shooterscouncil.sysnolodge.com.au

Blog

GUN BANS: The frog in boiling water
Look around you. Wherever you go, you can see governments attacking our sport. It’s a national problem – so we’re going to start that conversation.
The frog

IF YOU DON’T KNOW what “a frog in boiling water” means, then it’s got nothing to do with cooking.

It’s a metaphor that if you place a frog in a pot of boiling water, it’ll jump out to safety.

Put the frog in a pot of cold water, slowly turn up the heat and it’ll cook to death. It won’t realise what’s happening until it’s too late.

It won’t come to you as news, but that’s what’s been happening to shooting – but at least we’re trying to climb out of the pot.

Ducks, targets … and frogs

The futures of duck hunting, target shooting, gun collecting, – and even our ability to participate in them, continue to be debated and opposed. All of this without proper consultation.

Our critics have been after our rifles, pistols and shotguns for years. They call us “gun nuts”, say our “guns kill people” and always call for more restrictions.

The frog metaphor is in play here.

A quick overview

ALMOST every state or territory has something going on. Here are some examples:

Rewrite of the WA laws

Victoria’s policy of banning guns on opportunistic misuse

Banning of gel blasters in SA

Registry overreach in NSW

NT’s decision to ban ammo sales to interstate licence holders

The targetting of DVA card holders in Queensland and

The attack on antiques in Tasmania

In other words, we’re seeing something happen just about everywhere.

The states are circling around us

The only jurisdiction we haven’t mentioned here is the ACT (plus the feds aren’t helping).

It’s also not hard to see from the history of ‘gun control’ in Australia, that its only a matter of time before we face a new coordinated attack on us.

What else could happen?

FIRST, let’s just think about what could happen if we don’t pay attention.

The National Firearms Agreement is getting close to 30 years old – which means it’ll become a target for a rewrite in the next couple of years.

What we definitely do not want is for the NFA to follow Western Australia – but that’s what WA has said it wants.

Have a look at the objectives of the current rewrite of gun laws in WA, which states:

A bit more about WA …

In fact, remember Papalia’s quip that shooters should “get another hobby”? That’s what Papalia wants the other states to follow.

The WA laws will restrict the number of firearms we have, require mental health checks, allow politicians to change firearm categories at a stroke of a pen and even restrict what targets you can shoot at.

That means you can kiss the end-of-year Christmas shoot involving having a bit of fun by sticking Cheezels or Tic Tacs to the 20m targets goodbye.

The good news is that change is always possible – but it’s up to us to make it happen. Even if that means backing the right cause that can take the fight up to politicians.

Our problems aren’t local: they’re national

After working on this for several years and ‘connecting the dots’, it’s clear to us that our problems are fixable.

We’ve got plenty of shooters and shooting organisations in Australia, but no-one is leading the pack. That’s because problems are almost as complex as the structure of shooting here – yet our problems and enemies are common.

In our view, fixing our problems start with the politicians we have.

In addition to making laws, it is their statements that get reflected through the media which affect what the general public says and thinks about us – so our primary focus is on our politicians.

That’s why we think the ‘narrative’ around shooting needs to swing around from “guns and crime” to “guns and sport”.

It’s why we’re focussed on helping shooters vote the right way at elections and why it’s so important that shooters go to see their local MP – whether they are Labor or Liberal, Nationals or independent.

It’s also why we’re running the National Gun Conference on August 3rd. This will be the first ever attempt to bring the leaders of the shooting industry together to get to the bottom of what our problems are – and what the solutions might look like.

Meanwhile…

Addressing our problems will require organisations, businesses and gun clubs to join a conversation with others they may not now.

It’ll be difficult for some to do, but the history of our fights in Australia shows that no one organisation can take the challenge on by itself and win.

However, we’re confident that we can at least start that broader conversation – with the conference in August.

In the meantime, we’re going to continue with the things you keep telling us you want us to do. They include taking legal actions, writing the right type of articles, and putting in Freedom-Of-Information requests to help us fight against how governments are treating us.

What you can do – Now!

TELL your mates! See your local MP. Tell your MP that you care about the future of the shooting sports and political parties need to change their approach towards the shooting sports.

If you don’t do this, then your local MP will not know you are there and what matters to you.

If you don’t have time to do any of these, then at least get behind PR – and we’ll do that work for you. Click here to join us.

It will take years to turn our fortunes around, but every year that we spend on this journey brings us closer to that goal.
Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?
April 28, 2024
WA GUN LAWS: Police ‘exemptions’ raise safety questions
Papalia’s new gun laws contain exemptions that could let WA Police sweep gun thefts and heavy alcohol use under the carpet
Exemptions: the new safety loophole

WA’S NEW FIREARM LAWS already contain changes that are unworkable and unwelcome.

We’ve covered most of the key issues – including the risk of this bureaucratic cancer spreading to other states.

However, there is another surprise which deserves attention.

Police employees to be exempt

AS IS THE CASE elsewhere, police officers and others in law enforcement have certain exemptions from state firearm laws.

This is usually limited only to the requirement to obtain and pay for licences. We don’t have any real issue with that: it’s nothing new.

However it does not excuse officers from other requirements, such as the rules around how guns should be handled.

While exemptions will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it’s reasonable to assume that their employer – the relevant police force – will look after any problems that arise internally.

However, what is being proposed in Western Australia goes beyond that.

The bill currently before WA Parliament will exempt officers from WA Police, the AFP and defence force personnel from all the qualifications that shooters will need to go through to get a licence.

The exemption will also apply to “employees” of WA Police. In other words, civilian staff – not officers.

The exemption is conditional on it applying “in the ordinary course of their duties” – which begs the question of which employees use firearms at work.

While we can assume that WA Police will document this internally, the legislation doesn’t require it to do so: we think WAPol should clarify who within it’s administration requires firearms, what those duties are, and what controls are in place.

An exemption from licensing

The bill will exempt officers from having to comply with “Part 5” of the new laws.

Part 5 covers not only licensing, but it contains prohibitions from supplying firearms “without authority”, supplying to “unauthorised persons”, buying firearms and major parts, and has similar requirements relating to ammunition.

Part 5 also prohibits interfering with serial numbers and altering firearms.

While we’re confident WAPol would never sanction these things, the problem is that without specifying conditions, a person who is otherwise exempted cannot be prosecuted for these offences.

Why then, should anyone – whether they are police or otherwise – need to be exempt from these prohibitions?

… and another exemption from storage

The bill will also exempt the same persons from having to comply with
Part 7 of the bill, which covers security and storage of firearms.

Part 7 not only covers the specifications of what constitutes approved storage but has strict requirements around ensuring firearms are kept safe. The exemption means those standards will not apply to WA Police officers or employees.

This means, if a firearm is stolen from police (or employee), then again, the can’t be prosecuted – but licenced shooters can.

Sweeping problems under the carpet

The exemption goes well beyond the administrative burden of obtaining and paying for a licence.

It bypasses other measures that Police Minister, Paul Papalia, is imposing on licensed shooters.

The exemption means there is no requirement for officers and employees to be medically or mentally fit to hold firearms. This means the penalties for any issues that might arise, cannot be applied to them.

Again, we’re confident that WA Police will say it will deal with any issues caused by its personnel internally, however the way the law is written does not require it. It creates the opportunity for WA Police to sweep any problems “under the carpet” – and we’ll never be able to find out if that has happened.

WHAT IS particularly baffling is why police should not be subjected to the same standard of safekeeping when it comes to the storage of firearms.

From our perspective, there is no excuse for this.

Why officers may need to meet the new health standard

It was pointed out to us that section 148 of the bill does not fall within
Parts 5 or 7, which means officers and employees cannot be exempted from the requirements of that section.

Section 148 requires that any person who applies for a “firearm authority” must meet the relevant ‘health standard’ before that authority is granted.

The phrase “firearm authority” is not defined or qualified. One view is that it encompasses permissions of any type – whether that is a licence or exemption is simply the form of the permission.

In other words, it is arguable that any person who is legally able to possess a firearm (including those who hold a Part 5 / 7 exemption), will still need to meet the relevant health standard. This means the 7,000 WA Police officers and employees will also need to undergo the same tests as licenced shooters.

WA Police need to be transparent

Given the concerns we have listed, and the burden the bill will impose on every licensed shooter in WA, it would not be unreasonable to expect WA Police to publish the standards it will apply to those who are exempted.

This is necessary because the exemption must not create a lower standard for WA Police personnel that applies to everyone else.

The information WA Police should publish should cover things such as:

Training (and retraining) and proficiency

The mental and health requirements (including identifying where an officer might fail these over time)

How firearms are to be secured, stored and transported

There will be other items, but this is a good start.

There’s no ‘bar exemption’ ….

WE RECENTLY COVERED the ‘questionnaire’ that many shooters in WA will receive that will probe them on their use of medication and alcohol (among other things).

In particular, the questionnaire asks if the applicant drinks six or more alcoholic drinks a day or if they drink more than four times a week.

It also asks if they have a hearing aid, diabetes, arthritis or are being treated for other conditions.

In the circumstances – and if these questions are relevant to public safety, it would not be unreasonable to expect that the same questions will be asked of WA Police or employees.

Gone are the good old days …

What are we to do if we spot an off-duty officer downing his sixth Swan Draught at the Plain Street Bar, just down the road from WAPol HQ?

Should we text Police Commissioner, Col Branch?

What if the guy at the bar is Col?

What will become of WAPol’s Christmas parties?

As an aside, the targeting of physical ailments will unfairly target the disabled who enjoy shooting as a sport they can do.

Mental health

As we have previously stated, answering the questionnaire openly and honestly could result in some shooters losing their licences (or not being able to obtain one).

Yet we also know that it is better to encourage people who might need some help, to come forward, rather than hide it.

A WA Police Union survey of members revealed that 71.4% of respondents said they had used the WA Police Force’s Health, Welfare and Safety Division’s mental health services.

We know that police suicides are on the rise and that depression often occurs within police ranks. The fact is, individual officers are not immune from mental health pressures which can come from toxic and stressful environments.

Our question is, will those 71% of members be required to disclose this to their employer? We ask that because the questionnaire asks for the same information from licenced shooters.

Or will a lesser standard apply? Again, Papalia’s new laws do not prevent that from happening.

We know police work is hard and being on the beat is never easy – and yes, we have sympathy for those who put up with abuse every day.

However, that only raises the probability that it will be police officers, not licenced shooters, who should be required to comply with Papalia’s new standard.

The big question is, will this be ‘swept under the carpet’ – and how can we ensure that it isn’t?
Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?
April 23, 2024
GUN NUTS: Why seasoned journalist Susie O’Brien needs to recalibrate

Herald Sun journalist, Susie O’Brien, decided to use the Bondi Junction stabbings to call shooters “gun nuts”. It’s a view that deserves a response.

Prefer the audio version?

[sc name=”podcast_23″][/sc]

O’Brien’s anger

SUSIE O’BRIEN is a regular writer for News Corporation. On one level, her politics are in line with the conservative line that NewsCorp publications take, which is generally in line with this author’s views.

As a society, we’re too woke, too quick to spend other peoples’ money, and love to run away from accountability.

Except, that O’Brien is wrong when it comes to firearms.

IN MID-APRIL, O’Brien wrote an opinion piece in the Herald Sun expressing her anger over statements made by a US writer following the recent stabbings at Bondi Junction where six people lost their lives.

Susie’s opening words

However, her article wasn’t just about that writer: it cast a much wider net painting shooters in Australia as “gun nuts”.

It is the same narrative that anti-gun groups carved out on gun control years ago.

It was a position that had only one possible outcome, which is to offend and marginalise anyone who is a shooter.

Responding to O’Brien

WE felt it might be helpful to let O’Brien know why she was mistaken. Our aim wasn’t to attack her, but deal with the claims she made head on.

Except that as our letter grew and would most likely not be read, we decided to publish it as an open letter here where we hope it will be read. In fact we’re confident that other journalists who might fall into the same trap might benefit from it too.

Here is our letter to Susie O’Brien (which you can also listen to in our podcast if you prefer):

Hello Susie

SIR JACKIE STEWART, Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Philip, King Charles, Suzie Quatro and Barry Gibb have one thing in common.

As do Greg Norman, Dame Nellie Melba, Dame Kiri Te Kanawa, Robert Petersen, Tom Selleck, Sir Henry Bolte, Malcom Frazer and current Federal MPs Ian Goodenough and Andrew Hastie.

And myself.

(Now) King Charles

We are (were) all shooters. Not gun nuts, as you appear to have recently characterised us.

Obviously, I am mentioning this in the context of your recent article on the Bondi Junction tragedy – where ‘Gun nuts’ were the first two words appearing in your article.

I appreciate your comments were directed at a commentator in the US, however you made several other statements that in my view, were intended to cast the wider net.

Suzie Quatro

STATEMENTS such as ‘guns don’t save lives; guns take lives’, your reference to John Howard and to our National Firearms Agreement makes that clear.

In fact, the NFA raises a number of serious concerns about the lack of uniformity in our gun laws that should concern you, but that is another issue.

Please don’t get me wrong: I am on board with the broader political views you and other commentators for the Herald Sun hold. I am not attacking you, but your politics on guns is wrong. So is your narrative.

Yes, some in the US have argued what you said in your oped. It just so happens that what they said is true – but my real aim isn’t to prove their views, but to disprove yours. No, there is no such thing as a gun nut, and no, guns are not a problem.

There are around 1.2m firearm licences in Australia held by around 800-900,000 individuals (as some hold licences for different ‘categories’ of firearms). This includes the opposition leader in the NT who has no less than four licences.

Other licence holders include doctors, surgeons, teachers, accountants, lawyers, pilots, business owners, tradies and other people in the community you would normally regard with respect.

WE ALSO SUPPORT the disabled – and you will find shooting breaks down barriers other sports do not. What we do is good for the community, and the economy.

Guns are like cars in that there is a very wide range, with most being of good quality, others are high-end, some are of artistic value and others are of historical significance. You simply cannot apply generic labels to them.

TO CALL ANYONE who backs this a “gun nut” is wrong. It’s insulting – and when it comes to making the attacks personal in this way, quite unnecessary.

In fact, shooters are the ones who are best placed to help journalists and government understand (and fix) any issues arising from any misuse.

Sir Jackie Stewart

I am not suggesting that our views should always be accepted, but you cannot deny we are best placed to provide that helpful information. The problem is, there are those in government and the media who don’t want to listen to this and it is behaviour that needs to be called out.

That’s when they use terms such as “automatic gun”, such as appeared in your article.

CONTRAST WHAT WE OFFER with that of anti-gun groups. Those who run Gun Control Australia and the Australian Gun Safety Alliance, simply have no qualifications or experience that can help with any discussion on firearms. You will not find even the most basic of qualifications or licences among them.

Greg Norman

If I was to hold myself out as being an aviation safety expert, the first question that should be asked is ‘who am I’? If I am not a pilot or aviation engineer but someone who simply has a view on the topic, then my views would be taken lightly. The same applies to the issue of gun control.

Yes, there have been atrocious occasions involving firearms, however this happens in pretty much every other facet of life.

It is our contributions to safety with firearms, not the errant views of witch doctors, that keeps the shooting sports and broader community safe. The safety rules that hunting and shooting organisations apply are second to none.

In fact you will find shooting is safer than flying on commercial airlines. The statistics will bear that out, as will our insurance premiums, but these are positive aspects that only the ill-informed won’t acknowledge.

Prince Philip

AS A DRIVER, I have a licence to help keep our roads safe. That does not qualify me as a “car nut”, as holding a firearms licence does not make me a “gun nut”. Nor could you say that of the other 800-900,000 Australians who are entitled to treated with respect.

Oh, and you can add Federal MP, Dan Repacholi to that list. He’s in the process of seeking pre-selection for the Paris Olympics – while still in office. Or is he a gun nut too?

Susie, we need to have a national conversation about firearms, but it’s not the one you might envisage.

It needs to be about reporting correct information and providing the shooting community with recognition and respect to overcome the bias that is causing this stereotyping to flourish.

The conversation needs to reset the narrative around who shooters are and what they do – and show an understanding why they get so frustrated at the use of intentionally divisive labels.

It needs to focus on truths, rather than well-worn political beliefs. It will enable us, as a community, to get a proper understanding of the issues that are of concern to so many Australians.

However that approach might not suit the witch doctors.

Regards

Politics Reloaded

Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?

April 20, 2024
DUCK HUNTING: RSPCA reneges on key commitment

The RSPCA has been caught out saying one thing on duck hunting – and then saying another, to avoid scrutiny.

Prefer the audio version?

[sc name=”podcast_22″][/sc]

Click here to go to the LDP event mentioned in the podcast.

RSPCA SA wades in on ducks

A RECENT ARTICLE in South Australia covering the RSPCA’s objection to duck hunting, led us to doing some digging around.

Their story, which appears on their website titled “Protected one day, pierced with pellets the next” makes several allegations about the conduct of shooters, including, in their words, “appearing to consumer alcohol whilst shooting”.

It states the RSPCA “is not opposed to killing animals for food” which is not what they seem to actually advocate.

Then we did some digging around…

RSPCA Vic sets the pace

The RSPCA’s position, particularly in Victoria, is easy to find and speaks for itself.

As many of you are aware, the issue of duck hunting in Victoria was the subject of a report by Select Committee on Victoria’s Recreational Native Bird Hunting Arrangements.

In it’s submission, the RPSCA doubled down by making it’s position crystal clear. Here is part of what they said:

(Click the image for a larger version.)

If you are unable to read the image, the statement says the RSPCA is “opposed to the hunting of any animal for sport” and says its submission says “why duck hunting should cease permanently”.

RSPCA CEO, Liz Walker

DURING the hearings, RSPCA CEO, Liz Walker, told the committee:

“Based on the data that we have presented in our submission to the committee, we believe that there is no way to sufficiently mitigate the negative welfare impact of hunting native birds, and therefore we recommend on this basis that native bird hunting in Victoria be banned.”

The RSPCA’s position could not be any clearer.

In fact it seems to run counter to the RSPCA SA’s claim that the RSPCA “is not opposed to the killing of animals for food”.

Let’s back up a bit …

Neil Comrie AO, APM

In 2016, the RSPCA was the subject of a review conducted by former Victorian Police Commissioner, Neil Comrie.

The report, which was titled “Independent Review of the RSPCA Victoria Inspectorate” was commissioned by the RSPCA in light of funding pressures it was facing at the time.

The report is of broader community interest – including to the Victorian State Parliament – because the RSPCA’s inspectorate activities are part funded by the taxpayer.

That’s because the RSPCA has statutory functions in relation to animal welfare issues, which places it in a very different position to other registered charities.

As it’s on the public payroll, the RSPCA’s activities aren’t just of interest to its members. It’s of interest to the broader Australian community.

Comrie’s finding

In the section of his report titled Advocacy versus Activism, Comrie noted, and referring to statements in the RSPCA’s Annual Report:

[There ] “are a number of emotive and judgmental comments such as, “Sadly the 12 week duck shooting season went ahead in March. We witnessed this brutality first hand……….The horrific footage of the hunters in action…..””

Comrie’s report also said:

“The Review team raised this issue [of activism] with the Board and has recommended that the RSPCA disengage from public activism against the laws of the State but continue to advocate for necessary change through more traditional channels”

Comrie saw the RSPCA was too conflicted to be able to advocate ‘against the laws of the State’ while on the public payroll.

Here is the recommendation from his report:

RPSCA withdraws “without reservation”

The RSPCA was faced with a political backlash if it chose to ignore Comrie’s finding and dug it’s heels in.

That’s why RSPCA chief executive Liz Walker said the society accepted the recommendation “without reservation”.

In other words, Walker seemed to accept that it was improper for the RSPCA to advocate against duck hunting.

As noted in this SSAA article, the RSPCA then removed any reference to it from it’s website – but only after the matter was raised in Parliament by former MP, Daniel Young.

Remember, this was the outcome of a report that the RSPCA commissioned.

It’s the same Liz Walker

The Liz Walker who accepted the recommendation “without reservation” in 2016, is the same Liz Walker who told a parliamentary committee the complete opposite in 2023.

In other words, Walker’s commitment to “without reservation” arguably went out the window as soon as the Comrie saga was over.

They did this while raking in $2.5m per year in licence fees for ‘certifying’ eggs, chicken and pork sold at supermarkets.

The story of Dr Robert Begg

Concerns over the RSPCA’s duplicity go further back in time.

Back in the early 2000s, one of it’s board members was a chap called Dr Robert Begg.

Begg’s day job was to manage the Victorian State Government’s flora and fauna programs, which included duck hunting.

In other words, Begg was entrusted with a politically sensitive policy area, while also a director the RSPCA that held firm views on that area.

It was more than a problem: it was, in our opinion, a clear conflict-of-interest.

AS A RESULT, in 2004, the Combined Firearms Council of Victoria, through yours truly, submitted a complaint to the Victorian Ombudsman about this (alleged) conflict-of-interest.

While the government rejected the claim, Begg resigned from the RSPCA.

The then chair of the CFCV, Bill Paterson, told The Age that while the conflict had been resolved, it was only “a victory of sorts”.

That’s because Begg kept his day job – even though his views were arguably anything but impartial.

Those events may now seem to be ‘water under the bridge’, but it shows that the RSPCA is, in our opinion, far from being above board when it comes to dealing with duck hunting.

PLUS, let’s not forget the RSPCA is on the public payroll – and continues to enjoy it’s charity status while clearly lobbying “against the existing laws of this State”.

Ombudsman again ….

There’s no doubt RSPCA has acted against it’s earlier commitment to remain impartial.

That’s why Politics Reloaded has written to the Victorian Ombudsman to see what can be done here.

Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?

April 7, 2024
DAN REPACHOLI: changing political views towards shooting

Dan Repacholi is not only a champion shooter, but he’s a Federal MP who is rapidly changing opinions – and is in the running to compete at the Paris Olympics.

Prefer the audio version?

[sc name=”podcast_21″][/sc]

Dan Repacholi – a national star

DAN REPACHOLI is a household name in Australian shooting as a champion in the 10m air and 50m .22 pistol events.

With 5 Olympics and a handful of Commonwealth Games medals under his belt, Dan is also a Federal MP after winning the Division of Hunter in NSW for the ALP in 2022.

Then 23yo Dan Repacholi with David Moore after winning gold at the 50m event at the 2006 Commonwealth Games

That places him in an exclusive class of MPs who have already been on the world stage such as Zali Steggall and John Alexander – but is going one step further.

Dan’s not only still competing at the top level of pistol shooting in Australia, but is currently in the running for pre-selection to compete for Australia at this year’s Paris Olympics.

Imagine that – a sitting MP who is still in line to compete at the Olympics … in shooting!

Dan’s electorate result

The Division of Hunter in NSW includes the Hunter Valley towns of Cessnock, Singleton and Muswellbrook as well as the urban areas on the western shore of Lake Macquarie.

As you will hear, this area has a lot of shooters who have been knocking on his door – in his words “hundreds and hundreds of calls every month” from shooters who are concerned about what’s happening with our gun laws.

Dan makes the valid point that it is the job of an MP to listen to constituents’ concerns – which he does. His area has approximately 135,000 constituents.

Compare this with the state electorate of Darling Range in WA which as around 31,000 constituents.

Hugh Jones MP

That’s around the quarter the size of Dan’s electorate, and is held by the elusive , Hugh Jones, who runs a mile whenever shooters who live in his area approach him.

You might recall we wrote this article on the elusive Hugh Jones last year – and will surface again as the 2025 WA State Election approaches.

What is encouraging about Dan’s approach, is that shooters are keen to speak with him.

Each of them might think they lone voices, but it’s clear that they are not.

The significant number of shooters who call Dan’s office each month means means that their voices ARE being heard – and Dan’s in the right position to be able to relay their concerns to wherever they need to go

Reception

It’s not to hard to imagine that many on his side of politics have shown a interest in his chosen sport.

However, what we didn’t expect to hear was that he’s not only seeing interest from other political parties – including the Greens, and that the interest has been “massive”.

Standing 2.02m, Dan is hard to miss. The funny thing is, David Moore (pictured from the 2006 Commonwealth Games is 6 feet tall himself. Is there something about pistol shooting we don’t know?

This level of interest is vital to the future of the shooting sports.

That’s because many of the problems shooters face, start with the assumptions about what we do

Many of those are based on what people like politicians see on TV.

It’s made worse by ‘gun control’ advocates who always lack the most basic of relevant qualifications – which is a firearms licence.

It’s like aviation safety: who could put any weight in the opinions of people who have no relevant qualifications, such a pilot’s licence or background in aviation engineering?

Yet those MPs can quickly find out from Dan how wrong those assumptions are, simply by asking the right questions.

What the shooting community needs to do

Throughout the interview, one thing that shone through was Dan’s burning passion for the shooting sports, and his desire to change views on it.

When we asked one question about what the shooting community can do to improve out lot, it was clear from the look on his face that we had asked exactly the right question.

That’s because it is his strong and passionate view that the shooting sports need to engage quality lobbyists to represent the sport to politicians everywhere, particularly at state level.

That’s because it is political skills – not shooting skills – that are needed to fix our political problems.

Dan specifically pointed to lobbyists who share our same values who can help navigate the political processes without the emotion that many of us would otherwise bring to the table.

That’s because political discussions are often technical and complex – and you can’t get those skills simply by being a shooter.

Some shooting organisations have, and continue to, engage lobbyists but their pockets simply aren’t deep enough to sustain this approach.

However, it what we need to do and we’re hopeful that Politics Reloaded will become a vehicle to support that.

Dan is also of the view that our leaders in the shooting community need to do a lot more to sell the benefits of what they do, for fear of how they might be treated in the media. This is where lobbyists can also provide some help.

Pathway to Paris

Dan’s not quite there yet. There’s another event he needs to compete at in the Olympic selection process before heading off to yet another couple of events that will finalise the top 50 who will be going to Paris.

However his parliamentary colleagues remain very interested in his journey, and are asking the right questions.

Let’s hope Dan makes it there – and comes home with even greater stories.

Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?

March 18, 2024
WA BUYBACK: Open your gun safe. What do you see?

OPEN your gun safe then look at the prices below. If you’re in WA, seeing your local MP is a very small price to pay, to fix a very big problem. We tell you how.

WA’s proposed gun buyback is not a buyback. It’s theft.

As you will have heard, Paul Papalia has announced a buyback of firearms, mainly from the new limit of the number of guns that WA shooters will be able to own.

THIS ARTICLE looks at the politics around this move – but first, let’s look at what is being offered.

Open your safe, and you won’t recognise those values. Also, there is nothing being offered for accessories or ammunition.

However rather than throw your hands up in the air, we’ll let you know what you can do about this later in this article.

Welcome to Harris Scarfe’s basement

(Sorry – that’s a very Adelaide thing to say)

Here is a quick rundown of some examples that were provided to us:

Firearm Buyback price Market value

10yo Sako85 VLS $525 $2,000

111yo Lithgow SMLE 303 $525 $2,500

20yo Beretta DT10 12g $420 $8,500

7yo Sako Quad Range 22lr $233 $1,500

The WA Firearms Community Alliance spoke to 6PR about the buyback. Click here to listen to that interview.

Throw back to 1996

Papalia told the media that the buyback was modelled on Howard’s 1996 buyback.

No it wasn’t. This buyback was informed by values plucked out of thin air. The 96 buyback was developed with prices informed by dealers and traders. That means firearm owners got the true value of what they surrendered.

Owners also had the ability to appeal the prices and seek independent valuations.

Papalia has done none of this. His prices are highway robbery.

“Get another hobby”

It should be obvious that Papalia is not only short-changing you, he’s doing it deliberately and “in your face”.

He wants to shut shooting down. Remember, he previously said of shooters who didn’t like his approach, to “get another hobby”.

This is only an affront to shooters and disrespecting your value as a citizen, but it shows the Cook Government’s lack of understanding and respect for the shooting community.

In response, the Alliance put out a TV ad out attacking Papalia over his statement. The ad came out before the buyback prices were announced.

Here’s a link to see that ad: it’s worth a watch.

His track record

Let’s quickly remind you of Papalia’s record.

You will recall Papalia created the risk of home invasions by releasing maps of the location of shooters to the media.

He also described the actions of our own group and one of our peers in Queensland as modelled on the US NRA and wanting “unlimited guns for everyone”. These claims are false: these words have never come from either group and are nothing more than insults.

He’s about to bring in new legislation that will require you to get regular mental health checks, give him the ability to reclassify any firearm, increase storage requirements and make property letters significantly harder to obtain.

He previously held a media event at the Pinjar Range when it was later revealed that it caused the nearby RAAF Base at Pearce to suspend operations.

Meanwhile, crime is up. Police crime statistics (click here for a link) show steady growth in crime under Papalia’s watch.

That’s why he has to go

Papalia has not only done significant damage in WA, there is no suggestion he’s about to stop.

As a shooter, you can’t simply throw your hands up in the air and wish this away. If you do nothing, you’ll cop more.

However YOU CAN STOP THIS. What you need to do is make the time to see your local MP. It’ll take you five minutes to make the appointment and allow 30 minutes to see them.

That’s just half an hour of your time!

The value of taking action

It will now be clear to every shooter that these laws are not about public safety but putting up barriers to cripple the shooting sports.

The shooting community in Western Australia cannot just stand idly by while they are trampled on by a government that fails to recognize their social, economic and environmental contributions to the community.

The election in 2025 presents an opportunity for shooters to make their voices heard loud and clear. It is a chance to use the process to ensure candidates respect the rights of firearm owners and understand the importance of balancing public safety with individual liberties.

Shooters must actively engage in the political process, supporting candidates who support good firearm laws.

Paul Papalia’s disregard for shooters and their rights is a stark reminder of the importance of political engagement and activism.

The shooting community cannot let such blatant attacks on their rights and values continue. It is time for shooters to make their voices heard at the ballot box.

You’re reading this on your phone, laptop or computer. Do not leave it without taking the first step, which is to contact your local MP. Send them an email before you leave your chair.

A very small price every shooter should pay

Seeing your local MP will take you around half an hour of your time.

Doing this is a small price to pay to help fix a very big problem facing every shooter in WA.

Find out who your local MP is (along with their contact details) by clicking here.

Tell your MP that you’re angry about what is going on.

Tell them that this is a key issue that you – and your family – will be voting on at the WA State Election, which will be held in March 2025.

If they’re from the ALP, tell them to expect shooters to dessert them, particularly in marginal seats.

Don’t accept anything less than their willingness to ‘cross the floor’ and vote against the new laws.

That’s because they’ve had plenty of time to look after shooters – and have done the opposite.

They won’t like hearing what you have to say, but they will get the message.

Don’t worry that the election is a year away.

The laws may come and you may lose stuff, but if enough shooters do what they need to do, then that will change – but it will depend on how many shooters do this.

If the MP (like Hugh Jones) won’t see you, front up to their office anyway and say you are a constituent and are entitled to see your local MP.

They might ask you to leave (which you need to do), but your point will have been made. Follow it up with a letter or email.

You’re not alone

WE’RE GETTING THIS message out to as many shooters as possible because there’s strength in numbers.

Send this to three other shooters you know – and get them to send it to another three shooters that they each know.

This article will tell them what they need to know – and what they need to do.

Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?

February 22, 2024
BAD BUSINESS: Dealer’s woes lead to important win

We’ve had a major win for at least one dealer who has been fighting prejudice from big business. Plus, we’ve got a big thank you to the ANZ for righting a wrong.

Prefer the audio version?

[sc name=”podcast_17″][/sc]

Dealer’s open letter on big business

JO AND MATTHEW BARTON, who run Range and Field, a small dealership in the Adelaide Hills, have posted an open letter calling for and end to unfair treatment of those in the firearms trade by banks, EFTPOS providers and social media platforms.

It follows their first hand experience in simply trying to run a legitimate business.

Here is what they posted (click the image for a PDF version of the letter)

Familiar themes from big business

While the issue of “debanking” dealers and the way social media platforms treat them is not new, it is a reminder these issues are far from resolved.

In this case, a branch of the ANZ refused to open an account in the dealer’s name because the business involved firearms.

This is certainly not the first time this issue came up.

In 2020, the NAB closed accounts of dealers before later apologising for the conduct.

A review of the Banking Code of Practice by the Australian Banking Association in 2021 considered, but did not end up addressing, this matter.

It means the ABA considers discriminating against specific parts of the community for no verifiable reason, acceptable.

It means the only way this policy can be changed is with the support of our federal politicians.

Similarly, Facebook has closed this dealer’s pages and Square has refused to provide merchant facilities.

ANZ changes tune: it’s a win!

We recorded an interview with Jo about this matter that was originally scheduled to be aired in mid February.

Before that date, we contacted the ANZ HQ (in Adelaide) to seek their comment – and they quickly changed their position.

A senior manager at the ANZ advised Jo that what she was told by their local branch was “not ANZ’s policy at all” and “that [their] business is welcome”.

The manager said they would ‘educate’ the local branch and even provide them with an EFTPOS machine – which gets around the problem created by Square.

What a win!!!

.. and a big thank you to ANZ for responding the way it did.

The interview (which you can hear though the link at the start of this article) has now been updated to reflect this change of heart.

Facebook’s policy on dealers

The treatment by Facebook is also interesting.

That’s because their own policy permits firearm dealers to engage in normal commercial activities.

Yet in this case, they have been taking Range and Field’s posts down, and even their page which is typical of what you see from dealers.

Square’s strange list

SQUARE’S treatment is mystifying. Their list of ‘prohibited goods and services’ lists:

Sales of (i) firearms, firearm parts or hardware, and ammunition; or (ii) weapons and other devices designed to cause physical injury

However, they also list a wide range of other legitimate businesses that other providers would not discriminate against.

The list that Square won’t provide point of sale facilities for include ‘automated fuel dispensers’, betting, direct marketing and even prepaid insurance.

Why a business would take it upon itself to limit it’s reach this way is unclear.

Other businesses

These businesses are not alone. Other businesses which have, at some point in time, discriminated against our industry include United Airlines, Hertz, Avis, Levis, Ben and Jerrys, Bank of Queensland, Bank Australia and QBE.

Risks from dealers

The consensus by those taking a position against dealers seems to be that they perceive there is some sort of commercial or political risk to them.

Yet, as every shooter knows, every one involved in the shooting industry is heavily regulated. In fact, the regulators are the police who have made judgements on the licence holder being ‘fit and proper’ to do what they do. They can easily remove those licences if they need to.

These controls extend to the manufacture of firearms, the movement of firearms, acquisition and disposal of firearms – even where you can use firearms. Plus, imports are subject to AG approval.

In other words, there is no risk to these businesses. If anything, this scrutiny should provide businesses with guarantees about their customers that aren’t available elsewhere.

Backing dealers also makes good commercial sense. The shooting industry is worth some $3b per annum, so if there is a bank looking to expand it’s business, then this is an obvious candidate.

Dealer’s offensive logo …

AMONG the complaints made to the Bartons by Facebook was that their business logo was ‘offensive’.

Here is their logo. As you can see, it’s typical of what you will find throughout the industry.

The way forward for dealers

There is no doubt we will continue to expose behaviour like this. The Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia covered the same issue previously, with the same result.

IF BUSINESSES WON’T CHANGE their ways, then that means the only real option available to dealers is for them to get political so that we can have better laws to protect against this behaviour.

Whether that action is through dealer associations, ourselves, or by them taking their own actions locally, is up to them – but whatever they do, it is imperative that whoever they entrust, has the right political skills.

Letter writing, meeting with politicians will get the message to them – but may still not translate to the results that dealers need.

Here’s one thing every dealer can do

EVERY dealer needs to meet with their local MP and let them know that they need their support, and you are prepared to get involved in the election process to get that support.

The job of an MP is to represent their electorate, however they are often only comfortable following the “party line” on matters. That is where you need to make a stand.

If that means offering to hand out How-To-Vote for their opponents, or joining the branch of the local party to make your point at branch meetings, then so be it.

.. but something has to happen. Otherwise the problem will be here tomorrow, next year, next decade – and it could get worse.

The win with the ANZ bank shows that change is possible – but it’s up to us to drive it.

A good reason to back our work

This is a solid win for the shooting industry that came about from our interview, and approach to the ANZ. That’s why we’re encouraging shooters and dealers who are fed up with bad treatment, to back our work.

Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?

February 16, 2024
WAToday covers PR story on WA gun maps

WAToday has covered our earlier story the risks that Papalia’s gun maps created

Front page story for WAToday

WATODAY has covered our earlier story exposing the risks that WA Police Minister, Paul Papalia, created when he released maps to the media showing the location of licenced shooters.

Papalia’s map risks

Readers might recall that the Western Australian Information Commissioner and WA Police both said the maps created a risk to the public.

In fact WA Police went further: they said the maps created the risk of home invasions, theft, and more firearm related offences.

Getting into the media

When we released the story, it was instantly picked up by some minor media outlets.

However, after working with the journalist, the story has now hit the front page of one of the state’s most widely read papers.

Click here to read the story from WAToday

A repeat offender

Readers might recall last year’s story of another of Papalia’s stunts where he demonstrated the use of a 50 calibre rifle at a range in Pinjar.

The stunt required restrictions of air space at the RAAF Base Pearse – and involved the use of the rifle at a facility that was not approved for the use of that rifle.

This latest story shows how careless Papalia has become.

Key points from WAToday story

While you can see the story yourself (click here), the story follows the same discussion in the story we published.

However WA Police have sought to minimise the damage to its minister with this key statement:

“Since [releasing the maps], it has become clear that several people have gone to extreme lengths in an attempt to identify the map locations, or guess where the location are, and given our awareness of those determined efforts it is no longer deemed in the public interest to further release the maps in any format”

Readers might also recall that those who went to “extreme lengths” include ordinary shooters, people familiar with the use of open source software – and perpetrators of the attack on at least one shooter we know.

In other words, ordinary people (and criminals).

What this means is even if the claim by WA Police is correct (which we do not accept), the ‘danger’ that exists, exists now whether or not you accept their argument.

In other words, the maps created public safety risks, regardless of who you choose to believe.

We’ll let the CCC decide who to believe

WE ALSO RECENTLY REPORTED that the minister’s conduct has been referred to the WA Corruption and Crime Commission.

The complaint isn’t so much about corruption, but misconduct that the Commission has jurisdiction over.

The good thing is that the story in WAToday does not change any of the facts presented to the Commission.

Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?

February 5, 2024
CLUELESS: Survey shows public knows nothing about gun laws, politicians know even less

This survey puts some numbers to what we already thought was the case. .. and the result is pretty clear!

Prefer the audio version?

We cover the survey result in this podcast which also covers the recent announcement on Victoria’s duck season. You’ll find it at the 54:30 mark.

[sc name=”podcast_15″][/sc]

Shock survey result that isn’t that shocking

WE recently ran a survey to test what people think the public and politicians know about our gun laws.

That’s because shooters know that the level of knowledge is poor – but this survey was designed to put some numbers to that idea.

It’s worse than poor.

The survey that reveals all…

The source of frustration that shooters have over our political problem can be seen in two key ways.

First, is the fact shooters and their organisations have been engaged in the political processes in various ways over the years.

Second, shooters have few positive words to say about our politicians when it comes to gun laws.

You only need to look at how they’ve treated us over the years to see why.

It’s not so much that they have attacked the shooting sports, but because when they do, they simply fail to see what we do.

That’s important because if they don’t understand us, then we’ll never be able to get our message through to them

Survey question 1: Who understands our laws?

So we thought we’d run a brief survey to get some numbers. These are facts that no-one can ignore.

The first question we posed was

“Who do you think understands our gun laws?”

The options were only shooters, shooters and non-shooters, and only non-shooters.

Here are the results:

The result shows that over 90% of people think only shooters understand our gun laws.

Survey question 2: What about our pollies?

Question 2 asked as similar question but in relation to our politicians.

This is important because our laws are made by politicians, so you would like to think that they know what the laws do.

In particular, you would hope that our police ministers know about our gun laws.

This result shows that more than 98% of people say politicians have a poor or no understanding of our gun laws.

Not one respondent thought our politicians have a good understanding of our laws.

Shock or no shock?

The result will be of no surprise to shooters.

Yet it will be surprising to non-shooters. In fact, we suspect they will not believe that the result could be that strong.

That’s because, in our view, the gap in the understanding of our gun laws is very real, and significantly so.

Unfortunately, a poor understanding leads to poor policies – which leads to bad laws and bad programs from government.

Bias

There’s little doubt that each side to the debate will see responses skewed towards the other side of the debate.

Granted, the audience will have been mostly shooters – because that is who we target in what we do.

However, for the result to be so strongly in favour of saying only shooters understand our gun laws, suggests there is a problem that government needs to address.

Even if our politicians don’t believe this to be the case, they need to acknowledge that there is a strong perception that does not look good for them.

We think the results are accurate.

We say that from a lifetime of observations and participation in the shooting sports.

If our politicians can come up with a convincing argument to the contrary, then we’re yet to hear it.

That’s because things like WA’s proposed gun laws, appearance laws, the dreadful narrative that politicians have about the shooting sports and the way this is carried through the media, are tell tale signs of a deep cultural problem of their making.

YOUR SAY: What do you want to see us do?

WE’VE GOT another survey going – this time to test what shooters like you want to see Politics Reloaded do.

Click here, or scan the QR code to access it

Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?

January 31, 2024
GUN POLICES: Nationals WA set to fight back with ‘bold’ new policies
The Nationals WA look set to drum up new policies on firearms.
So we’ve given them some ideas to run with.
Prefer the audio version?

[sc name=”podcast_ep14″][/sc]

Nationals WA set change tack

THOSE OF YOU who remember 1996 will recall how the Nationals stool still over our gun laws – and haven’t forgiven them since.

Nor do we. However we’ve come across a change in that approach. The WA Nationals are now looking towards shooters for guidance on what their new policy platform should look like.

Outranking the Liberals

The result of the 2021 WA State Election saw the Labor McGowan Government returned with an increased margin. This is despite the authoritarian rule of the McGowan Government, including shutting WA off from the rest of Australia during COVID.

Evidently the WA electorate saw that as a good thing.

WA’s lower house has 59 Labor MPs, 2 Liberals and 4 Nationals.

The upper house has 22 Labor MPs, 7 Liberals and 3 Nationals and 4 others.

In other words, the coalition got thumped – to the point where the Libs are outnumbered by the Nationals WA in the lower house.

While that is a negative for the coalition and state, the Nats see their situation as an opportunity to be recalibrate itself to bounce back.

At the very least, it means they realise that their policies need to change if they are to regain their traditional base.

Nationals WA want to be ‘bold’ on policy

Louise Kingston MLC

IN OUR RECENT INTERVIEW with the National’s Louise Kingston (right), it is clear that the Nationals are prepared to speak out at Papalia’s treatment of shooters.

Louise points to the party’s preparedness to be bold in the way it repositions itself for the next WA State Election in 2025.

The media game

It was also apparent from Louise’s comments that the younger generation now rarely seek information to help them inform themselves, but seems

more likely to take information on face value.

That’s a problem for shooters because it means those people are more likely then others to accept information fed to them – such as Papalia’s argument for rewriting WA’s Firearms Act.

It means we need to be better at the PR game than was previously the case.

The skillsets we need

Louise also expressed her belief that the shooting community could benefit from engaging the right sort of PR skills.

She’s right.

From our perspective, our main issues are that we are politically weak, and don’t have the right narrative in the public. It’s a double headed problem.

Unfortunately we’ve seen that play out a few times when shooters get elected.

While it is great to hear of shooters getting elected, they are up against political operators who will are skilled at making sure we don’t get anything from the process.

Then there’s that second problem of how we are portrayed publicly. These problems are linked (thanks to people like Papalia) and what Louise said is no doubt what we need to focus on, in the long term.

Fixing these problems obviously cost money that we don’t yet have, but it confirms the pathway we need to focus on.

The Nationals want your input

The Nats have asked questions of government and made statements regarding Papalia’s failure to act appropriately, but are yet to show what their policy platform will be.

However as you will hear from the interview, the Nationals are likely to release their policy platforms sooner than later.

They are now seeking feedback on firearms including “what you need from us”.

Check out what the Nationals have done by clicking here – and let them know what you think they should do.

Again, we could understand why shooters may be cynical of what is an open ended approach that is yet to yield any details.

However it’s not often you see a major political party invite community input in this way. That’s why we recommend shooters grab the opportunity while they can.

If the Nats end up ignoring it, then we will hold them to account – but our view is that they see no downside to working on good firearm policies.

Our submission

We’ve put in our submission. Here is a run down of some of the policy suggestions we’ve put forward – with more to come later on:

Statutory recognition of the social, economic and environmental benefits of the shooting sports and activities;

A code of conduct for ministers and senior public servants to recognise the benefits of the shooting sports and activities before offering any comment on regulatory controls;

Abolition of licensing of firearms, to be replaced by permits to acquire (which is a significantly lower cost and inconvenience) as required by the National Firearms Agreement;

Abolition of serviceability certificates, as proper functioning of firearms is not usually a safety issue;

Abolition of mental health checks and other matters being proposed by Papalia (incl property letters, gun limits);

Recognition of interstate licences;

Provision for full licensing of juniors;

Establishment of a Firearms Appeals Tribunal to enable regulatory decisions to be challenged in a low cost, more efficient forum rather than to go WASAT;

Introduction of duck hunting;

Requirement that all fees charged to shooters go through public consultation processes for transparency, as is the case in other states;

Abolition of appearance laws.

No doubt you’ve got other ideas: we encourage shooters to put in their 2 cents worth at this page on their website.

Working with the WA Nationals

The WA Nationals firearms policy warchest may seem to be empty at the moment, but they have opened the door by asking the right questions.

The best hope that WA shooters have at the moment is to help the coalition put up decent opposition to Labor.

There is time to do this, and the upside is that we can help create the right policies for shooters.

We’re not saying we’ll get the results we want (there are no guarantees in politics) – but it’s the best bet we have at the moment.

It certainly beats giving up – or ‘sitting on the fence’.

We encourage you to listen to the interview, if you haven’t already done so.
Why not put this on your club’s noticeboard?
January 27, 2024