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
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
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
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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.
- 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. - 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.
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.- Major Firearm PartsNeeds 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 53rd
Our gun deaths must be higher than Mexico's & yet...
Our gun deaths must be higher than Mexico's & yet...
Australia 0.10 deaths per 100,000 people ranking us 156th 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.
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.
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.
- Smuggled in.
- Stolen from the Australian Defence Forces
- 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.
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
