Reforming the Firearms Reforms - Danger Time is December 2024 to March 2025

December to March 8th Election Day is the period of time that is the most dangerous for the Law Abiding Firearms Owners wanting drastic reforms of the new Firearms Act. It holds the Christmas New Years break, a burst of holiday season for most people. There's a State Election & a Federal Election. State set for March 8th Federal we don't know but it must be close to the State election or at one point it was going to be very close which would explain the period of time when there was public squealing they might clash. One Labor senator or rather now an ex Labor senator let slip a comment that made it sound the 2 elections were close. Until its called, its all just conjecture.

 
The WA Parliament will not sit before Polling Day & likely won't sit until late March. So there is a lot of political movement, a lot of funding announcements for campaigning purposes & nothing mentioned on what's important to voters. Also whilst a new Upper Hosue will be elected on March 8th, the old MPs will retain their seats in the Upper House for a while until hand over.

Those not regularly involved or engaged in Australian Politics are stuck in what they think is a wrongfully silent vacuum. I'll come out and say it, some people will get frustrated & MAKE S**T UP out of frustration.
Others, very much keen to help the Party in Government will start & stoke fires that are loads of bulldust.
Its the most dangerous time for us & best time for a Government that will be wanting us to divide us amongst ourselves.

All of that is clearly out of step with stakeholders actual needs & seems to completely undermine whatever efforts had preceded the December to March period. Some of those efforts precede this dangerous times by many years.

It's bad enough that the oddly inaccurate named Firearms Reform Act was actually some of the worst over reach based on very little precise problem identification & evidential research in the so called "solutions".
Yes THAT is bad enough but what's worse is some very genuine people are loudly exercising their right of Freedom of Speech whilst doing so with Freedom of thought, fact or considered knowledge.

First, lets get it straight, yes there are definitely cases of very Pro Labor Party people threading into Pro Fair Firearms Legislation FaceBook groups and there are some others who are very passionate, very impatient & very grumpy people who are genuine but very misinformed. The Govtrolls want a splitting of the united effect & others may inadvertantly help do that by either trying to get themselves elected in a minor party, trying to get a minor party candidate elected or trying to get a rival lobbying organisation advanced or some just want to let off steam & haven't been all that politically engaged since...well some since ever.

These things can become a wedge. The Wedge Tactic is the one real solid go to from the Labor playbook that's worked & worked really well going back years, decades. Goes back longer than I can remember. Precedes the Burke era.
We have 3 main parties which are really 2 opposing sides (or supposed to be) 
One side is Labor & the other is Liberal & Nationals.
One side merely has to try & wedge the 2 teams on the opposing side & job done.

Labor are brilliantly at the Wedge because it is often employed internally. They are gifted at it.
I have seen it used brilliantly by wedging WAFarmers & PGA going back to late 70s early 80s.
Throw crumbs to one, throw more crumbs to the other, keep them fierce rivals, one's not going to be that happy. Once they start snapping at each other a minister simply sees the right predetermined trigger point is reached & announces "There are stakeholders here not agreeing & I have have to make a decision now so I will and..." and then its the "all along" Labor decision that stakeholders at the coal face do not want. Rival groups get the blame for squabbling against each other, minister pulls the decision they were ALWAYS going to pull, job done. Minister is the villain who's let off, WAFarmers & PGA get the blame.
For Labor..."It worked again, can you believe it? How easy"

Now we're seeing it all over again on many differing levels & the Govt aligned, the good but naive people are both contributing to helping Divide & Conquer.

Just some of the things that are being spouted that are wrong.

1) Liberals are Labor Lite, Labor & Liberal are 2 wings of the same bird...
Patently false & misleading. One is a socialist party, the other is quite the opposite. One is very much for bigger Government, more control by government says they're a Labour Movement First party but actually Socialist. The other is in favour of smallerbut more efficient Govt that gets out of the road where ever positive & possible. Keen on ensuring that MPs & Bureaucrats remain public servants that actually serve the public. Some pushing this are the same are good people very frustrated as yes both parties have learned further left over the years. But some pushing the Labor-Lite lie are clever Pro Labor people who know that if people abandon the 2 main parties, the preferences can more easily find their way to Labor not the Liberals or Nationals. In a previous election the SFFP sent preferences to Labor in several seats. Also if a person can be coaxed to ignore Greens, Labor, Nats & Liberals it is Labor who have the slight edge. To get changes that are fair, reasonable & workable you have to change the Government

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats.

2) Promoting a Nationals Government or at least a Liberal-National Coaltion with Nationals being the dominant Party.
Not even remotely possible. Could it be possible? Yes. Not in this election & not in any of the elections that the WA Nationals have contested since 1914 (Under the name Country Party then).
To date its actually been completely impossible. But labelling Nationals as the good guys & Liberals bad actually favours Labor by undermining the Liberal Party.
Government is formed in the Legislative Assembly, aka the Lower House. 
There are only 3 parties likely to elect candidates in the Lower House. Labor, Liberal & Nationals. If Greens, PHON, SFFP or any of the other minnows get a candidate elected in the Lower House it'll be a massive event in WA's history.
Labor can form Government on its own, Liberals & Nationals need a Lib/Nat coalition or alliance.
Wreck one of the two, you return Labor. That simple.

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats.

3) Forming Government in the WA Parliament 
There are 59 seats in the Lower House where Government is formed.
A party needs to win 30 as one MP will likely be lost to the position of Speaker of the House. They can & do vote BUT normally they don't, normally its a casting a vote during a division. So you need to win a minimum of 30 seats to have the majority to form Government.
This election Nationals have (as of today) only 17 candidates in the WA Legislative Assembly.
So if people are bagging the Liberals & promoting the Nationals as THE alternative and that ends up being effective across most electorates then Liberals & Nationals are heading to opposition. 

Nationals have slowly been losing seats in both houses over the last few elections. They now have no MPs north of Geraldton. The only new seat in the last few elections was Geraldton, that was a defection from the Liberal Party & that's since been lost. Plus Nationals are running candidates in electorates they have never run in before so unlikely to win many of those new to them seats.

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats.

4) Only One Party Supports Lawful Firearms Owners.
Rubbish. Silly, false & misleading. Not at all helpful to anyone except some of those trying to get elected but are up against high odds.
Liberals & Nationals are both committed to fixing the Firearms laws. BOTH.
So too are PHON, SFFP, Legalise Marijuanna Party (Dr Brian Walker MLC is a shooter & fought against the bill going through the Upper House) so too Independents Louise Kingston MLC & Ben Dawkins MLC
It morphing to "the first party supporting shooting community"
That too is not helpful & incorrect as it is irrelevent. Again...

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats.

5) Liberals won't repeal the laws, they only want to review them.
Yes, this is correct but is used as a reason to avoid voting Liberal who we need to do well to change Government.
Its the right thing for the Liberals to promise because that's all there is.
To repeal a party needs to control BOTH houses of Parliament. WA Labor changed the Upper House Electoral process. It used to be 6 regions with 6 MPs and it has always worked well.
Labor changed it to ONE STATEWIDE ELECTORATE. Its a Gerry mander to help elect more Labor MPs in the Upper House.
Labor might not win control of the Upper House but the Liberal Party is unlikely to. Likely it will be Labor controlled or it will be a hung chamber.

Repealing the Act has been left off the table because it's never been on the table. They're committed to a review & the 32,234 signature ePetition to get the Firearms Bill into the Legislation Committee was a Liberal Party ePetition. Despite one Nats Candidate briefly claiming it as a Nats initiative.
So Liberal Party have properly promised what is most likely. 
Somehow they are still getting criticism for "review not repeal" when they can only review & cannot promise a repeal of the Act

This is made odder still because if they solely controlled both houses & did hit the repeal button...they still have to have a review. Some Nationals said they will repeal it. Yeah ok, you haven't got enough candidates to form Government let alone control both houses, you need the Liberals to help change Government & they're set on review & amend. That does not make any sense.

Due to the ePetition, you know for a start the Liberals are clear, any amendment Bill that comes, they'll want their own bill to got to the Legislation Committee.
Repeal is not on the table because its never been on the table. Many are still missing this & undermining chances of a Liberal-National Govt.

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats.

6) The WA Gun Rally -
No I don't support it. It will serve as a wedge for the Minister & the Government to exploit.
I think it has no positive benefits on offer. It will be an opportunity for the media to cast an unfriendly light on Law Abiding Firearms Owners. Its organised by the Shooters Union which is based in Queensland & the minister has clearly said he will not recognize an eastern states group on WA legislation. Agree or disagree, that's correct approach as a minister.
Yes as a West Aussie you can join, but read their constitution & then try to attend its main meetings. They are board meetings in Queensland.

It is a Not For Profit but its also a small company limited by guarantee meaning it can only be owned by 50 people or less. Now granted this may have changed but that's the only guts of the matter we can find to date. We can assume they chose this structure as it makes them an NFP that isn't incorporated in one state, they'll be recognized as a "registered entity" by ASIC as a Not For Profit. That means they're a NFP like any other but they come under the Corporation Act & they can operate across state borders.

But if you join the rally & you may well have a great day & input (?) but as a member, you don't own the company. I'll be interested to see what level of time the media devotes in the news programmes & how positive, negative, accurate they are.

To be honest it's best outcome is (regardless of who speaks & what they say) it goes ahead and media don't show up at all. If they show up, there is a substantial likelihood it will paint the lawful firearms owners badly.
Some will disagree. There is criticism its brand building & nothing more. Possibly but cannot see the benefits & they're not really mentioned.

Apparently its poster says it will be having speakers who are leaders in the WA Shooting community, but not seen who they are yet. That the speakers will tell attendees how to change the over reach laws.
Well thats already well known. There are several options but first & foremost one is the best & simplest solution and have to happen regardless due to a myriad of other debacles...

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats. 

7) We need to raise money to start a class action?
Maybe, but those pushing this are never sure which court they aim to be heard in, on what grounds & how long & how much it will cost. Some have said its unconstitutional but when asked is that under the Australian Consitution or WA's constitution Act there is silence.
Then the comments we need to employ a QC. 

There are no QCs or Queens Councel anymore since Queen Elizabeth passed away. They are either King's Councel or Senior Councel or often colloquially referred to as "Silks"
Think its more likely if you think you have a case on whatever grounds you engage a very good law firm & they will assess it first and if/when required they will get a KC/SC involved. 
Just because you haven't read or heard anything DO NOT make the mistake that this avenue hasn't been properly explored & potentially prepared. I honest do not know.
I haven't been told anything one way or the other but no one smart threatens legal action publicly or shows all their cards up front to the court rival. They build whatever strategy they're building & if there's a trigger for legal action, it will be launched without any warning.
In any case legal action may or may not be beneficial (don't guess, we'd all need very good legal advice) & were it launched it would costly & drawn out, possibly for years.
So again the prime focus, the best workable approach is to again remember to focus on...

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats.

8) But Liberals all voted for the Firearms Bill.
No, false & misleading. in the LA one voted for, one against, one abstained.
In the Upper House 3 voted with the Government, one Abstained, one voted Against I one I'm unsure so I'll find out for sure & edit this.
The Party positions was to vote with the Government which is often a convention. Really favoured when the vote makes no difference & wastes no Parliamentary time UNLESS a division is called. Both cases, it was. So arguably time was wasted to record that which made no difference. Several broke from convention (they're allowed to in the Liberal Party) & people have demonised the Liberals ever since. I haven't go them to read but apparently possibly 2 motions on firearms have been passed over the last few years at State Council (their board meeting effectively) that support Lawful Firearms owners. The motions supported proper legislation & criticised Labor's efforts. I was told by one Liberal one motion was passed at State Conference (their AGM meeting effectively) & another Liberal said he thought there was one in 2024 & one before in 2023 that supported law abiding firearms owners.
Hope I get to confirmation on exactly did or didn't occur. In any case, the way they voted was actually meaningless & irrelevent. Beware those who blame that vote or say the leader has to go. It's kinda rubbish. As for the future of Leader of the Liberal Party, none of my business, the party room decides that & no one else. They are irrelevent points if you want the laws fixed...its simple

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats.

One last point am I a Liberal or National Party shill?
Hardly, but I'll be ok with being regarded an Anti Labor shill or anti dud legislation shill or anti over reach supporter.

Vote for whoever you want but please remember for positive change on firearms or a dozen other debacles we need to change the Government. 
Government is formed in the Lower House
Whichever party is the next Government they need to win win a minimum of 30 of the 59 seats. So in case you haven't got the point yet...

To change Government WA needs BOTH Liberals & Nationals to do very well & collectively win 30+ seats.

We have to change the Government, everything else is just angels you cannot see dancing on the head of a pin. Very cool, very interesting, captures your attention & yet irrelevent & pointless to changing the Government.

The Last Few Days On Leadership

So the press release is out there, two & a bit pages from the Liberal Party.
Short version, no I don't think there's actually been any moves to replace Libby Mettam as Liberal Party leader.

The fact that one of the journos may have been an ex Labor Staffer should not be taken into any consideration as all media are infallable & not biased ever. For those having trouble detecting sarcasm, that's sarcasm.

106 days out from an election. Much less when you deduct Pre-Polling. That's not a lot of campaigning time but even less when there's the Christmas & New Year period.

First came a story which looks like it came from a leak. Senior Liberals & WANationals meet to agree on a Code of Conduct (CoC). Very big non story except pushed into a story by using words like toxic, division etc & the inferring that no CoC was agreed to signed off on. Who leaked it, I think its easy to guess its one side but the irony is, such a leak would have to against whatever's in the CoC that wasn't signed.

Then now a story on leadership concerns within the Liberals. 
That story does seem like a story & not a report. 
It include detailed quotes with QUOTATION MARKS but no name attached. You would only commit that intellectually bankrupt punctuation crime if you're trying to attach massive emphasis & validation that may not actually exist.

Also one part said unelected candidates wanted to vote on who the leader is to be. Yes who the leader is between now & the election.
The political leader is chosen by those already elected MPs...AND NO ONE ELSE.

NO ONE ELSE EVER

Although people do it, its at best considered extremely poor form to tell a sitting MP who they should elect as leader or deputy. VERY POOR FORM at best & unacceptable at worst.
No aspiring candidate has ever suggested during a campaign they should be able to decide who the leader of the Party Room is. None.
None ever.
I suspect none has now either.

You'd have to get the whole party room to agree to candidates voting on the leader and that's if it isn't against a party's constitution. 
It makes no sense, it didn't happen. No candidate is pushing for that.

Why would it need to happen?
Because the candidates want to vote on leader & its unfair people not recontesting do get to vote?
More rubbish.

The leader of a party, their tenure extends to the next elections or until there's a spill and they lose...which ever comes first. Only a sitting MP can call a spill, only a sitting MP can become leader, only sitting MPs can vote in a leadership spill

So Libby is (Political) Leader of the Liberals Party Room.
The election is March 8th, 2025.
The first Party Room meeting after then, elected MPs will decide who the leader is after all positions are made vacant. That's when the candidates (if they get elected) get to vote on the Leader.
Nope this is BS pro Labor sent story to rattle swing voters & suggest instability

If you cannot smell BS in the Media Story please get in touch, I have a bridge for sale in Sydney & for a little extra I'll throwa unique shell shaped opera house & a HQ Statesman once owned by Elvis himself.

Can you see the circular absurdity, the Party Room has to agree (if they constitutionally can) let all candidates in to vote on the leader? Why so they have the numbers and unseat the leader? Well they'd clearly have if they voted the candidates in to stack the vote wouldn't they
No. it is absurd.
Utterly absurd

NO CANDIDATE EVER SERIOUSLY EXPRESSED THAT THEY SHOULD VOTE ON THE LEADER. DID NOT HAPPEN.

Either someone expressed some frustration OR a fiction writer is pretending to be a reporter.
There is nor was nor ever will be a plan to let candidates into a party to vote on a Party Room leader.

Why would this dog that can't hunt even be able to get on its feet?

This is Try The Get The Zak Kirkup Tactic 2.0 Running Flat Out

This 100% deflects all attention off WA Labor and yes this is where I'd list all the very sketchy Acts of Legislation that Labor grotesquely punched through & avoid full debate, any amendment of Committee review.

Or all the deals that only involved one entity, that were unique & not replicable with costs hidden behind "commercial in confidence" 
There's no commercial advantage to protect if its a unique one off deal & cannot be replicated. It only protects the costs from accountibility & kills integrity.

Or the gerrymandering effect hoped for by converting the Legislative Council to One Vote, One Value when there were absolutely no instances of the rural regional areas being unfairly advantaged over WA's Metro citizens where the majority of WA lives. NONE.
Not one, none.
Oddly WA Labor are not pushing for One Vote, One Value for the Australian Senate.
Why? Well if you did that the majority of senators would come from NSW, Victoria & Queensland in that order & we'd have no real representation in the Senate.
Why is that different...Senate can increase or decrease money to WA but no effect on the number of extra Labor politicians that could be elected to the WA Upper House.

And all the drivel talk about Basil Zemplis replacing Libby Mettam as leader, what rubbish.
People spouting that tosh clearly get all their cardio exercise from jumping to false conclusions & running off at the mouth. Although I suspect many of them are sock puppet accounts of Labor layembers & staffers.

Basil is a candidate, he cannot be the Liberal Party's Political Leader.
In fact unless somehow the Party Leader came from the Upper House this time there's only 2 alternatives.
David Honey who is not recontesting & Merome Beard.
Merome Beard won her seat as a National candidate in September 2022 & left the Nats to become a Liberal in October 2023. To only be a Liberal MP for 13 months and become Party leader...no. Pretty unlikely but more likely she doesn't want to replace Libby or she would have caused a spill by now.
So yeah it's a bulldust yarn unless something huge changes since the creation of this fictional matter.

Come polling day, Political Party positions will be made vacant & elected MPs will vote on Leader, Deputy, Whip and whatever else.

Yeah stop being fooled.
Stop inadvertantly fooling others.
Or if you're with the Labor Party...yup, we see you, not fooled

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