From the helicopter view this set of reforms was very disappointed despite the good intentions of some of its proponents. It wasn't until WA's Attorney General John Quigley MLA slipped up in Parliament last year during the OMG Insignia bill that we learned that the Minister for Police Paul Papalia MLA & Senior Police were working on new & very tough firearms reforms & the inference was to give Police more tools, better tools to deal with Criminal Gangs. Mr Papalia's face lit large with shock and on the Handsard video you can clearly hear him say to Mr Quigley "don't tell them that". This was a bill that had been worked on solidly behind closed doors with no hints nor requests to the Firearms Industry, Gun manufacturers, repairers, retailers, competitive shooters, farmers, pastoralists or collectors for input or consultation.
Indeed consultation is arguably often sought after the a Bill is already finalised & we're all keen to see when the Minister for Police began engineering this legislation & when members of learned of it. There were comments this week in Parliament about Bills being presented to Parliament without all members of Cabinet even knowing of those Bills until they hit the Lower House chamber. Until we learn what, where, who, when & why, we won't know if there are incompetent Cabinet Ministers who don't read their Cabinet papers OR if they whole cabinet is only for show & legislation is actually controlled & built by a small band of very senior ministers operating without their Cabinet colleagues. The idea of pretend ministers & a smaller control crew is deeply disturbing but hopefully that will be brought out into the open in good time.
In the menatime the Firearms Reforms are seemingly to control, curtail and jail members of Criminal Gangs, organised crime gangs, Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs. Some of the legislation however has blanket bombing traits & does wrongly capture law abiding firearms owners. This is a test point.
If legislation is to be reasonable, required & proportionate then it must target those who its meant to target and cause no (or the least possible) ill effect to those who are law abiding, legal firearms owners.
Now this has already been smashed through the Parliament nearly as quick as the Electoral Reform legislation. Meanwhile the promised legislation that was a signalled priority of the Attorney General, the better protection against elder abuse is still 5+ years behind. If you can find that Bill good on you...but at present these Firearms reforms have passed the Legislative Assembly and have already been through the first & second reading in the Legislative Council.
Its nearly through & whilst it might go well in the future for the Lawful Owners, the potential for unreasonable over reach is there. And some is seriously concerning.
It might not be this government that abuses these extra powers, but the potential will be there.
This (below) is just one page of Hansard. One page. I've arrow marked it with numbers to go through each paragraph seperately. (Page 56 from Hansard Wednesday, 16th of March 2022)
Arrow 1 - activities in place of adults who have been issued with an FPO. Further, in order to give effect to corresponding laws, it is necessary that FPOs issued in Western Australia can also apply to juveniles in Western Australia. Western Australia’s new FPO scheme will be similar to schemes in other Australian jurisdictions. As five Australian jurisdictions have legislated corresponding firearms prohibition order schemes, the bill will also introduce provisions to enable FPOs issued in other states to be enforced in WA. Once enacted, WA will seek similar corresponding recognition of our scheme. Although the new FPO scheme is necessarily strong, appropriate safeguards are included in the bill.
This concerns me (at least) that these laws can be applied to juveniles. I'm unsure of any statistics that outline the use of possession of illegal firearms by juveniles. I assume they're thinking that juveniles will be recruited to hold guns in case of a search. Who knows? Its not clear. One concerning angle unmentioned here is the item passed at the WALabor State Conference to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years of age. I don't think there is a Bill being put together on that, but past record says we might not know until it hits the floor of the Lower House. I don't mind that an FPO can cross state borders but only if the person subject to the FPO is a member or associate of an Organised Crime Gang. Yeah, that's the scratch test that has to be uniformly applied.
In any case, a juvenile, a child can be subject to an FPO whilst Labor is favour of raising the age of criminal responsibility of juveniles to (at this stage) 14 years of age.
I do hope there are a panel of senior judges signing off on any FPO taken out on a child.
Arrow 2 - Although the new FPO scheme is necessarily strong, appropriate safeguards are included in the bill. Clause 35 of the
bill will provide that the decision of the Commissioner of Police, or their delegate who must be of the rank of
commander or above, to make an FPO will be subject to review by the State Administrative Tribunal. An FPO decision
as affirmed or varied by the SAT, or one that is substituted, may be appealed to the Supreme Court. Importantly, the
bill will also provide that, in order to protect sensitive police information, the Commissioner of Police will be provided
the opportunity to withdraw any confidential information from proceedings.
So Commander or above sign off on FPOs. It is subject to review (no timeline set) by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). No judge is involved in signing off on this. Police have full control on who they deem needs an FPO, they apply it, they approve their decision but the SAT will at some undetermined stage will review their decision. BUT...Police also get to decide if they need to protect the information that THEY decide what information that underlies the need for an individual getting an FPO is too sensitive & they can withdraw it.
If you're going down the path of Police being the issuer of an FPO & the controller and gatekeeper of all evidence to support the criminal mechanism being applied to a citizen or indeed a juvenile, well we're beginning to wander towards Star Chamber territory.
If a person is wrongfully issued with a FPO, they can appeal it but they may not get any evidence for it to look at & potentially disprove.
Nor is there any hint of what happens in the case of a wilfully wrong or vexatious issuing of a FPO, who is liable for wrongful issue, damages caused by the wrongfull issue of an FPO or would anyone lose their job for wrongfully issuing an FPO on an innocent child.
A very concerning vaccum and this blanket bombs innocent people & that has no net benefit against organised crime.
It must target organised crime players.
Arrow 3 - I turn now to the second key reform in this bill—the illegal manufacturing and firearms technology offences. Clause
43 of the bill inserts new offences so that a person who unlawfully manufactures, repairs or deals—“firearms activity”—
a firearm, major firearm part, prohibited firearm accessory or ammunition, commits a crime. It is currently an offence
under the Firearms Act for a person to repair or manufacture a firearm or handgun. However, the new offences will
provide stricter penalties for illegal manufacturing and repair, and expand the offence to dealing in firearms.
There are already penalties for these matters but if they need strengthening I am fine with that. I'm not fine though with this in that it says "manufactures, repairs or deals" which will be in addition to possesses. Well I am ok with it but the thing is "major firearms part" is being extended. An empty rifle stock will become a major firearms part & to possess it a law abiding owner will have to apply to the Police Commissioner for permission to possess it. So anyone who bought a rifle with a cheap plastic stock, didn't like it and then ordered a replacement stock with better features like full aluminium bedding, free floating barrel, better ergonomics (safer) adjustable cheek riser, drop box magazine capability, adjustable length of pull, fitted rail to better mount a scope or optic...well you could be in danger of breaking the law if you're keeping the old stock for if/when you sell the rifle. If you have short action rifles & have no licence for long action calibres but have a long action stock, then you might fail a genuine need if it becomes a Major Firearms Part...but it still makes no sense.
At present if you have a ex-military rifle & you have a spare stock for it, you need permission for that stock. If you have a rendered firearm, a gun that cannot fire and cannot be made to fire then the stock on it will not be considered a Major Firearms Part. So if anyone has an old .303 or a Mauser or Mosin Nagant, easiest way to not get in trouble is to buy an identical rifle that is rendered. You won't need a licence for it, anyone can buy one, 100% legal. You have your spare stock that can easily be swapped over. No permission required. By the way, swapping a stock over is very simple. In many rifles there are 2 to 3 screws involved. It does not need a gunsmith. Even if a person "repairs" a stock & is prosecuted, it doesn't affect organised crime.
It does not make sense, it grossly affects the lawful owner with a back up stock & it does not target Organised Crime.
Arrow 4 - The bill will also insert a new offence for a person who participates, or “takes part”, in the unlawful firearms activity. A person will be deemed to have participated in any of these offences if the person takes, or participates in, a step, or causes a step to be taken in the firearms activity; provides or arranges finance for a step in the firearms activity; provides the place in which a step in the firearms activity is taken, or allows a step in the firearms activity to be taken at a place of which the person is an owner, lessee or occupier, or of which the person has care, control or management; or is in possession of, provides or supplies a firearms precursor for a step in the manufacture or repair of a firearm, major firearm part, prohibited firearm accessory or ammunition
I'm nearly ok with this except its the intent that forms the basis of law. And governing the proof of intent is a "reasonable person's test". This is a waste of time for the courts if they have to be locked up spend a grossly excessive amount of time trying to prove each person's intent down to a minor role in the production of illegal firearms. Financing them? Yes that's good, but good luck proving that because if the guns are illegal I'm fairly sure there will be either cash or drugs or both involved and they will not appear on a ledger. Much easier, if you're a Organised Crime member or associate & caught in possession of an illegal firearm whether its stolen, manufactured or smuggled in from overseas...14 years jail per firearm, no parole. Second offence, double the penalty per firearm. had this been the case I don't think we would have seen Claremont Firearms be broken into, nor Barry's Firearms where the elderly owner was bashed. If they took only 5 firearms those criminals are effectively not leaving jail before their elderly years. If illegal guns in the hands of criminals was at all serious...that's a very desirable result for WA and...AND it doesn't affect the Lawful Firearms Owners at all...only the Organised Crime members & Associates. Just pointing to the porper scratch test again.
Arrow 5 - The new firearms activity offences will not be contingent on whether the firearm, major firearm part, prohibited firearm accessory or ammunition is actually manufactured into a functioning firearm. These offences will ensure that any person who has contributed to the production of an illegal firearm will be guilty of a crime, and reflect outcomes supported nationally by the former Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management to address the illegal manufacture of firearms. These offences are intended to capture anyone involved in the process of manufacturing firearms, from the people involved in financing to providing premises, equipment and materials. The penalty for these offences will be 14 years’ imprisonment. This is in line with the penalty provisions for the illegal manufacturing offences in New South Wales, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria. The general defences in the Criminal Code will apply to these offences.
Again, a person who makes a wooden rifle stock or is a part of that process, or finances it or provides a building, equipment or materials can go to jail for 14 years. It doesn't say they are knowingly doing that for Organised Crime Gangs, their members or associates.
Again, you can diminish the demand in the supply/demand equation by targeting those people trying to manufacture an illegal firearm, whether they're Organised Crime, their members or associates by simply implementing a new set of harsh penalties as I mentioned in response to Arrow 4, that is "14 years jail per firearm, no parole. Second offence, double the penalty per firearm."
Thinking 14 years is a stiff deterrant & if not, go to jail for 14 years...PER FIREARM.
But if it applies to someone making a wooden rifle stock because they're now suddenly be a major firearms part...Scratch test, that does not impact on solely Organised Crime Gangs.
Arrow 6 - The bill will also insert new offences relating to the unauthorised possession, unauthorised creation or development,
and unauthorised dissemination of firearms technology. These offences are aimed at preventing the increasing
development of firearms through technologies such as 3D printing.
No problem here, except there's no real need right now because 3D printing aren't making good, safe, reliable firearms yet, but it won't be long. I have no problem with this but again..."14 years jail per firearm, no parole. Second offence, double the penalty per firearm."
The reason I would ignore this and let this section pass is finally we have a matter that applies to Organised Crime Gangs, their members or associates...or a complete idiot who is probably going to make a firearm that will explode & seriously injure them...if they're not killed.
No legal, lawful firearms owner will think its in anyway a good idea to go what they know full well is well outside the law right now & they knew that from the very first day that they heard people overseas were trying to build guns with a 3D Printer. If anyone, Organised Crime related or not tries to 3D print gun parts, good riddance to them if they're caught.
Arrow 7 - “Firearms technology” is defined in the bill to include a thing that is programmed, configured or otherwise enabled to
carry out a step in the manufacture or repair of a firearm, major firearm part, prohibited firearm accessory or
ammunition, or to change an object into a component of one of those items. A “thing” is a reference to any machinery,
equipment, object or device such as a 3D printer, moulding device, milling device, remote-controlled device such as a
drone, electronic firing mechanism, railgun technology or any other prescribed thing; any type of digital or electronic
reproduction of a technical drawing of the design of a firearm, major firearm part, prohibited firearm accessory or
ammunition, including hard copies; or a plan, drawing, instruction, template or computer program, in digital or
electronic form, for the manufacture or repair of a firearm, major firearm part, prohibited firearm accessory or
ammunition, including hard copies. The penalty for these offences will be imprisonment for 10 years, with the summary
conviction penalty being imprisonment for three years. There will be a number of exceptions to these offences, including
if the conduct engaged in by the person is necessary in conducting scientific, medical, educational, military or law
enforcement research that has been approved in writing by the Commissioner of Police. These offences are similar to
those enacted in New South Wales.
This is good & bad. And by bad I mean sloppy & lazy thinking. For making illegal guns, yes I support it 100% but otherwise it is daft. It will include all components that currently are not, sensibly are not major firearms parts but the Govt wants to include. If they're for parts that are currently legal then it should not apply. If you own a Tekmat cleaning mat you could be up for 10 years imprisonment. Many shooters have these oil soaking mats when cleaning & mainataining their firearms. It has an exploded view of their firearm. If you're cleaning or maintaining your firearm, changing trigger springs, or in the case of a Mosin Nagant polishing the sear, a gunmith is not required but the plans probably will be.
If by "prohibited firearm accessory or ammunition" they mean for one you're not licenced to have then that's almost a pass as that would not affect competive shooter in Metallic Silouette or Combined Services events who shoots a 1911 & has a Tekmat with 1911 schematics on it. It doesn't affect lawful owners. Not sure it affect Organised Crime but this legislation did lack consultation so...
Arrow 8 - In order to investigate these technology-based offences, clause 47 of the bill will provide police with the power to
access electronic devices. If police suspect on reasonable grounds that a person is in possession of firearms
technology—for example, electronic plans stored on a computer—police may direct that person to provide a password,
device or other information to enable access to the firearms technology. The penalty for failing to comply with this
direction without a lawful excuse will be 10 years’ imprisonment, and the summary conviction penalty will be three
years’ imprisonment.
If this person is a proven member of an Organised Crime Gang, or an associate or it is is suspected they are involved with producing illegal firearms then yes I guess you do have to search computers etc. However, having schematics or plans is every bit as dangerous as a person who is competnent at machining & is wanting to make a firearm. Remember the most favoured firearm of Organised Crime Gangs, their associates & other serious offenders are handguns & shotguns. The latter are more often sawn off as concealibility its a high priority. They are pretty unlikely to carry something with a 26" barrel and a fixed butt stock. These usual crime guns are either smuggled in, stolen or manufactured. In the case of the latter...you do not need rifling in a barrel even though it's probably very easy for any machinist to do. If they're at close quarters as you'd expect most serious criminals to be, there's no rifling in a shotgun, a peice of pipe can be used. Even a make shift back yard version of a Sten Gun would not need rifling & for most machinists, schematics probably aren't that essential.
In any case, mere possession of schematics is now an offence whereas today any historial stories & documents on the Sten Gun or Australian "Austen" sub machine gun from WW2 may be regarded as a serious criminal offence. Quite a few WW2 buffs will be wise to go through their library collections and destroy some books...especially if they're a legal firearms owner.
I think its odd that if someone has an FPO or is suspected of involvement in or with an Organised Crime Gang and/or manufacture of illegal guns is not on the radar, subject to an investiagation and that a proper warrant cannot be sought & approved. I can only assume this applies solely to those with an FPO against them.
If its possible for Police to lawfully enter any person's home & then decide they have reasonable grounds to suspect there are firearms schematics on a person's computer & then request a password to search it...without a warrant I'd be very concerned about the sharp dangerous turn law enforcement is turning. Its more about enforcement and less about law.
Again if it can be shown that this is to give Police extra tools to specifically target Outlaw Motor Cycle Gangs and Organised Crime as Mr Quigley said in Parliament I'm fine with that. But not if anyone at all can be easily a subject of over reach...even if they have no connection with firearms at all.
Arrow 9 -
The third key reform advanced by this bill is to increase penalties in the Criminal Code and Firearms Act for the offences
of stealing a firearm, being in possession of a stolen or unlawfully obtained firearm, and discharging a firearm in danger
or in a manner to cause fear to the public or an individual. The former amendments respond to a number of incidents
And really this was all that was required. It would then target criminals and those who decide to lawfully break the law. There may be some lawful firearms owners who are also criminals. By all means target anyone with illegal guns whether they're stolen, smuggled in or made in the back yard or "a mate's workshop"
If someone is in possession of an illegal firearm or is in the process of making one, they're already breaking the law. Make it not 14 years in jail, make it 20 years. Seriously, if you're committing a crime with a firearm you're either prepared to shoot someone or you're trying to pretend to look like someone who is prepared to shoot someone. Go to jail for 20 or 20+ years without parole. A criminal doesn't get a gun to try & scratch someone with a bullet.
When I was in the US there was another Aussie worker over there & he was set to go travelling on his own. His plan was to get an air pistol and brandish that if he got into trouble or ended up in a suburb he shouldn't be in. I mentioned it to my boss, a lawful firearms who has carried a firearm lawfully for protection. His advice was "Tell him if he's not sure, only go where all the tourists go" and he said to tell him not to get a air pistol. He said if you pull a gun, even a toy one and the other person is a good or bad person & gets to thinking they're in danger, they will if they're carrying pull their gun & shoot. Not brandish, to shoot before he does. He said you either carry a real gun & only pull it out to shoot someone or don't carry any sort of gun at all, real or not.
This seemingly doesn't apply, but the fact is, if a criminal is carrying a gun we must assume they're prepared to use it. They are prepared to kill someone. If a criminal is carrying an illegal gun, loaded or not then they should be in line for 20+ years in jail just for the possession regardless of what they claim is their justification.
The Govt could easily have comedown hard on Organised Crime Gangs by ramping the penalties that already exist. Instead, they're kind of blanket bombing and will affect lawful firearms owners.
Hitting law abiding people is not a reform.
A reform must target criminals or remove wrong effect upon the lawful people.
Government could have done that by including proper community & industry consultation.
You don't get past the 2nd reading in the Upper House and then hold meetings with affected (lawful) stakeholders.
That is an insult.
No comments:
Post a Comment