'm unsure its expected to make any difference when there are little or no statistics shown in support of this and there is a distinct lack of stats.
   We're also seeing culture, societal health & regulation has more impact. Pure numbers of firearms does not. For example...
   Gun Ownership
   Australia -  14.5  Firearms per 100,000 people   ( #45 in the world)
   Mexico    -   12.9 Firearms per 100,000 people   ( # 53 in the world)
   
   Gun Deaths 
   Australia -   0.10 deaths per 100,000 people       ( #156 in the world)
   
   Mexico -      15.55 deaths per 100,000 people       ( # 10 in the world)
   
   
   Australia has more firearms per capita than Mexico & yet Mexico is #10 for murder & Australia is #158.
   
   As for the number of firearms in the community being excessive, by what measure and what is the appropriate number?
   At present if the 2 primary tests are satisfied (and there is no other way to obtain a legal gun) then we're already at the appropriate number. Also when the stat of guns in the community is mentioned is it correct that that total number includes air rifles, paintball buns, tranquiliser guns, carnival shooting galleries and others that are not lethal & have never been used in a single crime?
   
   I'm only scratching the surface on Limiting Ownership of Numbers but already this is failing to be described as a "Reform" as it is not needed, isn't fit for purpose, deliver no positive benefit, fair...it has to be removed from the legislation as it is an odd change not at all a reform.
   
   
2. Fees. 
   
   Compare initial firearms licence fees between WA & NT.
   
   Its lot dearer here & no one wants to explain why.
   
   NT - Cat A/B $229
   WA - Cat A/B $246
   Only $17 difference, so no big deal???
   
   I would agree EXCEPT the NT fee is $229 for 10 years whereas WA's $246 is for the initial application & doesn't include the $51.80 annual renewal
   So 10 years is...
   NT -  A/B $229
   WA - A/B $246 plus $510 for a total of $756.
   $229 vs $756!
   
   Also how is it we can justify the fee rises?
   2021 fee increases in WA...
   Original Applications               12.8%   increase
   Additions                                    15%    increase
   Yearly Fee                                     7%    increase
   Dealers Licence Renewals        96.7% increase
   Repairers Licence Renewals   139.4% increase
   We're supposed to uphold our state's rights but there must be some attempt at interstate legislative harmonisation & fees in WA should reflect the average of all the other states, not be excessive powering through the roof.
   
   
3. Appearance Clause -
   Any firearm merely having the appearance of a military firearm is banned. That appearance clause has no criteria, no prescription. It is purely a subjective OPINION. For example a Ruger 10/22 with its wooden factory stock, 100% legal. Replacing it with a Pro Mag ArchAngel stock though renders the firearm illegal. They are banned in WA due to their "appearance". The benefits of the aftermarket stock is it has an adjustable length of pull, a pistol grip, integrated picatinny rail & fore end is covered in M-Lock holes. This means its more ergonomic, easier & safer to handle & unlike the factory wooden stock if you need to mount a sling, a red dot or a scope you do not need a gunsmith drill & tapping the firearm, selling you & fitting a rail. PLUS with the wooden stock you cannot adjust the length of pull to get the correct eye relief with a red dot or scope. This varies if you're shooting ferals laying down, standing up or thru the window of a farm ute. Length of pull on those 3 situation varies so adjusting for eye relief is essential. You have banned a stock that does not alter the calibre, the rate of fire, the power or the capacity of the firearm. A stock that makes it a better safer firearm is banned because someone thinks it looks pretty army.
   If these are truly meant to be reforms, the Appearance Clause has to be removed.
   
   
4. Like for Like trade in without fee or application.
   If I trade in firearm & it's one calibre for an identical calibre, basically an old for new, perhaps a different make & model but same Category firearm then it should be done by the dealer without Licence Fees, just held by the dealer until Firearms Branch alters the serial number from the old to the new. If it's a different calibre then it should be a normal application process.
   
   
5. Co-Licensing/Co-ownership amongst family members, spouses should be a simple process. In the event of the death of a farmer who is the only owner it becomes a painful mess during an already tramatic time. By simple co-owership the family member/s or spouse should complete the firearms test the same as every applicant except they already are licenced firearms owners. This way a family isn't several 100kms from a dealer & go through a messy burden laden process. The surviving member can later advise the Firearms Branch that a co-owner has passed away & not need to transport to police or a dealer. This is a valuable reform.
   
   
6. Property Letters
   Remove them completely. Any non primary producer shooter should join a Hunting/Shooting club. The club should help them get places to shoot, organise insurance & other practical help. This works well in other jurisdictions & property letters are a bizarre idea that didn't provide any help or benefit to anyone even before some decided to start selling them.
   
   
7. The "Very Powerful Firearm" (VPF) List & Criteria - The VPF is a very concerning matter. Those calibres that were banned were regarded as VPF firearms when the very clear fact is the calibre is merely the size of the projectile, not anything to do with the power. The power comes from the load & even then, its where you measure the power that needs to be sorted out. Is it muzzle velocity or striking energy. These are as varied as they are complicated within one single calibre & to date we're still coming up with no explained, data based criteria for this list or calibres included on it.
8. 
   Distance, accuracy & lethal energy can vary wildly due to weather conditions, projectiles, powder loads, muzzle velocity, retained velocity on impact & of course a deep bag of other variables not least being retained velocity of any number of distances. Most of these so called VPF calibres are higher end firearms & usually owned by serious shooters who are serious about proper performance & safety.
   
   The minister pursued these calibres & the words used were "direct threat" and yet we had no mention of exactly what he meant by "direct threat". These were a small number of owners so taking those firearms away to reduce the "direct threat" seems to infer that those small number of shooters posed a threat to police and/or the general public or the theft of their firearms posed a "direct threat"
   
   I don't believe either is the case but I would be happy to be proven wrong with evidential research.
   There is none.
   
   We're still waiting. I think the fact that a collectible but unshootable Word War 2 firearm like the 55 Baby was on the list indicated that whoever put the list together had a rather random ad hoc vibe for calibre selection & inclusion. I'm glad that the Museum Collectible was removed from the list but it was of no risk to WA Police or the WA General public before it was wrongly put on that "VPF" list. My understanding is we're the only state in Australia that operates with this very new category & I can see why. It makes no sense & there's been no effort to explain it with proper evidential research.
9. 
   
10. Major Firearm Parts
    
    Needs proper clarification & reform ASAP. Barrels, trigger groups, upper receivers, magazines and other parts are fine being called Major Firearms Parts but rifle stocks are wrongly included. At present a person cannot have an addition rifle stock on the shelf without Police Commissioner Permission...its illegal.
    
    
    So if you own a SMLE .303 (a World War 2 rifle) you cannot have a spare stock & fore end furniture without Police Commissioner Permission. You can however own another .303 that is 100% complete but deactivated & you can do so without a licence. In effect instead of illegally having a spare stock on the shelf, you legally have one without required permission or addition to the licence by having an identical but deactivated rifle. Rifle stocks need to be removed from "major firearms parts", spare stocks or chassis need to have no permission required from the Police Commissioner/Firearms Branch and if the Manufacturer is ok with non gunsmiths replacing gun stocks then so should our legislation. In the case of many rifles its merely a matter of undoing 2 screws, swapping over, replacing the screws. It is more difficult to replace a door in a house but the safety aspects are similarly zero.
    
    
    In the case of many remote owners, if their rifle stock is damaged they have to go to a gun repairer, a gunsmith to get a rifle stock replaced. Even though many foreign rifle manufacturers & aftermarket stock manufacturers have videos showing people in some cases how to undo 2 screws, take the barrelled action out of one stock, put it in the others, then do up 2 screws WITHOUT being a gunsmith, its illegal here for us to do that. Remote owners of course cannot put the firearm in the mail not get a courier in WA. They can legally but Aust Post & couriers refuse to do it due to the higher legal requirements. That remote owner, pastoralist has to drive 100s & in one case 1000kms one way to get a firearm legally repaired that in any other jurisdiction he/she is allowed to undo/swap/do up 2 screws.
    
    
    

Summary - I believe strongly we have made a grave mistake running to changes that are no actually reforms at all & that consultation is beginning to look to many as a necessary evil bureaucrats & legislators have to suffer in delivering what they want upon citizens.

The wrongful pursuit of number restrictions is just one glaring example of imposing non working & retrograde changes that cannot possibly be defined nor regarded as actual reforms.
I personally believe the currently working system agreed to under the NFA the best system in the world & I note many foreign countries currently point to it as being the best balance of safety & regulation that allows the greatest chance of use by lawful owners & protection of the general public.

if a person is a fit & proper person (WAPol approve that) & they can demonstrate a Genuine Need then whatever non Cat D should be approved in accordance with the National Firearms Agreement & the recommendations of the 2016 Law Reform Commission report. I refer you to Recommendation 53 on page 55 of that report which states...

" Recommendation 54: There should be no upper limit on the number of firearms a single Firearm Licence holder may possess. "

It is clearly evident that the number of legal firearms does not automatically mean an increase or decrease in the level of gun crime. 
I repeat this point as its central to the largest fault of the so called reforms...

Point in fact, Australia has more guns per capita than Mexico.

For Gun Ownership we as a nation are ranked 45th in the world whilst Mexico is lower at 53^rd 
Our gun deaths must be higher than Mexico's & yet...

Australia 0.10 deaths per 100,000 people ranking us 156^th in the world for gun deaths
Mexico 15.55 deaths per 100,000 people ranking them in the 10 ten in the world for gun deaths.

Notably, Mexico only has one gun shop in the entire nation & regulation is quite strict.

We need reforms in the very sense of the word. That is the idea, that the aim is the reasoned pursuit of a reform being fair, fit for purpose, delivering a better working outcome & removing an unfair impediments.

Another ministerial claim was about Armour Piercing rounds & this raises more questions than answers.
Who has these? They've never been available to the public so the only source of them in WA is the black market but there's still been no announcements on elevated attention or raised penalties on the black market. Where does the black market get armour piercing rounds? There's only 3 places.

1. Smuggled in. 
2. Stolen from the Australian Defence Forces
3. Stolen WA Police Force.
   

So which is it & why is there not extra penalties for possessing armour piercing rounds?
Which leads us to speculate are they really in the community at all & who is it that's saying they do exist?
Which again returns us to a lack of evidential research shared with the public.

Another is apparently the glaring problem the "too many" firearms on the streets claim.
We're now discovering that the quoted number includes air rifles that are not used in crimes at all, paintball guns, tranquiliser guns & any firearms used in side show alley. Also includes all firearms that are inventory of Firearms Dealers & repairers. Much worse is the possibility that co-licenced/co-owned firearms are not counted once. If 4 family members co-licence one firearm it is included in the Statistics as 4 firearms. Is this true & if so what else is wrongfully misleading lawful owners & the general public. If true, this is intellectually bankrupt use of a deliberately bloated statistic & appears wilfully deceptive. Its never delivered with a citation & explanation...just weaponised & used as an argumentative bludgeon. We need clear, specific, unambiguous facts & statistics. We cannot even compare Crime statistics over the last 30 years as "homicide" appears to have changed to include events of manslaughter & attempted manslaughter.

Again its as if there is no attempt to remove the "devil is in the lack of detail" and thus for everyone trying to evaluate proposed legislation & regulations properly, things remain PROFOUNDLY VAGUE & misconstrued as somehow being VAGUELY PROFOUND. A decision is made on this horribly cloudy tap water that's hopefully regarded as pure distilled liquid. IT IS NOT. We have witnessed the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act become the worst legislative disaster in WA history, since federation & now we have a set of Firearm Reforms that are set to challenge the A.C.T. Act for its grotesque title.
 
We need to make good, effective & wise reforms and not wing it on the details and wing it on the amendments and keep squirting "public safety" out the side of one's mouth. We need clear, concise valid facts & statistics.

The entire saga of this so called "reform" process clearly indicates that the process within Parliament must changed to better serve TRUTH & IMPROVEMENT OF BENEFIT TO WESTERN AUSTRALIANS. WE NEED TO HAVE A BETTER SYSTEM OF CIBSTRUCTING LEGISLATION. LEGISLATORS MUST PUT TOGETHER WHITE PAPERS TO GENERATE THOUGHT & COMMENT IN SOCIETY. THEN CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS. THEN BUILD THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION FOR WA & THE LEGISLATORS TO CONSIDER. TABLE THE FINISHED BILL & ENSURE IT STAYS TABLED FOR 4-6 WEEKS TO ALLOW EVERYONE TO GET ACROSS IT & FOR ALL MPs TO GATHER & GAUGE FEEDBACK FROM THEIR ELECTORATE. ONLY EMERGENCY LEGISLATION SHOULD BE TABLED & DEBATED THE SAME DAY. THE CURRENT ABILITY TO DO THIS IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS & HAS PROVEN TO FAIL WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Another point, earlier this year (23 Feb 2023) The Police minister said in a press release

"Last year, 20 people were shot dead in WA. Subsequent Police investigations found evidence suggesting mental health played a role in almost 50 per cent of those 20 firearm deaths."

That claim by the minister inferred "police investigations" should include a citation, where is the report on that "investigation"?

The comment "suggesting mental health played a role" in half those deaths remains a SUGGESTION, where is the credible report from a group of mental health professionals we can view as evidential research that clearly points to mental health as a factor in those 10 deaths out of a population of 2,660,026(*) Western Australian citizens? (By the way those ten deaths, that's 0.00037594% of the WA Population)

We also need it clarified, exactly how many of those suggested mental health involved gun deaths were suicides & how many were serving police officers using their own service firearms. I'll wait.

(* https://abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/5 )

We're still trying to ascertain the accuracy of a claim that over ½ of those 10 gun deaths suggested to have had mental health playing a role were actually Police Officers using their own service firearms to commit suicide. We do know mental health issues have peaked in the WA Police force in the last few years. (**)

The stats according to the Police union are very clear. Police Officer Suicides EXCEEDS the deaths of police officers whilst on duty. If the push from the police minister to reduce firearms is to keep police officers safe he's ignoring the greater threat which is suicide of Police Officers & is using a degrading deflect & distract tactic. It's not helping anyone, not the public nor the serving police officers who work to keep us safe but are at serious risk. We need to support those who protect us and ignoring the real risk & threat to police officers has to stop & those doing it & why need to step up and give an account of themselves.
 (** https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-23/wa-police-union-research-uncovers-rising-suicide-rates-in-force/101882154 )

Thank you for taking my submission to the consultation paper
Best regards