shooterscouncil.sysnolodge.com.au

Blog

TASMANIA: Shooters set to cop WA style application form update

Tasmania Police is seeking your feedback on a proposal to update its firearms application form. These are changes that come straight out of WA.

Prefer the audio version?

[sc name=”podcast_link”][/sc]

New application questions

TASMANIA POLICE’S Firearm Services is proposing to add several new questions to the firearms application form. This will only make it easier to reject applications.

This follows similar questions being added to firearm licence applications in WA.

However, we do acknowledge is that this is a proposal that shooters are being consulted on. However, WA shooters were also ‘consulted’: that process was nothing more than a farce. Even if Tasmania Police listen, we explain why Tasmanian shooters need to reject every single change.

That’s why you should take advantage of the opportunity to have your say before the closing date of 6 December. We explain how to do this later in this article.

If you’re not familiar with what’s been happening in Western Australia, then be aware it has now become significantly harder to get and keep a licence to shoot. Police are now going “door to door” to take firearms off licenced shooters (which we will cover in our next podcast). Click here for one of our previous stories.

The intrusive application form

TASPOL’S FIREARM SERVICES has published what it proposes to introduce and provided both a link to the draft licence application form and contact details for your use.

**See what Firearm Services has released by clicking here**

The proposed application form is eleven pages long.

The application form to obtain a drivers licence is just two pages.

Here’s what they’re asking

THE proposed application form asks for information covering whether you have been charged with “an offence”. This can be any offence, such as parking or speeding fines. It asks about whether you have ever had a mental health condition, fainting, migraine or learning disability.

It even asks is if you have a “physical disability” or are sight or hearing impaired.

Here is part of what they are asking (… that if you suffer from …):

This means if you wear glasses, a hearing aid or disabled in any way, then you need to declare it. The fact these questions are being asked can raise grounds for your licence application being rejected.

Otherwise, why ask the questions?

These are just some of the questions. There are 17 just on mental and physical health alone.

The proposed application form also asks you to specify details of where you will be hunting . This includes the owners name and contact number.

Don’t forget, this is the same path that WA took with its ‘property letters’. In that state, property owners must give written consent to those who shoot on their properties. These letters must then be reported to the registry. Changes to WA laws mean these letters are now almost impossible to get, with new limits being imposed on how many can be issued.

The proposed form also asks you about your next-of-kin (including your relationship with them and all their contact details) for reasons that have not been explained.

Why you should object

TO SOME, these questions might seem innocuous. In fact, questions about whether you are fit to hold a licence at all, makes sense.

However there are many other questions sprinkled in among these that should not be there. They demonstrate a lack of understanding of how the shooting sports work, which means they are written by people who do not understand the shooting sports.

Imagine if the aviation regulator was run the same way? Imagine if airliners were managed by people who didn’t have relevant skills and experience on aviation safety?

Instead, we see the proposed application form as part of a push to create new barriers to people from taking up shooting as a sport. For example, those who wear glasses.

Importantly, these changes are not being explained. There is no reasoning or forward, which is not how good policy works.

From our perspective, these questions are only serving to follow WA which requires shooters to declare irrelevant mental and physical conditions that then need to be supported by medical professionals.

It means that being a disabled shooter, or having any of the listed ailments, could give rise to a licence rejection.

No real right of appeal

UNLIKE other states and territories, shooters in Tasmania have very limited rights of appeal.

It means that shooters in Tasmania who are knocked back for licences (or potentially renewals) are being asked to give more information that makes it easier to reject applications.

This is being done without there being any effective avenues of appeal available to shooters.

Tasmania is different from other states in that if you are knocked back for a licence, you have to appeal to a Magistrate’s Court.

This makes fighting a bad decision considerably expensive and time consuming than appealing in other states.

That is because appeals in most other states can be heard at local administrative tribunals. This make it easier- and cheaper – for licence holders to seek reviews of adverse decisions.

The Tasmanian model of going to the Magistrates Court means you’ll need a lawyer and cannot represent yourself.

In fact if the Tasmanian Government really wanted to help shooters, adding such an avenue for appeal rights This would be a great and uncontroversial positive step.

It would also signal that it will finally take charge of firearms policy in that state.

Who holds the pen?

WHAT ALSO STRIKES US about the way firearms policy is managed in Tasmania, is that it is being led by police, rather than the police minister, Felix Ellis MP.

Policy is meant to reflect the intent of the government that ends up supporting legislation.

It is normally the role of regulators to give effect to that legislation.

In Tasmania, that is back-to-front.

Arrangements there give the regulator the ability to determine how it should administer the law. This is a conflict of interest because it avoids transparency and shelters ’empire building’. It also avoids independent review of whether the laws are being applied the right way.

If anything, these functions need to be separated out so that the need for, and type of, restrictions can be tested and challenged. This ensures that those in the industry who have the necessary skills and experience to have their say, do so.

How to make a submission

If you live in Tasmania, DO NOT simply shrug your shoulders and ignore it. This affects you, your sport, and the future of your support.

Importantly, you need to make a submission to signal that you do NOT want to see WA type gun laws coming to you.

Even if you don’t feel that strongly about the proposed changes, make sure Ellis and the police know that you do care about shooting. It also shows them that the wrong decisions can lead to political costs they may not want to bear.

You have until 6 December to make a submission. You can do this simply by sending an email to: firearms.services@police.tas.gov.au.

What about antiques?

REMEMBER the fight over antiques in Tasmania?

Readers might recall that Tasmania Police had removed an exemption for antique firearms, requiring owners to be licenced and their pre-1900 firearms registered. This is required under the NFA, however Tasmania seems to have ignored that.

BOTH SIDES of politics went to the 2024 state election in March promising to fix this problem- but the problem remains unfixed.

The reason this has not been done is that no party holds a majority in parliament. This makes changing laws much more difficult, unless there is agreement with the other political parties.

That’s because the Tasmanian lower house has 5 Greens, 3 Jacquie Lambert Network MPs, and 3 independents.

However, police are effectively administering their way out of the problem until the political impasse can be fixed.

Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?

November 4, 2024
LABOR v LIBERAL: the awkward choice for shooters

Voting is a personal thing. It’s no-one else’s business as to which way you go. … but, when it comes to voting for the future of firearm ownership,
there are some things you should be aware of.

Labor; on the nose

MOST STATES & TERRITORIES have Labor governments.

That’s why it’s hardly a surprise to hear that most of our attention on bad gun laws and policies is focused on Labor.

After all, Labor is the party that brought in the draconian new gun laws in WA. They also brought in a new policy of banning guns because of “opportunity” in Victoria.

They wanted to expand “disqualifying offences” for obtaining licences in Qld, until that was famously stopped by the Shooters Union Australia.

Then there’s the coalition

Of course, the Liberals and Nationals don’t exactly have a great record either.

Speak with any shooter old enough to remember ’96, and you’ll find out just how deeply that continues to burn in the backs of our minds.

There’s no question about it: the Libs and the Nats sold us down the river, when we thought they held good conservative values.

However that does not mean we should gravitate to Labor.

Labor has done more than its fair share of treachery, particularly in recent years. They show no signs of changing that.

It means both sides are equally bad on guns – and the Nats have a lot of rebuilding to do if they want to earn our trust.

Liberals are getting worse …

EVEN putting 96 aside, the Libs of 2024 are an weak lot.

In WA, they even voted with Labor on the gun laws. In Victoria, SA and NSW, we are yet to come up with any policies that help shooters. Nor in Queensland, where voters go to the polls in October.

Some describe the Liberals a “Labor lite”. We agree, because it is hard to see how the modern Liberals are different.

James Newbury MP

Take James Newbury, for example. Newbury is the Liberal member for the blue-ribbon Victorian seat of Brighton.

He used his inaugural speech to call for a ban on duck hunting, before changing his tune, and then changing it back again.

He definitely has to go – but the good news is that his seat is marginal.

Importantly, the Liberals in most states and territories seem to no longer hold traditional conservative values.

This denies the electorate the ability to choose between parties that offer different values.

The Country Liberal Party in NT (a hybrid of the Libs & Nats) recently got elected with a good pro-gun policy, so we’ll give them space to put them into place. However we’re struggling to find any other Liberal Party branch worth backing.

The Nationals are a better option – but WA seems to be the only place where they are standing up for firearm owners (shooters & collectors).

However even that seems to be limited: they curiously decided against stepping up to the national stage at the recent National Gun Conference.

We blame Shane Love for that.

Putting the majors last

Unfortunately – and as we all know – votes are only valid if the ballot papers are correctly filled out. For lower houses, that means numbering all the boxes sequentially.

This means that even if you have pro-gun parties to vote for, you still have to choose Labor over Liberal / National Party or vice versa on the ballot ticket. Putting the Greens last, of course.

Whatever you do, we strongly suggest you do NOT vote informal. That’s because every vote you abandon gives our enemies such as the Greens what they want.

Simply put, failing to have your vote counted (or “voting for neither”) gives our enemies another opportunity to have your guns taken off you.

Besides, there are some major party candidates who will stand up for shooters and collectors. If you find someone who fits that bill, then keep them in mind when you vote.

It’s not about the party, but about politics

We could go on about what happened in ’96 but ifwe really want to have change for the better,

then we need to talk about what we should be doing at the next election.

To us, our fight isn’t about Labor v Coalition. It’s about applying political pressure to both sides.

That’s because neither side is there for us: they only care about winning seats because putting votes ahead of good policy is how they secure their employment on the public purse – and power. Nothing else matters to them.

For us, the issue is not who to vote for, but what to vote for. That’s why we’re one issue voters.

We’ll recommend voting for any party that will do us good – and against any party that wants to take our guns off us. That’s regardless of whether we are talking about Labor or Liberal.

So, who do we vote for?

Discounting both sides paints a bleak picture. However, that is no reason to ‘give up’. Instead, there is much for us to gain if we make the right choices. It’s just a matter of ‘working with what you have’.

As you know, there are minor pro-gun parties who are worth voting for. These include One Nation, Katters Australian Party, Liberal Democrats and a couple of others – but they don’t run in every seat. So what then?

Not into policies? It’s time to tune in

If you’re not really into politics, then knowing which way to go can be confusing. That’s why people simply don’t bother thinking about it and just want to get their vote over and done with without thinking about what the outcome could be.

However politics matters a lot to the future of shooting & collecting. We’re constantly under attack, and it’s clear that left unchallenged, this trend will continue. That’s why it’s worth paying attention, so you can do your bit at elections by making the right choice.

The easiest way to get that information is to join our email list by clicking here. That way you’ll get our articles – and podcasts – where we’ll cover every election.

Then it’s up to you to decide what to do – but the information we provide will hopefully help you with that.

Why 15 minutes of your time can matter

EVEN BEFORE your state / territory election, it’s always worth finding out what your local member of parliament thinks – and educating them a little.

This means taking the time to go to, speak with, or even email, your local MP well before the election to let them know you’re a shooter and that it’s an issue you’re willing to vote on.

You may not know who the other candidates are likely to be until much closer to the election, but they’re worth canvassing too.

I’m now a one-issue voter (on firearms) because of the way we’ve been treated – and continue to be treated. Yes, I care about the economy, defence and so on. However, my priority is to vote against any government that wants to do us harm – regardless of their other policies.

That’s because if we don’t make a political stand, shooting will be allowed to fade away because of other political agendas.

You might think you are just one voice – but you aren’t. There are hundreds of thousands of other firearm owners thinking the same thing. That’s why it’s important to stand up – and to tell other owners you know to do the same.

See a local candidate

IF YOU HAPPEN TO SEE a candidate handing out political leaflets at the local shopping centre, railway station or wherever, then just grab them for five minutes.

You will not convert them into becoming shooters or collectors, but that’s not what you’re trying to do. What you’re trying to do is make them understand this is important enough for you to speak with them – and why you will vote that way.

If the party they represent hears this enough times, then they’ll do the maths: more votes means they’ve got a better chance of winning.

To the major parties, winning elections isn’t about doing good for the community. It’s about winning taxpayer funded jobs for their own people.

But I’ve always voted this way…

Again, voting is personal. It’s entirely your choice.

However that choice should reflect what you want to see going forward – not what may have happened in the past.

We suggest you don’t blindly vote Labor “because your dad did“. Or for the Liberals because “that’s what you did last time”.

Many seats and elections have been decided by a handful of votes and you will be kicking yourself if you voted the wrong way for the wrong reason.

The seat of Bunbury in Qld was last won by an anti-gun Labor candidate in 2020 by just 9 votes. That government went on to propose the “disqualifying offences” mentioned earlier. If just five shooters / collectors who thought their votes didn’t matter, had voted differently, then that may well have stopped this problem from surfacing in the right place.

Don’t settle for mediocrity

IF YOU’RE GENUINELY unsure about which way to vote and have a local MP who shown no support on firearm issues, then we simply suggest you vote against the incumbent (regardless of what side they’re on) – and tell them why you’re doing this. (don’t forget to put the Greens last)

Don’t accept “yes but …”.

Don’t accept patronising statements such as parties saying our laws “aren’t about law abiding firearm owners”. Yes, they are. They are, for the most part, targetting us, not targetting criminals.

Whenever you vote, be clear about your support for your shooting sport or collecting and your intention to vote to protect it – even if it means changing local members of parliament to make that point. Be blunt. Don’t settle for less.

Want more on elections?

We’ll be covering all state, territory & federal elections as they it approach – so don’t forget to hop on our email list by clicking here. Or you can back our work by joining us below.

Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?

September 28, 2024
DUCK HUNTING: Victorian hunters hit by draconian new regulations
Victoria’s new duck hunting regulations are in.
That’s a problem – but so is who sided with the government on them
Claiming a loss to be a win

THE NEW WILDLIFE (GAME) REGULATIONS 2024 for Victorian hunters have been made and will come into effect soon.

They cover some of the rules around hunting, including duck hunting.

Some in the shooting community have labelled the regulations as a ‘win’ for shooters.

However that’s simply not true. They are a loss.

In this article, we explain why duck hunters, in particular, need to take action to protect what they have.

We also explain why maybe it’s time shooters in Victoria give Labor the boot.

What the rules cover

The regulations proposed several changes affecting hunters. Among the changes were:

An immediate ban on using lead ammunition for quail hunting – but to allow lead-based ammunition to continue to be used for deer; and

Prohibiting electronic callers for quail, but allowing them for ducks

Among these impacts are the ban on the use of lead for Damascus barrels.

As you will be aware, forcing owners to use steel will damage the internal surfaces of these barrels over time.

What it means for duck hunters

The really disappointing aspect of the regs is how they continue the political pressure on duck hunting. Among the changes are:

Wednesday will remain the opening day – with an 8am start for the first five days of the season.

Retaining Blue Winged Shovelers as a ‘game’ species, but retaining an all-year-round closed season on them “at this time”.

While the impacts on hunters were ‘reduced’, they are still clearly problematic. It doesn’t change the fact that hunting remains under constant attack.

Meet Dim

The good news, as duck hunters will recall, is that the Victorian Government recently rejected a parliamentary committee’s report to ban duck hunting.

Steve Dimopoulous MP

The government’s position to keep duck hunting was influenced by certain heavies within Labor, and the stance of unions who backed the sport.

However the bad news is that the regulations are the responsibility of Oakleigh MP, Steve Dimopoulous (pictured) who sits outside that circle.

Dimopoulous – or ‘Dim’ as most people call him for a reason – has not featured in recent discussions or debates on duck hunting.

However we have found some previous, albeit brief, references to his views on shooting through some simple searches on Hansard.

Dim’s views on shooting

Dim previously described Howard’s buyback as a true test of leadership.

He also backed the draconian firearm prohibition orders. introduced by previous Victorian police minister, Lisa Neville.

In 2020, Dimopoulous told parliament that sitting dates used to be timed around hunting.

That’s when he said “No, no. Not for this government”.

That’s disrespectful of both shooting and the importance of shooting to the state.

It’s clear: the minister with portfolio responsibility for the ‘outdoor recreations’ is not on our side. Labor needs to find a better minister.

Duck hunting – as both sides see it

Infighting within Labor over the future of duck hunting is nothing new. It’s been there for years, with several MPs being openly against duck shooting.

We’ve explained to many of them how many shooters are in their electorates. That’s because those are the number of votes they can win – or lose if they get it wrong. However most of them remain welded to radical left-wing views.

The issue is so divisive in Labor that Victorian shooters might remember how unions threatened to walk off the job if duck shooting got banned.

Unfortunately for Victoria, the anti-duck hunting sentiment can be found in some quarters of the Liberal Party. Liberal Brighton MP, James Newbury, for example, called for a ban on hunting in his inaugural speech.

He later backed down after being approached by the SSAA, however later reversed up the road on the matter when he felt it was safe to do so.

It means he also cannot be trusted.

However that is not to ignore the many other MPs who are supportive of hunting. It’s just that there is a lot more political work that needs to be done before we can get regulations that do the shooting sports good.

Insipid. There’s no other way to describe it

WE’RE NOT into conspiracy theories and are not accusing anyone of intending to harm other shooting interests.

However it was untrue for one shooting organisation who saw the regulations as a win, to say it helped “lead the charge to grow hunting opportunities and to push back against the constant attacks on hunting from animal rights extremists”.

To be fair, they did try their best. It is appropriate for an organisation to look after its own members.

However these regulations are not going to grow hunting opportunities or push back against left-wing attacks.

Accepting the outcome as a win is insipid.

It surrenders the agenda to those who want to shut hunting down, when they should have dug their heels in.

Instead, the big losers in this are duck hunters. In fact, all shooters.

IT ALSO CONCERNS US that the same organisation posted an interview with Minister Dimopoulous where he justified his position. The post carried no editorial comment. Why?

We can only assume there was no desire to ‘rock the boat’ and to stay in favour with government. That will always be to our detriment – and is selfish.

Glass half full – or half empty?

Yes, the regulations weren’t as catastrophic as they could have been. Congratulations to those who went in for the good fight – such as VDHA, FGA and VHH.

However, the regulations are part of a bigger problem which is where the government needs to be taken head-on.

This starts with finding the right people with the right political skills. There is simply too much at stake to leave it to those who do not.

Don’t let political parties feel ‘comfortable’

While much of what we have covered casts a dark shadow, the ability to change regulations remains an option – but we have to first change the minister and probably the government.

This is in line with the sentiments expressed at the National Gun Conference.

As industry leaders who presented at the conference said, governments that think you are comfortable with them have no reason to do anything to chase your vote. That’s why it’s dangerous to accept bad laws.

Labor may be ‘on the nose’ but is the Coalition up to the job?

One option for shooters may be to vote against the Allan Labor Government at the 2026 Victorian State Election. Remember, that they adopted a policy of banning guns on the basis of “opportunistic misuse” which could be extended to any firearm.

I would be all for going after Labor – except for one thing. The Victorian Liberal Party remains weak on firearm issues. This means they are not guaranteed to be a better choice. If we get it wrong, there is a risk Victoria could end up with it’s own version of John Howard, or Paul Papalia. James Newbury, for example.

That’s why we won’t be settling on any voting advice until closer to the time, probably a couple of weeks before the election. That’s because that’ll be when policies, candidates and preferences become known.

However that should not prevent us from putting as much pressure on both sides now. It starts with rejecting regulations designed to achieve a negative political result.

Hopefully history will repeat itself

Past efforts in Victoria have shown what can be achieved.

Cooperation across the shooting community resulted in the major parties putting out dedicated pro-hunting policies that not only protected duck hunting, but resulted in investments that boosted shooting in the state.

The political game is now more sophisticated, but the same results are possible.

The first step involves making shooters understand that they HAVE to become politically aware and vote for their sport if they want it to continue.

Shooting organisations also need to re-engage with the political process. They need to discuss this with their executives and be prepared to be bold and uncompromising in their approach.

Then, history can repeat itself.

The impact on duck hunting: find out more

If you’re a duck hunter, you can see more details on the regulations that have been made at: https://engage.vic.gov.au/proposed-wildlife-game-regulations-2024-and-regulatory-impact-statement

What you can do

CHANGE is always possible.

If you are shooter wondering what you can do to help with the broader political fight, then the first simple step is to join Politics Reloaded.

That will not only help us get our message out to more shooters, but it’ll make sure you stay in touch with what is happening around the nation through our significant email list.

You’ll also get access to the voting advice you need, regardless of what state or territory you’re in.

FOR THOSE duck hunting organisations who are disappointed by this, we can only encourage them to shift their focus from being ‘active in politics’, to being ‘unforgivingly blunt about politics’.
Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?
September 10, 2024
VIC BOLT-ACTION SHOTGUN BAN: Minister says ban was a pro-active safety move
Victorian police minister says the ban on bolt-action shotguns was because of ‘innovations’. The legislation says otherwise…
Victoria bans 5+ capacity bolt-action shotguns

VICTORIA’S POLICE MINISTER has responded to a letter we submitted to get more information on why it banned bolt-action shotguns with capacities of more than 5 shots.

Vic Police Minister, Anthony Carbines

The response from he Office of Police Minister, Anthony Carbines, says that shooting organisations were consulted on a decision to ban bolt-action shotguns.

Carbines had previously told the media that bolt-action shotguns were being banned because they were prone to ‘opportunistic misuse’,

That’s an entirely new, and entirely discretionary approach to deciding that guns should be taken off shooters. All because of the “potential” to misuse them.

This is despite there being no examples of where these firearms had been misused.

We wrote to the minister pointing out that his decision was also inconsistent with the National Firearms Agreement. We also told him that “good policy needs to have a reliable rationale” if it was to benefit shooters and the broader community.

Doubling down on bolt-action shotguns

We thank the minister for responding. However, his response confirms that Victoria now has a policy of banning guns for no reason other than the possibility that they could be misused.

Here is Carbine’s letter (click each page to see larger versions).

You will note that the minister’s office said:

The policy is based on ‘innovations’;

These innovations “enables the user to cycle through ammunition with less manual interaction”

The ‘innovations’ are the use of buttons and side levers.

… but here’s why the bolt-action claim is a furphy

The minister gives the impression that the ban was because of innovations – such as buttons and side levers.

However, when you look at the legislation, does not mention these terms. The change to the law is clearly only about bolt-action shotguns. Buttons and levers have nothing to do with it.

The justification

The justification provided by Carbines was that the ‘innovations’:

“.. enables the user to cycle through ammunition with less manual interaction than a traditional bolt action shotgun.”

Note the comparison to “a traditional bolt action shotgun”. This implies that the government was comfortable with ‘traditional bolt action shotguns’. In the same para, it then states:

“Requiring a maximum capacity limit of 5 shots for a detachable magazine when used in combination with a bolt action shotgun is a pro-active response to these potential community safety risks“

So there you have it. Victoria’s new policy is to ban guns when there are “potential community safety risks”, even where there is no record of those risks existing.

Your shooting organisation is being used …

The response also notes that the amendment was put to the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee. The response claims feedback “informed the final policy design”.

As we have previously and repeatedly said, the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee was meant to enable government to consult shooting organistions on proposed legislative changes. It has no legal status, which means it has no authority to put issues and concerns to government.

Instead, it has become a forum to enable the government to push new laws and say shooters were consulted. No, they were not.

UNFORTUNATELY, this process means that several of the state’s shooting organisations are allowing their names to be used to pass more restrictions on those they represent.

Shooting organisations need to abandon the committee – and stand up against what they are being used for.

Thanks minister …

The one bit of good news is that the minister did respond, so we are grateful for that. However we’re obviously unimpressed with the basis for the policy used and hope the government ditches this weak policy justification going forward.

He should also do the right thing, and reverse the ban as soon as possible.
Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?
August 10, 2024
GRAVY TRAIN: WA Police go to ground on new safe requirements

An FOI response confirms our suspicion of a sweetheart deal being made on WA’s new safe specification requirements

Safe specs remain under wraps

ALLEGATIONS OF A SECRET DEAL between WAPol and a greedy safe supplier, is now looking like it might have legs.

A Freedom of Information request submitted by Politics Reloaded followed concerns that WA Police worked with a supplier of safes to develop specifications that only that supplier could satisfy – forcing WA shooters to buy safes from that supplier.

The decision

Here is what the response to the FOI request said:

This is what we asked for

The information we sought was easy to identify, and clear in its meaning. We asked for:

… any documents including:

• analysis or information;
• internal meeting notes;
• meeting notes with industry participants which identifies:

– which safes (ie brand, models) are likely to comply with those requirements;
– who supplies or sells those safes to retailers in Western Australia;
– who those retailers in Western Australia are, or are likely to be.

IF THERE were no such meetings or analysis, then the response would have simply said that.

It didn’t.

Consulting “behind closed doors”

The response also stated:

“Subject matter experts” is a term that is often used when referring to people external to, in this case, WA Police. It’s code for suppliers.

The fact these experts ‘confirmed’ that the information requested will be in the regulations, means they were consulted on what the response to the FOI request should be.

Someone who has something to hide, will say “everything” should be withheld.

The response firms up our view that there is at least one supplier who will get to determine which safes will be legal – which will no doubt align with what they supply.

If WAPol weren’t happy with such a cosy, commercially beneficial arrangement, they would have publicly consulted on the specifications.

Instead they chose to to do this – and keep this – “behind closed doors”.

Response confirms suspicions

Normally Freedom of Information requests will result in only those most sensitive documents being refused access or redacted. Other material, such as memos, meeting minutes etc will be released with names redacted.

However this request resulted in not not one document being released. Not even am image of the WA Police letterhead.

Here is what they said in relation to partial release of documents:

“that it would not be practicable to provide access to any documents with exempt matter removed,”

That’s a cop out. WAPol is playing politics.

The refusal by WA Police to be transparent follows other concerns about what shooters can expect to appear in the regulations which have not yet been publicly revealed. These relate to the number of attendances required per firearm owned and how antique firearms are defined.

At this stage, it is likely the new requirements will remain behind closed doors until immediately before or after WA’s next state election in March.

What could the new safe requirements look like?

The consultation paper released late last year provides some clues as to what the new requirements will contain.

Here is what the paper stated:

The proposed graduated storage will consider:

• enhanced storage cabinets or safes with mandated locking mechanisms
• more robust storage cabinets of 4mm and 6mm depending on the type of firearm
• if the cabinet is located in an occupied or unoccupied premise
• how the cabinet is affixed within the premise
• Due to the number and the type of firearm whether an electronic monitoring system is required
• The ability to monitor and record images of the storage requirement
• Specifying the number of locking points used to secure the door of the cabinet or safe.

Note that there is no reference to safes with wall thicknesses of 2mm. This means the great majority of shooters who have 2mm safes, will need to have safes of at least 4mm, and potentially 6mm.

You might need to get an electronic monitoring system and ensure the safe has a ‘mandated locking system’. This isn’t mere speculation: these are the words used in the consultation paper.

Don’t cop it

As a long suffering shooter, you’ve got a simple choice.

Either shrug your shoulders and cop what comes your way, or USE YOUR RIGHT as a voter to see your local MP and DEMAND the government changes its approach.

Importantly, cast your vote at the state election in March to kick Labor out. We’ll have more information on who to vote for closer to the election.

Make sure you stay in touch with what’s happening -and what YOU can do.

Subscribe to our podcast and join our email list HERE.

Or join Politics Reloaded by clicking here for just $30 a year to back the work we do.

Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?

July 28, 2024
CALIFORNIA’S relentless attack on shooters

California’s rich politicians have imposed a new 11% tax on shooters – in a dangerous new move that could be seen here

Prefer the audio version?

[sc name=”podcast_30″][/sc]

California aims tax at shooters

Democrat tax bill author, Jesse Gabriel.

TAXES are the latest tool being used by anti-gun groups in the US to discourage gun ownership in California – and it’s not hard to see the same being used here.

In September, we covered the emergence in the US of a proposal by left-wing Democrat, Jessie Gabriel, to tax gun owners.

California’s new tax from the rich

The California gun tax has now come into effect.

The 11% hike now applies to guns and ammunition sold in California. It’s a move that we cannot say will never happen here.

California’s new tax doesn’t just go to the government. It will be used to fund “gun violence prevention, education, research, response, and investigation programs” according to the bill that passed that state’s parliament.

In other words, the tax will be handed over to anti-gun groups.

The good news is that the tax is being challenged by the US’s pro-gun groups, the Second Amendment Foundation, California Rifle & Pistol Association, National Rifle Association, and Firearms Policy Coalition.

Another bill also, according to one major outlet, proposes to ban “the carrying of firearms in most public places within the state.”

This is a much clearer violation of the second amendment in the US also likely to be challenged.

California’s credit card move

CALIFORNIA HAS ALSO passed a new law requiring credit card companies to create a unique four-digit codes for stores selling firearms.

This follows which will then allow credit card companies to discriminate against gun owners, and for the state to track gunowners.

It could even allow the state to simply ban transactions taking place.

The good news is that other more gun-friendly states have gone in the opposite direction, banning the use of the code.

Those states include Tennessee, Georgia, Iowa and Wyoming.

What about here?

While this is happening on other shores, these are things that anti-gun proponents could push for here.

This is particularly the case here, where states and territories are dominated by left-wing governments, and even the Liberal Party is often regarded as being “Labor lite”.

The relentless attacks on shooters we have just seen happen in WA means that we simply cannot assume it won’t happen here. Remember that the WA Liberals even voted with the government to impose the new laws.

It is another reason Aussie shooters can’t simply ‘hope’ that shooting is safe from attacks.

It’s why organisations like ours exist, and why the best thing you can do is back what we do.

You can do that by joining Politics Reloaded by clicking the image below.

Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?

July 13, 2024
FLOREAT SHOOTING: WA Police saw it coming. Labor tried to politicise it.

WA Police ignored the “real and imminent threat” which led to the deaths of two women in Floreat, WA. Labor tried to politicise it as a “gun issue”.

– but even the media isn’t buying it.

Prefer the audio version?

[sc name=”podcast_27″][/sc]

Floreat shooting: what happened?

ON 24 MAY 2024, Mark Bombara went looking for his ex-partner at her friend’s house. She wasn’t there, but the friend and her daughter were. He shot & killed both before turning his “missing” Glock on himself.

It has been alleged that he was both a licensed shooter and collector.

WA Premier, Roger Cook, was quick to take advantage of the tragedy, saying that the shooting is why the WA Government is thinking of making further changes to the state’s gun laws. Police Minister, Paul Papalia, followed in his tracks.

That’s when things unraveled for them.

What we haven’t heard

We say it was alleged he was licenced, because that’s all we’ve been told. Perpetrators of crimes like this typically have a much more extensive history that reveals more.

In Bombara’s case, there’s plenty.

One thing we have ascertained is that while he had a collector’s licence, no-one in the collecting community in WA that we’ve spoken to has heard of him.

Plus, we’ve heard he was a member of the WA Labor Party.

If that is true, then it raises the possibility he may have obtained, and kept, his collector’s licence through Labor connections.

If WA really wants the truth to come out, then we need to know everything about Bombara. Party connections and all.

Using Floreat to lobby for more laws

Almost immediately, Western Australian Premier, Roger Cook, told the media that further changes were being considered in response to the shooting and the state will have “the toughest gun laws in Australia”.

WA Chief Commissioner, Col Blanch, doubled down by saying that police do not have enough laws to act on information like this.

Killer’s daughter speaks out

As we were gathering information, we became aware that the police had been warned about Bombara.

However, all became clearer when Mark Bombara’s daughter, Ariel, appeared on national TV.

In her interview, she made it clear that she, and her mother, had gone to police three times, warning them that her father posed a “real and imminent threat” to their family.

Her statement is below. It is clear that the police were warned – and simply shrugged their shoulders. The statement says the police said there was ‘nothing they could do’ about the situation.

Click the statement to see a larger version.

Here’s what police could have done to prevent the Floreat shooting

Instead of acknowledging any failures, Blanch continued to argue that more laws were needed.

He also said that the police did not sit on their hands.

He says police conducted a ‘risk assessment’.

A risk assessment is nothing more than a cursory look at the information received.

The result is the same: WA Police chose to do nothing.

Imagine what would have happened if the “real and imminent threat” was made to police from someone who was armed? Yep, it would have been swift and decisive.

What the law says

The police say they didn’t have the powers to act. Here is what Section 24 of the WA Firearms Act states:

(Click the image for a larger version)

These are similar to the provisions that caused Ron Sterry to lose his licence in the NT after going to the aid of a stabbed neighbour – and Peter Martin to have his licence suspended in NSW for simply showing his licence to someone else during a conversation.

Blanch says the problem is the laws aren’t strong enough. because they have been losing cases in the State Administrative Tribunal where they have had to hand licences back to those who appeal decisions.

NO, the problem isn’t the law. Rather, WA Police lose cases in the SAT when they don’t have evidence.

In any case, there is no evidence that Bombara took any matter to the SAT – so Blanch’s claim is irrelevant.

WA Police don’t need stronger laws:
They need better lawyers.

Media coverage of Floreat

The media was quick to pick up on Ariel’s statement and question the failings of WA Police.

One of the most impressive journalists was Ben Harvey. In an opinion piece, he stated:

“Our Police Minister was, once again, far too quick to side with those that may have had an interest in subverting the truth.

The ring of gunshots on Berkeley Crescent had barely faded when he was out defending the actions of the cops and calling for ever-tougher gun laws.

Papalia had no real idea at that early stage whether the police had stuffed up or not. He would have been relying on Col Blanch’s version of events.”

Harvey goes onto say that if the inevitable inquest finds police were culpable for the fatalities:

“… then Papalia needs to be sacked“

The missing gun

It was widely reported that Bombara had a Glock handgun missing from his collection.

We’ve been told that that’s because he kept it
under the driver’s seat in his car.

We have no proof of this and we’ve seen nothing that verifies it. However it if is true, then it explains why the gun was ‘missing’, yet was used at the shooting.

The Political responses to the Floreat tragedy

Even after the Ariel Bombara interview, Labor was doubling down on what can only be described as a politically motivated response to the tragedy.

In fact, the screenshot of the Channel 9 article that appears earlier in this article reports that Commissioner Blanch wants ‘gun laws changed to help cops fight domestic violence’.

The Nationals were quick to condemn the claims and have been strongly of the view that the gun laws going through WA Parliament do nothing other than make life tougher for shooters.

The Liberals put out a couple of statements but theirs was a weak response.

Importantly, the Nationals opposed the proposed gun laws in Parliament, while the Liberals voted with the Government.

You might recall the Liberals tabled a petition with over 30,000 signatures to have the laws referred to a parliamentary committee, however their position to support the laws was nothing short of gutless.

That’s why shooters MUST be politically active.

… and Papalia wants even more …

Following what was clearly a terrible week in the news for Labor, Papalia is doubling down again by announcing more changes which will allow police to seize firearms if a mere complaint or allegation about domestic violence is received.

As every shooter knows, interim intervention / domestic violence orders already allow police to remove firearms and have been abused by vindictive partners who are aware of this.

However, Papalia is now lowering the threshold to that of a mere ‘complaint’, regardless of whether it can be proven.

Here’s what you need to do

WE ALL WANT governments to manage our economies, tackle crime and provide services.

However I’ll be damned if I vote for a
government that wants to take my guns!

Whoever forms government (Labor or Coalition) will still have the public service behind them to help them manage those things.

However if we have a party that says they’re going to take your guns off you, then SAY NO!

Our advice is to allow yourself to be led by your nose on this. Otherwise you’ll find yourself voting for more of the same.

Watch those city seats

Obviously if you can vote for a pro-gun party or candidate, then that makes the job of voting easier.

Have another look at the ‘maps’ that the WA Government released a couple of years ago.

You can see that the majority of shooters live in and around metropolitan areas.

It’s the same story in other cities: Perth is no different.

Inner city seats tend to be contested between Labor (& Greens) and the Liberal Parties.

This obviously makes it difficult to vote for a pro-gun party (if there is none).

However, if you find they are your only choices, then your ‘plan b’ should be to kick the government so that they eventually work out that maybe they need to do something to stop being kicked!

That’s because governments who do not understand shooters and think there are no political repercussions for going after shooters, will keep doing more and more damage to the shooting sports until they are gone.

We need to change that.

Voting politicians down, even if their opponent isn’t any better, will still send an important message to both.

Your job is to vote against bad governments. Our job is to make sure they understand why they are losing votes.

Get active. Join Politics Reloaded

Don’t let politics take your sport away from you.

Get behind pro-gun causes whenever you can. Whether that’s a pro-gun political party or Politics Reloaded, don’t wait to become a victim of political persecution.

You can join Politics Reloaded by clicking here.

Click image to join now

Joining us is just $30 a year – which is less than 60 cents a week.

You’ll not only be supporting the work we do, but helping to elevate our work to the national stage, through the upcoming National Gun Conference.

The conference will include presenters from across the world of politics in shooting and from across our state boundaries.

It’ll focus on our problems at a national level so we can make sure that shooters everywhere know what can be done and how to do it.

Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?

June 8, 2024
HEADLINE TRASH: WA paper doubles down on ‘map’ saga

The West Australian paper has doubled down on it’s “map publishing” stunt by trying to create alarm over licensed shooters

HEADLINE: WA is ‘awash’ with guns

THE WEST AUSTRALIAN paper has doubled down on it’s “map publishing” stunt by having another crack at shooters.

This is the front page of The West Australian from 30 May after the tragic double shooting at Floreat, a suburb of Perth.

YOU MIGHT RECALL this was the same paper that published the maps of where shooters live in March 2022.

It was a move that WAPol later confirmed helps to promote home invasions.

The same paper has now published another headline that continues it’s campaign to smear licenced shooters.

All in the name of politics

THE WIERD THING about the headline in this latest edition is that it doesn’t actually match what you will find inside the paper.

Yes, there is an article on the number of firearms, however the more substantial articles point to the incompetence of WA Police – and the way WA Premier, Roger Cook, tried to politicise the matter.

The fact the headline takes aim at shooters rather than Cook, is more evidence that the paper will support WA’s Labor Government as much as it possibly can.

What was inside?

HERE ARE THE STORIES that are in the paper.

Click the image to see the larger version.

Article #1

THE FIRST ARTICLE, which supports the headline is on the left of the two-page spread. While it points to the number of firearms in the metro area – it simply supports the maps that were published a little over two years ago.

In the article, WA Police Commissioner, Col Blanch, complains that WAPol has lost cases at the State Administrative Tribunal, resulting in firearms being returned to shooters.

This is why WA Police say they need new gun laws. We’ve run and won cases in the SAT. As a small outfit, we’re up against a well resourced government agency, which means the odds are stacked against us.

However, we won those cases because WA Police either had no evidence to support their claims, or they were poorly prepared.

In other words, WA Police don’t need new laws:
they need better lawyers.

Article #2

THE NEXT ARTICLE (clockwise) recounts the story that Ariel Bombara told the nation’s media, which is that the police basically sat on their hands and ignored three requests for intervention.

What happened will be the subject of another article and podcast that we’ll put out shortly.

However it’s ‘plain as day’ that the police had the laws, resources and responsibility to act to avoid this tragedy – but failed to so.

Article #3

MOVING FURTHER CLOCKWISE, is an article by journalist Ben Harvey. The article talks about two strokes that the perpetrator, Mark Bombara, had prior to the murders he committed.

Of the journalists involved in this edition, Harvey has been more interested one gaining the facts and providing a balanced report.

As we write this, the paper has released an opinion piece written by Harvey, which carried the title “Police Minister Paul Papalia was far too quick to defend frontline officers over Floreat murders”.

His article stated:

“Our Police Minister was, once again, far too quick to side with those that may have had an interest in subverting the truth.

The ring of gunshots on Berkeley Crescent had barely faded when he was out defending the actions of the cops and calling for ever-tougher gun laws.

Papalia had no real idea at that early stage whether the police had stuffed up or not. He would have been relying on Col Blanch’s version of events.”

He goes onto say that if the inevitable inquest finds police were culpable for the fatalities, “then Papalia needs to be sacked”.

Article #4

THE FINAL ARTICLE quotes Liberal Leader, Libby Mettam, as calling on the Corruption and Crime Commission to look into how police handled this matter.

Libby Mettam

Again, this is an article you can read in your own time, however it is disingenuous for Mettam to provide the commentary she has.

That is because it seems like she may have gagged other Liberal Party MPs who wanted to speak out against Papalia’s attack on gun owners, but couldn’t.

That may explain why the Liberal Party supported Papalia’s laws through parliament.

In other words, it does not mean that if Labor loses the next election, that shooters will be any better off.

REMEMBER that the majority of shooters in WA live close to Perth – in seats that are traditionally fought between Labor and Liberal – which makes the question of who to support problematic.

However this is an issue that will be addressed in the National Gun Conference where we will explain what WA shooters can do in more detail.

Suffice to say, the failure of Mettam to support shooters will cost her party key votes.

Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?

June 2, 2024
TV program asked to dump Watson-Munro

Top psychologist, Tim Watson-Munro, sees “huge numbers” of shooters as red-necked patriots. That’s why we think he should be dumped from TV.

Prefer the audio version?

[sc name=”podcast_26″][/sc]

Sunrise asked to dump Watson-Munro

POLITICS RELOADED has asked Seven’s Sunrise program to dump regular commentator, Tim Watson-Munro, from its program given his history – and polarising views on licensed shooters.

Tim Watson-Munro

Watson-Munro certainly has a long history of work in the forensic psychology.

He’s handled or commented on thousands of cases including Julian Knight (Hoddle St shootings) Alphonse Gangitano (Melbourne underworld), Joel Cauchi (Bondi Stabbings), “Mr Cruel” and the NSW backpacker disappearances – and written books.

He is, or was, as one paper described, ‘the jailhouse shrink’ and even chaired the Forensic College of the Australian Psychological Society.

In many respects, you’d think that Watson-Munro would be a ‘top shelf operator‘, quite capable of seeing the “good and the bad” in people, and showing fairness where warranted.

Watson-Munro’s rant

However Watson-Munro didn’t seem interested in applying that standard towards licensed shooters.

In the late 90’s and in relation to a story about shooters after the turmoil that John Howard created in 1996, Watson-Munro told The Age on 20 September 1997 in an article about the buyback:

“They (shooters) are red-necked patriots who feel it is their God – given right to bear arms, that the country will not be able to defend itself unless they are armed and ready to go.

In their own minds they are responding to a higher calling to become a vigilante or join a citizen army to counter potential threats to this country. ….

They are ready to defy the law and the will of a democratically elected government in some strange belief they are defending democracy”

You can see the relevant part of the story here (click the image to expand):

Click to read article

To be clear (and out of fairness) Watson-Munro’s statement was in relation to gun owners he had had interactions with.

The article states Watson-Munro believed ‘there are “huge numbers” of people likely to be holding illegal weapons all over Australia, but especially so across the Murray‘ (meaning Victoria).

The story quotes him as saying that ‘there were many extremists’ among gun owners “like Timothy McVeigh, the convicted Oklahoma bomber”.

That’s when Watson-Munro made the statement we’ve highlighted. However, his failure to limit what he said to extremists, in our view, came across as a cheap shot at the broader shooting community.

Watson-Munro may argue that his statement should not be taken that way, but he’s the one who came up with these words – before broadening of his comments to “huge numbers” of people (shooters) holding illegal firearms.

Intended or not, that’s how we believe shooters will interpret Watson-Munro’s words.

Our view is reinforced by Watson-Munro’s failure to engage with our community or visit their ranges to test his perceptions (which is a common trait among those who oppose firearm ownership).

The white stuff, unprofessional conduct and a slap on the wrist

WATSON-MUNRO’S view of shooters is at the extreme end of the hatred that John Howard stirred up towards shooters at the time.

Perhaps it was the result of Watson-Munro’s line of work. Or maybe what he snorted.

That’s because, according to media reports, in September 1999, Watson-Munro was arrested for his $2,000 a week cocaine addiction which he pled guilty to.

Watson-Munro’s integrity problems didn’t end there.

He was also reprimanded by the Psychologists Registration Board of Victoria on two counts of unprofessional misconduct after being found to have formed a personal relationship with a female client.

This led to Watson-Munro’s deregistration, however he was able to regain his registration in 2003 – barely four years after losing it.

Lunch with crims

The bad news just kept coming in for Watson-Munro. In late 1998, the Herald Sun reported that he also attended lunch with a crime boss who pleaded guilty to 13 charges.

The paper said that at the same lunch, were, allegedly, two standover men and a convicted drug dealer.

Applying a different standard

As a licensed firearm owner, if you were found guilty of using cocaine or associating with crime bosses, standover men or convicted drug dealers, you would certainly lose your licence.

In fact it would be lost for a significantly greater duration than the four years Watson-Munro got for his loss of registration.

Sunrise’s Watson-Munro’s link

WIND THE CLOCK forward to 2024, and Watson-Munro describes himself as a Consultant Psychologist with regular contributions to several media outlets.

Among them is Seven’s Sunrise program.

We’re disappointed that Sunrise continues to give Watson-Munro airtime, so we’ve written to them outlining his history and requested they dump him from the program.

Out of fairness, we contacted Watson-Munro in the preparation of this article for comment but have not yet heard back from him.

If he does respond, we will publish it for you. In fact, he’s more than welcome to come onto our podcast if he would like to refute anything that has been said.

Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?

May 26, 2024
DOING THE SUMS: Why the major political parties need to know where shooters live

The WA maps show why the Labor and Liberal parties need to rethink where shooters live – or risk losing votes in marginal urban seats

Prefer the audio version?

[sc name=”podcast_24″][/sc]

Assuming where we live

ONE of the reasons shooters are having problems with governments dishing out bad gun laws and policies, comes down to a lack of knowledge about who we are and what we do.

In addition to lacking relevant qualifications and experience, the major political parties seem to be basing their decisions to ignore us in the belief that shooting is only “a country thing”.

The perception

That belief assumes that shooters live where that they shoot – that is, in country rather than metropolitan areas.

After all, it wouldn’t make sense for the parties to invest political capital in supporting shooters if they think their votes will get picked up by the National Party or independents.

Except we may not live where they think

Shooting is like fishing in that long weekends bring the best out of us as those of us in metropolitan areas hit the roads to head off to country areas to shoot – or fish, as the case might be.

Whether your heading off to a competition in Wagga Wagga or hunt deer in the bush, this does not change where shooters live – and vote.

That’s why traffic on the major roads on long weekends are nearly always bumper-to-bumper.

Shooters live closer to CBDs than most would think

Many of us know that that assumption that shooters will only be found in country areas, isn’t even close to reality.

In fact it was this author’s belief that most shooters are likely to be found in the middle to outer urban areas of our metropolitan areas.

However the release of the ‘shooting maps’ by WA Police Minister Paul Papalia in 2022 tells an even more significant story.

This map of Perth shows that the highest concentrations of shooters in Perth are in the suburbs that go right up to the CBD, along the coastline and along the edges of Swan River.

As you can see, the concentrations of shooters gets less and less the further you go out from Perth.

… and if you want the broader view, then here it is.

These maps – which were prepared by WA Police from the state’s own firearms registry – provide clear evidence that shows that any assumption that shooters live outside our capital cities is wildly incorrect.

This should send an important message to the Labor and the Liberal parties that there are high concentrations of shooters in the very seats that they contest, who they need to be able to see at election time.

With around 900,000 licenced shooters nationally – and the majority of them clearly in metropolitan areas – it’s not hard to do the maths.

That is not to take anything away from our country colleagues.

Farmers, hunters, target shooters and gun collectors will always be found in towns wherever you go.

In fact activities such as shooting are critical to the economies of many regional areas.

Country towns will show that higher percentages of them are shooters, but that’s often because of the lower populations, which could hide the real story closer to our cities.

What it means is that our metropolitan areas that are usually fought between Labor, Liberals and the Greens, remain rich with shooters whose votes are worth winning over.

Just look at where our major facilities are

Sydney International

In addition to the dozens and dozens of small ranges that cater for pistol, rifle and shotgun around the metropolitan areas, are the major facilities that support international level events.

These include the Sydney International Shooting Complex in Cecil Park, NSW.

SISC was used for the shooting events at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

This is just an hours drive from the Sydney CBD.

Then there’s the Brisbane International Shooting Club in Belmont.

BISC will be used for the shooting events at the 2032 Brisbane Olympics and is just a 30 minute drive from the Brisbane CBD.

You can see the Melbourne CBD from MISC

Plus the Melbourne International Shooting Club in Port Melbourne which was used for the shooting events at the 2006 Commonwealth Games, just 15 minutes from the Melbourne CBD.

Wherever there are ranges, there will be shooters.

That’s where you’ll find them.

Put a pin on any map of any capital city, and we reckon that your nearest shooting range will be no more than 20 minutes away.

Another fact which many shooters will be aware of – that the major parties will not – is that many target shooters only ever shoot at metropolitan ranges – never venturing out into country areas.

We write to the majors

WE’VE written to Labor and the Liberals in all states (other than Queensland and the two territories), to point this out to them.

The letters make the same observations in this article and include the Perth map you see here.

We’re not expecting that our letters will necessarily change anything, but we are going to make sure they get the message that they cannot assume where shooters live, will be repeated whenever the opportunity arises.

We’re hoping that when the major parties do start to realise where shooters live, that they’ll also realise it’s politically smart to put the right policies together to win over the shooters’ vote.

Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?

May 13, 2024