Project 105 Firearms Act 1973

Transcription

1 Project 105 Firearms Act 1973 Western Australia Firearm Traders Association represents the law abiding WA firearms industry, promoting safe shooting, ethical hunting and fair treatment for all members of the firearm community. 1 P a g e

2 The Western Australian Firearm Traders Association is a membership of industry bodies relating to the lawful retail distribution of firearms, ammunition and accessories. In WA we are mostly all small family owned and operated small businesses that rely heavily on this industry for both our livelihood and recreational activities. Our client base comes from all walks of life and represents target shooters, club shooters, recreational shooters, hunters, professional shooters and those in primary productions. All seek and use firearms for a different purpose and are overwhelming law abiding firearms owners of WA. It is worthy of note that firearms use is the only recreational activity and sport that does not discriminate between age, gender and many disabled people actively compete and enjoy using them alongside able bodied persons. No study can accurately state that firearms crime is on the increase and infect has steadily declined whilst firearms ownership has steadily increased. Why then are we subject to many more stringent regulations? In reply to the proposal we offer the following: 5.9 Structure of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) Page: 43 Proposal 1: that the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) be re-enacted; the new Act be restructured in order to improve clarity of parts such as the Administration/Licensing process, Police Powers and Offences; and in the new Act, where appropriate, provisions be worded to provide greater clarity than is provided under the current Act and Regulations. 5.9 Proposal 1: Dot point 1: Yes the act requires re-enacted as a standalone Firearms Act Dot point 2: Yes Dot point 3: More effort needs to be made to make the legislation clear and less ambiguous 2 P a g e

3 6. ADMINISTRATION OF THE FIREARMS ACT 1973 (WA) 6.1 Licensing and application process Page: 47 Proposal 2: that section 5A of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) be amended to provide more flexibility to the Police Commissioner in delegating functions under the Act; and Western Australia Police review the use of its staff with a view to eliminating double handling and streamlining the application process. 6.1 Proposal 2: Dot point 1: Yes, Delegated function is fine as long as that function can be reviewed or appealed by an independent body or panel if required. Dot point 2: No comment. This should be a matter of day to day internal operations. 6.2 Information storage 2013 Information Systems Audit Report by the Auditor General Page: 52 Proposal 3: that Western Australia Police conduct a review of the new firearms licensing and registry system after its first year of operation to verify that it is functioning as intended; the review should be made publicly available; and any deficiencies revealed by the review must be addressed as a matter of priority. 6.2 Proposal 3: Dot point 1: Yes, a review MUST be conducted and industry parties consulted such as WA Firearms Traders. The industry delegates MUST be involved heavily in the review process to ensure impartial and practical advice is given. Dot point 2: Yes, the review needs to be made available to the public to ensure open and accountable actions by all parties involved in the review process. 3 P a g e

4 Dot point 3: Yes, any deficiencies identified in the review MUST be addressed as a matter of priority. 6.3 Application processing time delays Role of Australia Post Page: 54 Question 1: Do you have any comment on the role of Australia Post in the licensing process, including as to whether adequate quality assurance occurs to ensure Western Australia Police information requirements are met when applications are initially lodged? LRCWA Project 105 l Review of the Firearms Act Discussion Paper Question 1: Dot point 1: Aust post is a middle man in a process that is not required and serves no beneficial function. We would suggest that all applications be metered through Registered Firearms Dealers, who have a shop front or under commission. Most Dealers in WA are assisting applications as many applicants aren t computer literate anyway and it is another link in the chain that can be removed. The on-line system was too confusing for many applicants to follow Dealers can report straight to WAPOL Firearms Licensing and also save $ and time in the process. Many firearms applicants have reported a negative experience with staff at Aust post. For example, an Aust Post office charging additional fees and others refusing to lodge applications. Many applications have been lost via Aust Post also. Applicants have reported security concerns over their personal information also when lodging applications leading to physical security concerns at their residence. For example: Dealers in Victoria currently are authorised to check the applicant s personal identification and process the application on-line. The time is greatly reduced and fees to the applicant are reduced as a result 4 P a g e

5 6.4 Application processing storage and pre-approval Page: 56 Proposal 4: that application forms should be amended to provide that: applicants for additional firearms may provide photographic evidence of them ability to comply with storage requirements with their initial application; and applicants can provide a serviceability certificate minus the serial number of a firearm to support their application, with the serial number to be provided once the application has been pre-approved. Page: 56 Proposal 5: that the Firearms Regulations 1974 (WA) be amended to provide that the licensee must take possession of the firearm or firearms as soon as is practicable once a licence application has been approved. 6.4 Proposal 4: Dot point 1: No, this form proves nothing and is another example of policing via administration. WA Dealers recommend that safes are physically checked by Police on a scheduled basis if operationally available. For example, this is the only state in Australia that uses this form as a method of safe storage. Other states, such as Victoria, have the ability to conduct safe inspections every 5 yrs. Dot point 2: Applicants shouldn t be required to provide a serviceability certificate to be approved minus serial no. The function of the serviceability certificate relates directly to the function and safety of the specific firearm, which must be done on a firearm by firearm basis, which would mean the specific firearm for the serial no is required. Providing the S/N later also adds another time process in the application. We propose the abolishment of all serviceability certificates on NEW firearms. They serve no purpose or function and are another administrative burden. The application form could be amended to reflect this. 6.4 Proposal 5: This is not something that should be penalised by law and in effect would be an overwhelming number of shooters who don t collect their firearms at the earliest opportunity. Sometimes personal circumstances of distance will affect the time taken to collect a firearm and it would be unfair to set a time period on it. 6.5 Fees for applications under the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) Page: 56 Question 2: Should a discount on licensing fees be available for pensioners and/or any other ascertainable category of firearms owner? 6.5 Question 2: 5 P a g e

6 Dot point 1: We would seek a pensioner discount on all Firearms Licences, this would be consistent with other discounts offered in other licensing formats. WA firearm owners currently experience the highest rate of licensing in the country with no facilities given back to the firearms owners to justify to outrageous fees. We propose fees are reduced or a consolidated effort made to fund/upgrade more sporting shooting facilities around the state. We would seek a discounted rate on dealers holding multiple licences. For example: Dealer, Manufacturers, Repairers all in the same dealer s premises be discounted. 7. DEFINITIONS AND CATEGORISATION OF FIREARMS 7.2 Definition of firearm in other jurisdictions Page: 61 Proposal 6: that the definition of firearm in the Firearms Act 19 (WA) be amended to specifically exclude: captive bolts; industrial tools such as nail guns; promotional type implements such as pneumatic t-shirt launchers; and as in Victoria, any compressed air or gas powered device with a calibre no greater than seven millimetres and a maximum muzzle velocity no greater than 50 metres per second that is designed to be mounted on a radio-controlled model warship and when used in a model warship. Page: 61 Question 3: What other items, if any, should be excluded from the definition of firearm in the Firearms Act 1973 (WA)? How should spud guns be dealt with in Western Australia? What other changes, if any, should be made to the definition of firearm in the Firearms Act 1973 (WA)? 7.2 Proposal 6: Dot point 1: Captive bolt guns be excluded and exempt from the act. Required by primary producers and are a safer than a firearm to use. Question 3: Dot point 1: We propose the definition gets rewritten to ensure that individual firearm components not be included in the definition of a firearm in its entirety. For example, a stock on its own is not a firearm. These individual components should be dealt with on their own merits. : Paint ball guns Pneumatic bait throwers and spud guns should be removed from the firearms act and be dealt with under the Weapons Act and treated as a controlled weapon. 6 P a g e

7 We propose that items, such as pneumatic bait casters be classed as a controlled weapon under the Weapons Act. 7.3 The Weapons Act 1999 (WA) Page: 63 Question 4: Should the Weapons Act 1999 (WA) and Firearms Act 1973 (WA) be merged as has been done in Queensland? Is the distinction between the items regulated by the two Acts sufficiently clear? 22 LRCWA Project 105 l Review of the Firearms Act Discussion Paper Question 4: Dot point 1: Weapons act and firearms acts should remain separate. Numerous developments in weapon technology remains to stand alone to firearms. It is also wrong to immediately think that a sporting/recreational and agricultural tool be automatically be included into the weapons category. The negative conations of combining these are wrong as a firearm is only a weapon when used as such which is not to the lawful use of for 99% of firearms owners. Dot point 2: Distinction between the 2 acts is clear in legislation although there is a lack of community awareness on the 2 acts. 7.4 Categories of firearms Page: 66 Proposal 7: that Western Australia Police review the existing firearm categories in conjunction with other Australian jurisdictions to ensure that the categories take into account changes in technology and are internally consistent. Page: 66 Question 5: Do you have any comment on the categories in the Firearms Regulations 1974 (WA)? Proposal 7: Dot point 1: Firearms categories don t need a review and current categories of firearms remain in line with other Australian jurisdictions. Nothing inherently functional on a firearm has changed over the years although advancements to various manufacturing processes have. We endorse a review be made in consultation with industry leaders (inc WAFTA) upon emergence of any new revolutionary technologies. Question 5: The inclusion of Triple Barrel Shotguns into Category A requires amending. Paint ball gun(e5), Captive Bolt Gun (E2), line thrower(e3), requires removing from the firearms regs as can be dealt with under the weapons act. 7 P a g e

8 Removal of underwater explosive device from cat (H2) and include it into the category the device relates to. EG if powered by a 12G round then it falls into Cat A. With the prevalence of shark attacks on divers in WA this is a suitable defence form and should be treated as such. 7.5 Prohibited firearms Firearms which closely resemble prohibited firearms16.2 Page: 70 Question 6: Is regulation 26B(2)(a) of the Firearms Regulations 1974 (WA) necessary? Should a similar limitation be introduced in relation to imitation firearms (including firearms that have been rendered inoperable), which are classed as controlled weapons under the Weapons Regulations 1999 (WA), so as to prevent a person from owning an imitation firearm that closely resembles a prohibited firearm? Administration of regulation 26B(2)(a) Page: 72 Proposal 8: that Western Australia Police formally adopt and publically release a policy that provides certainty about the way in which the appearance of firearms is assessed to determine whether it closely resembles prohibited firearms in design, function or appearance; provision be made for a formal preapproval process for individual firearms to determine whether they fall under regulation 26, regulation 26B, or Category D1 of the Firearms Regulations 1974 (WA), and that written reasons be given for such determinations; and any decision made under regulation 26B(2)(a) be included as a decision for the purposes of section 22 in order for the applicant to seek a review of the decision in the SAT. Question 6: Firstly, the suggestions in Proposal 8 don t even respond to the question, rather they make the assumption that regulation 26B(2)(a) is necessary and offers different ways to implement it. These should be ignored until Q6 is examined thoroughly. To answer Q6, the purpose of the regulation needs to be defined and the effect it has on firearm control/misuse of firearms should be examined. It could be observed that the regulation is redundant as it appears to serve no purpose other than to limit the availability of firearms based on their look, rather than their function, purpose or intended end-user. This is contrary to the purpose of the regulations and an impediment to responsible users right to access modern and efficient goods for their sport of choice and which otherwise meets all facets of the Category provisions. Many manufacturers are employing more efficient processes in the production of their firearms which reduces the number of components and adds multi-purpose exterior layers made from robust, durable and easily replaced parts which are all being incorrectly labelled as military in appearance by regulators, rather than recognising what is an obvious and widespread change in conventional firearm design and manufacture. This is consistent with Proposal 7 (copied below): The appearance of the firearm should realistically have no bearing on its ability to be procured and used by a licence holder if it otherwise complies with category specifications and is used in accordance with the licence conditions. 8 P a g e

9 It is expected that the regulation evolved from what was originally a provision to prevent persons from obtaining and using a replica firearm to commit criminal acts. The application of a regulation for that purpose still has a benefit for the wider community however in the case of appearance under regulation 26B the subjects are actual firearms involved anyway so this argument becomes redundant. The simple fact is that actual restricted firearms (e.g. fully automatic firearms or military firearms with specific design purposes) are prohibited from private ownership so if the regulations are applied correctly, a private user could not possibly ever be in possession of a fully automatic or other restricted firearm. Manufacturers have also confirmed that any attempt to modify a bolt action firearm to a fully automatic weapon would require an almost complete rebuild of the gun as the parts are not compatible for an automatic function. Industry experience is that the application of this regulation has been to prohibit models that generally have a specific design for target shooting. They are heavy, long and unwieldy, and have actions which limit their ability to be used in an offensive manner compared to other more readily available models which have not been affected by application of this cosmetic regulation. Frankly, the models affected would be unlikely to be used outside an approved range, such as for hunting, as due to their size and weight they would be difficult to carry or even use from a vehicle. Proposal 8: My suggestion is that Q6 is examined and a position confirmed before presuming that the regulation is required, as currently in Proposal 8, and to suggest different methods of implementation. The regulation in its current form should be removed and more focus placed on preventing replica firearms from being readily available to the public 9 P a g e

10 7.6 Antique mechanism firearms Page: 74 Question 7: Should the definition of antique mechanism firearm in the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) be amended so that it is not limited to breech loading firearms but also includes firearms manufactured before 1900 for which ammunition is not commercially available? LRCWA Project 105 l Review of the Firearms Act Discussion Paper Working replicas of antique mechanism firearms Page: 75 Question 8: Should working replicas of antique mechanism firearms, like antique mechanism firearms themselves, be exempt from the licensing requirements of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA); the exemption in section 8(1)(mc) of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) that applies to antique mechanism firearms be removed so that these firearms also require licences under the Firearms Act 1973 (WA), just as working replicas of these firearms require licences; or the status quo remains in place so that antique mechanism firearms are exempt from the licensing requirements of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) but working replicas of these firearms are not exempt. 7.6 Question 7 No we believe that any working firearm continue as it is currently Question 8 The ability for police and the public to pick the difference between a working replica and the real article will create confusion and a lot of false charges if enacted. We suggest that all firearms with these actions be registered and treated the same. 10 P a g e

11 7.7 Inoperable firearms Page: 78 Proposal 9: that Western Australia Police participate in adopting a national standard for the means of making firearms inoperable, and that ultimately this standard be prescribed in the Firearms Regulations 1974 (WA). Page: 78 Question 9(a): How should inoperable firearms be treated? In particular: should all firearms that have been permanently rendered inoperable be included in the definition of firearm in the Firearms Act 1973 (WA); should prohibited firearms (as defined in Regulation 26) that have been permanently rendered inoperable be included in the definition of firearm in the Firearms Act 1973 (WA); or should the status quo remain, so that firearms that have been permanently rendered inoperable continue to be excluded from the definition of firearm in the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) and regulated under the Weapons Act 1999 (WA)? Page: 78 Question 9(b): Should provision be made to allow firearms to be made temporarily inoperable and if so: what methods might be acceptable to temporarily render firearms inoperable; what role, if any, should Western Australia Police have in temporarily rendering a firearm inoperable; in what circumstances might it be acceptable to reverse a temporary rendering of a firearm inoperable and who should be authorised to do so; should all firearms that have been rendered temporarily inoperable be included in the definition of firearm in the Firearms Act 1973 (WA); should prohibited firearms (as defined in Regulation 26) that have been temporarily rendered inoperable be included in the definition of firearm in the Firearms Act 1973 (WA); or should the status quo remain, so that firearms that have been temporarily rendered inoperable continue to be excluded from the definition of firearm in the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) and regulated under the Weapons Act 1999 (WA)? 24 LRCWA Project 105 l Review of the Firearms Act Discussion Paper Page: 78 Question 9(c): Should the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) be amended to provide that it is an offence to render operable a firearm that has been rendered inoperable, unless with prior approval of the Police Commissioner? Proposal 9: The national standard should be endorsed and included in the act so everyone knows where they stand with a rendered firearm. Once rendered inoperable the firearm should not be able to be reversed other than by a licensed repairer/manufacturer. Question 9(a): An inoperable/rendered firearm should be treated as an inert piece of equipment, no different to a child s toy. They will not be included in the definition of a firearm, as once rendered, they are no longer a firearm. Prohibited firearms that have been rendered inoperable are also no longer a firearm and should be excluded from the definition of a firearm under the act. Inoperable firearms should be excluded from the firearms act and the best place to include them is in the Weapons Act 1999 as a controlled weapon, only due to their physical appearance. They should be able to form part of a collection or display. 11 P a g e

12 Question 9(b): The ability to make firearms temporarily inoperable would be a huge advantage at things like trade shows (SSAA SHOT SHOW), or museum displays, where it can be used as another measure of safety. WA Police should have no role in making the firearms inoperable, as they aren t suitably qualified to carry out this work. They may have a final inspection and sign off if required. Temporary inoperable firearms will have to be included in the definition of firearms, but it would be preferable that they have some exemptions mentioned, such as storage. Question 9(c): Yes, we agree, as long as the approval isn t over convoluted. For example, we would suggest that a firearm be allowed to be made inoperable for a period of time, which at the completion of that time period, you would automatically have permission to return the firearm to working status. 12 P a g e

13 . APPLICATION OF THE FIREARMS ACT 1973 (WA) FIT AND PROPER PERSON Page: 80 Proposal 10: that section 11(3) be amended to provide that it shall also be sufficient grounds for forming an opinion that a person is not a fit and proper person if the Police Commissioner is satisfied that at any time within the period of five years before the person applies for the approval, permit or licence the person was convicted of a serious sexual or a serious drugrelated offence. Practical application of the fit and proper person test Page: 81 Proposal 11: that, if it has not already occurred, a requirement be formally approved by the Police Commissioner under regulation 7(3) (b) and 7B of the Firearms Regulations 1974 (WA) that an applicant for a licence, permit, approval or authorisation under the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) and Firearms Regulations 1974 (WA) provide evidence of identity based on a 100-point check, similar to the checking procedure adopted by banks. 8.2 Fit and proper person additional firearms Page: 83 Proposal 12: that section 18(10) of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) be amended to clarify its operation. Page: 83 Question 10: Should the ability to grant an application for expedited approval under section 18(10) be subject to the satisfaction of other provisions of the Act, including, in particular, section 11(1)? Should the discretion to grant an application for expedited approval under section 18(10) be extended beyond circumstances that are in the public interest to include: experienced/sophisticated shooters who seek a licence for a firearm or firearms which are in other than Category D or Category H; persons, such as primary producers, who require firearms for their employment; and any other categories of persons or circumstances? Licence the person, not the firearm Page: 85 Question 11: Should the fit and proper person test be permitted and/or required to be applied each time a person seeks to license an additional firearm and/or each time a person renews a licence; at regular intervals during the life of a licence; and/or only once, when an initial licence application is made? LRCWA Project 105 l Review of the Firearms Act Discussion Paper 25 Proposal 10: Agreed Proposal 11: This is already a requirement for original and additional licensing Proposal 12: We propose that sect 18(10) be utilised more as it places more emphasis on licensing the shooter. SEE SSAA Question 10: Ability to expedite additions for shooters who are already in possession of a firearms licence NEEDs to occur. By virtue of the person being in possession of a firearms licence they have already met the fit and proper person test and shouldn t be restricted from obtaining 13 P a g e

14 another firearm OR they shouldn t be in possession of a firearm in the first place. Often requirements for a new or additional firearm can be as varied as having extra funds to spend and the desire to rec shoot is put off by lengthy application process that is unessicary and could be completed in a matter of minutes at a gun shop or police station as it used to be done. Also ability to expedite applications for firearms written off via damage ect. Question 11: The fit and proper person test should be applied through the duration of a person s licence time as intelligence by WAPOL is gained on the person s fitness to hold. If there are no flags during the licence duration the person should be entitled to the benefit of the doubt and be allowed to access additional firearms to suit their personal circumstances as they see fit. 14 P a g e

15 9. APPLICATION OF THE FIREARMS ACT 1973 (WA) GENUINE REASON AND GENUINE NEED 9.1 Genuine reason Section 11A(2)(c) property letters concerns Page: 89 Proposal 13: that circumstances under which property letters are issued be restricted to ensure that they are only issued to bona fide users; persons who provide property letters be required to have their details entered on a register maintained by Western Australia Police; property size requirements (i.e. the size of property that is generally deemed appropriate for particular calibres of firearms) be included on the Western Australia Police website to provide clarity, noting that the location of a property is also a relevant factor to be considered; and to avoid uncertainty, the Act be amended to explicitly enable the Police Commissioner to impose conditions or restrictions in relation to the locations where a licence holder may use and store a licensed firearm. Page: 89 Question 12: Should holders of a firearm licence who have nominated section 11A(2)(c) of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) as their genuine reason be restricted to shooting on a property or properties in respect of which they have provided a property letter? Alternatively, should a requirement be imposed on a landowner who gives permission to a person to shoot on their property to maintain a register of the permission and person/s to whom it was granted and, if so, in what circumstances? Should a property letter be valid for a fixed period, such as two years, or until a specified event, such as a change in ownership of the property, occurs, after which a further letter is required to be obtained by a licence holder? Should a property owner who issues a property letter be required to provide adequate storage facilities, approved by the Police Commissioner, which must be used by a person who brings a firearm onto the property in accordance with a property letter, except while the person is in the course of engaging in hunting or shooting of a recreational nature? Section 11A(2)(a) club membership and licence restrictions Page: 91 Question 13: Should a person who has been granted a licence for the genuine reason set out in section 11A(2)(a) of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) also be able to use firearms held under that licence for recreational hunting and shooting, with the permission of the relevant property owner? 26 LRCWA Project 105 l Review of the Firearms Act Discussion Paper Genuine reason multiple reasons Page: 91 Question 14: Does the licensing process adequately accommodate an application made for more than one genuine reason? Genuine reason multiple firearms policy and practice Page: 95 Question 15: Should there be an upper limit on the number of firearms a single firearm licence holder (as distinct from the holder of a corporate, collector s, dealer s, repairer s, manufacturer s or shooting gallery licence) may possess? Page: 95 Proposal 14: that the Western Australia Police website be updated to include a checklist of the kind of information that might be required by Western Australia Police to determine whether a genuine reason is made out, such as the kinds of animals proposed to be hunted, why existing firearms owned by the applicant would not be suitable, and so forth. 15 P a g e

16 Question 12: : Shooters should NOT be restricted to being able to shoot on properties they have letters on. This provides an incumbent amount of additional paperwork to be continually completed every time someone wishes to shoot on a property. For example, I have a property that I allow people to shoot on. By this reasoning every time I allowed someone on there to shoot (even with an air rifle) for recreation I would have to write/sign another letter. I may have 4-6 different people on the property every week. This would require a secretary to keep up. Now failing to write that letter who is at fault- the shooter or the land owner. This is onerous legislation that is too hard to police and not in the spirit of the recreational nature of the sport. Further property letters are again onerous and an administrative burden to land owners. Why should they file and hold onto letters they have signed? Why make people re-apply every 2 yrs. Again if the firearms owner is still a fit & proper person they have broken no laws and should be treated as the responsible shooter they are. This would also create an administrative burden on WAPOL as they would have to continually monitor the renewal of these letters. A property owner should NOT have to provide additional storage facilities on his land. What If multiple shooters arrive for recreational activities? Do they have to provide a safe for every person? Legislation already exists that firearm owners must maintain security of their firearms when travelling. I would find it hard to believe that any firearms have been stolen in this manner. Another piece of onerous legislation. Again if 4 shooters arrive to the property and only 3 gun safes are avail who is at fault, who is legally responsible? Do you turn one of the shooters away? What if they all arrived by one vehicle and its late and the shooters are fatigued? How is this to be policed? Another piece of ridiculous over burdensome legislation. Question 13: Of course a person approved in sec 11A(2)(a) be allowed to shoot the firearm for recreational reasons including hunting on private property with the owner s permission. Once a person is club shooting they are exposed to greater firearms safety and handling than normal and should be able to use that firearm where ever they have permission to safely use it Question 14: The current licensing process does not allow for enough genuine reasons to be addressed. This is however often ignored by WAPOL or their own interpretations put in place. Often countered via s to the applicants for further info to be provided. 16 P a g e

17 9.1.5 Question 15: There should NOT be a limit on firearms avail to a single firearms holder. Everybody s application of firearms are completely different and many firearms are used for a single purpose and aren t Multi use. Which is why so many different types and varieties are avail. Also people change or are injured and may need the ability to get an additional firearm to suit their changed circumstances whilst they recover or as a result of the injury. Again if the applicant is a fit and proper person then they have shown/demonstrated that they are reasonably lawfully abiding. If the firearms are correctly stored why should the number, be prohibited? Proposal 14: WAPOL should NOT be deciding on what vermin/animals should be shot with what calibres or firearms. They are NOT the leading agency in this matter and they should not dictate what can and can t be used. Also not all animals need to be hunted for genuine need. Many calibres now are enjoyed shooting targets on private properties around the state. Question 16: The test for a fit and proper person lies entirely with the licensing agency (WAPOL) and not down to an individual club basis. Many clubs are not impartial and too prone to internal politics that could adversely affect the applicant Genuine need Category D firearms pest control Page: 102 Proposal 17: that the Firearms Regulations 1974 (WA) be amended to provide that persons who require a firearm for their occupation may be permitted to retain the right to possess, but not to use, such firearms in between contracts. Question 17: Do you have any comment on interactions between the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) and Codes of Practice or Standard Operating Procedures regarding the humane killing of animals? Proposal 17 An occupational shooter must be able to access and have the ability to use their firearms in between contracts. They must be able to not only be able to maintain and service their firearms, but also have the ability to practice either at a current range or on suitable private property, to ensure their capability and profeicencey is maintained with the firearm. They also may be required to change 17 P a g e

18 sights ect between contracts and must be allowed to reset and rezero. Load development of rounds may also be required during this time. Question 17: The standard operating procedures for the culling of animals are archaic and need to be revised. Many new calibres exist that have no scientific basis on the chart. Distance used to humanely shoot these animals is also unscientific and outdated in relation to max range achievable. Developments in projectile/bullet/rifle and scope design have completely changed the scales. WAPOL is not the lead agency in the humane killing of animals and this should be left out of the Firearms Act Genuine need and primary producers Page: 105 Question 18: Does the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) provide sufficient flexibility for, and adequately accommodate, the needs of primary producers? Question 18 As it currently stands the Firearms Act 1973 has enough flexibility for primary producers and shouldn t be changed. WAPOL need more flexibility when it comes to recognising what a primary producer is and applying the act consistently to primary producers. Many of the questions posed to Primary Producers during Category C applications are largely invasive and have no basis to prove applicants are or aren t primary producers. Also act needs to allow the ability for better access to more suited firearms for primary production such as Cat H. Security of a handgun is much easier and the practical ability to euthanize livestock or vermin would be much more suited than having a cumbersome rifle. 18 P a g e

19 . 10. APPLICATION OF THE FIREARMS ACT 1973 (WA) OTHER CONCERNS 10.1 Persons Under 18 Page: 107 Question 19: Should the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) be amended to provide for junior licences and, if so, in what circumstances; and/or for the ability of an unlicensed adult to use a firearm under the supervision of the licensed owner, on his or her property; and that only one person may use a firearm under the owner s supervision at one time? 10.2 Lending firearms Page: 109 Proposal 18: that the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) be amended to facilitate lending arrangements between licensed firearms owners, provided that the borrower is licensed to possess a firearm of the same category as the firearm being lent. Page: 109 Question 20: If you agree with the above proposal, in what circumstances, and subject to what restrictions, should lending be permitted? In particular: how long should a person be able to borrow a firearm for; and should there be a requirement to have an approved person witness the loan agreement, and/or to inform Western Australia Police of the loan? 10.3 Licence terms and renewals Page: 112 Proposal 19: that the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) be amended to provide that: the term of licences which are currently valid for only one year be increased to five years; holders of licences must re-confirm their genuine reason and genuine need (where relevant) at least upon renewal of a licence; and the terms of licences may be aligned where a licence holder applies for an additional licence and pays any adjusted licensing fee. 28 LRCWA Project 105 l Review of the Firearms Act Discussion Paper Page: 112 Proposal 20: that Western Australia Police be required to send reminder notices regarding licence renewal; and the Firearms Regulations 1974 (WA) be amended to provide that a renewal payment which is dishonoured by the relevant bank results in a licence being deemed expired Serviceability certificates Page: 113 Question 21: Is the serviceability certificate requirement necessary? 10.5 Extracts of Licence Page: 114 Proposal 21: that a smart card licence system be developed by Western Australia Police; a requirement be introduced that licensed dealers, manufacturers and repairers provide and maintain suitable computer systems to accommodate the introduction of a smart card licence; that the current paper licence and extract of licence be replaced by a single smart card licence; and persons who may possess, carry and use firearms under a Corporate Licence be issued with a smart card (or, failing the introduction of a smart card system, with a card similar to an Extract of Licence), which sets out the basis of their authority to possess, carry and use firearms 19 P a g e

20 10.1 Question 19 Yes, there should be a junior licence if they have a parent/guardian who grants them permission for a licence and providing they have the same storage facilities. It wasn t that long ago firearms could be licenced by 16yr olds and no studies have proven that raising the age of licence has had any positive impact on anything firearms related. Often families wish to shoot together for club of recreational activities but many people are getting refused additional firearms purchased for their children to use as this doesn t conform to the current genuine need which is ridiculous. Many 16yr olds and younger display the maturity and ability to safely handle firearms and should be allowed to do so on their own merit. Any Unlicensed adult should be able to use a licensed owner s firearms under their supervision on private property. This is a practical solution to what already is happening and has occurred since the act was written. Many fun times have been spent trying to shoot a mates 22 rifle or for lic owners to allow their partners/friends/family to try their firearms and has been done safely and without incident. It is in the publics best interest that this be aloud. Dot Point 3 Trying to regulate that only 1 person at a time use another s firearm is foolish and impossible to legislate and enforce. Different individuals will feel comfortable controlling different amounts of people shooting their firearms which is dependent on the firearm, style of shooting, and the people shooting. For example; controlling 3 or more people who have shot before lying prone shooting is very easy compared to 3 people walking through the bush shooting vermin Proposal 18 Yes, agreed that a lending arrangement be facilitated under the new amendments providing the person shares the same category of licence. This falls with our stated view that the person is licenced as the priority Question 20 We endorse a loan of a month between parties would be suitable as does happen regularly in other states without incident. We see no need for an approved person to endorse the swap, although the people engaged in the swap need to be able to verify the action upon request from police or industry officials (ie gun shop for purchase of ammo ect) The person borrow should have a copy of the licence s licence, a signature and a date from them acknowledging the exchange for example. Low on cost and effective Proposal P a g e

21 Option to pay lic for five yrs be granted. Less administration for a 5 yr period which in turn means less cost for Govt. A reduced fee should apply to those who wish to pay for 5 yrs. Re application for lic is unessicary and over burdensome to the holder. This is another process for process sake. If the person is a fit and proper person still Ie no police intelligence has come to light as to why they shouldn t have a firearm, it could be safely assumed the person is abiding by current legislation and not a danger to the community therefore able to keep the firearms. Dot Point 3 An additional firearm application should incur a fee; however, this fee should be fair. The current fee is the HIGHEST in the country and takes the longest to approve the addition. An adjusted fee for the addition should be in line with other states and not as excessive as it has been Proposal 20 WAPOL should HAVE to send reminder notices. The system should also be adjusted to allow EFT and BPAY options so people that live remote can pay the licence without having to attend a licensing centre ect. If the person is given notice that this has occurred via writing and payment remains not paid, then this would be acceptable, however not without written warning Question 21 Serviceability certificates should not be required on NEW firearms. On second hand firearms it should be required, but there needs to be additional legislation to support the ability to seize the inoperable or unsafe firearm if deemed that way. As it stands dealers do not have the ability to hold onto these unsafe or damaged beyond repair firearms and they are returned to the licensee which pose a danger Proposal 21 YES A smart card system is long overdue in WA and has been begged for by firearms owners for many years A smart card system NEEDS to be introduced and adopted by those in the industry to replace the current card and paper licence. This can also be linked through to VROs/PBOs ect so cards flash red if one is issued to ensure ammunition isn t accessed. 21 P a g e

22 Industry would support having a computer system to facilitate the access of the Smart Card System. Dot Point 3 We endorse the Smart Card replace the current paper and extract of licence card. Dot Point 4 Any person who has access to firearms through licence including those with corporate lic; should be on the Smart Card System Training Page: 115 Proposal 22: that the training requirements in the Firearms Regulations 1974 (WA) be amended to include practical instruction in handling and shooting firearms for first time applications Proposal 22 A safety course (practical) be instated for applicants outlining basic firearm safety and operation. These courses can be run by Registered Training Organisations to a standard template involving safe handling of all firearm actions, safe range templating and ethical hunting for example with a practical safe handling element attached Recognition of interstate licences Page: 116 Proposal 23: that the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) be amended to include recognition of interstate licences where licensees visit or reside in Western Australia on a temporary basis. Page: 116 Question 22: In relation to the proposed recognition of interstate licences: in respect of which categories of licence and firearms; subject to what, if any, conditions; and for what period of time should recognition occur? 10.7 Proposal 23 Interstate licenses should be recognised from anyone visiting or on a temporary basis. It is absurd that we are the only state that do not immediately recognise the fact another state has endorsed someone s firearms licence. Question P a g e

23 Any Interstate Lic of any category should be accepted in WA, provided it is approved and lic in their respective state. Conditions should reflect their respective state lic. Dot Point 3 Due to the often dynamic nature of travel and current work environments it is hard to put a fair and equitable process of time into play. We suggest a 3-month stay represents no change in lic arrangements months WAPOL must be notified and storage facilities to be in place International permits Page: 117 Proposal 24: that Western Australia contributes to the development of nationally recognised permit for international participants in firearm competitions Proposal 24 We encourage this proposal and believe there should be an easy international permit system in play for competition shooters to allow for their firearms to enter for legitimate sporting competitions. We believe this should be extended to those who wish to travel to WA to shoot or hunt in a recreational capacity Sports shooting Page: 118 Question 23: At the completion of a person s first six months as a member of an approved shooting club, where the person wishes to compete in the Single Action shooting discipline, should it be possible for the person to be granted a licence, permit or approval for two Single Action revolvers? 10.9 Question P a g e

24 At the completion of the first 6 months of an approved shooting club we believe you should be able to legally purchase and use a number of firearms providing the club endorses the use. There are many matches and disciplines available to shoot, why should a person be precluded from participating in these events with their own firearms if they are already deemed a Fit & Proper person? Replacement firearms Page: 119 Proposal 25: that a licence for a firearm should also authorise the possession of a replacement firearm that has previously been approved as being in the same category as the original firearm, if exchanged at a licenced dealer; and sections 30B (1) and (2) of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) be amended to replace is required to with must. Unserviceable firearms Page: 120 Proposal 26: that the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) be amended to make it an offence to possess an unsafe or unserviceable firearm; and provide that a dealer or manufacturer who becomes aware that a person is in possession of an unsafe or unserviceable firearm must advise Western Australia Police within a specified period Proposal 25 A licence holder SHOULD be able to exchange a firearm with the category as one originally applied for which MUST be done at a licensed dealer. This exchange MUST be able to be completed in a timely manner as it is often damaged and unserviceable firearms that need replacing for primary producers or for club activities. Also upgrades are common and one shouldn t have to reapply for a firearm that the already possess. It s like redoing your driver s licence every time you trade in your car. Do not change wording Proposal 26 It Cannot be an offence to possess unsafe or unserviceable firearm due to fact it may take some time to locate a repairer or infect parts to fix/correct the issue with the firearm anyways. Parts to repair firearms aren t always readily avail or avail at all sometimes. Whilst the firearm is awaiting repair it poses no threat. If the previous proposal (25) succeeds you will find this proposal largely unessicary as most shooters will happily trade out their unserviceable firearm for a new working one, however most don t due to the administration and fees involved. 24 P a g e

25 This CAN NOT be allowed. To make the dealer accountable for reporting the firearm as being unserviceable is making them to be the bad guy and making customers loose trust in them. This will have implications and impact on their business and lively hoods for sure. Dealers are interested in protecting the industry however people need to trust the dealers and not believe they are acting on behalf or for WAPOL. The two bodies are very separate. Unless WAPOL start paying commission to the dealers! Again it s the same as a car dealership calling WAPOL every time they see a vehicle that is unroadworthy. 11. STORAGE OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION 11.2 Storage requirements category and number of firearms Page: 124 Proposal 27: that firearms dealers, and persons who own ten or more firearms, be required to install and maintain a burglar alarm at the place where the firearms are stored. Page: 124 Question 24: Should storage requirements differ according to the type of firearm or firearms being stored? Should 24-hour remotely monitored burglar alarms also be required in remote and regional areas? 11.3 Storage of firearms possession and allowing access Page: 125 Proposal 28: that the Firearms Act 1973 (WA) be amended to provide that a licensed firearms owner can store a firearm or firearms belonging to another licensed firearms owner on a temporary basis, in specified circumstances, provided that the person storing the firearm holds a licence for a firearm or firearms of that category. 30 LRCWA Project 105 l Review of the Firearms Act Discussion Paper Page: 125 Question 25: In respect of Proposal 28: how long should a person be able to store a firearm or firearms belonging to another person; in what circumstances should this be specified as being permitted, including in relation to what categories and number of firearms; and should the possession be subject to any conditions, including a requirement to notify Western Australia Police of the temporary storage arrangements? Page: 125 Question 26: Should co-habiting persons who are both licensed in respect of different firearms be able to store them in the same safe? Do you have any comment on the process for adding a co-licensee to an existing licence? 11.2 Proposal 27 Burglar alarms should not be compulsory and do nothing to deter criminals. If the person is remote, what does the burglar alarm do? Even if they are monitored a massive delay can occur between the time tripped and WAPOL attendance. This proposal is irrelevant and will do nothing to prevent theft of firearms. Most dealers already have alarms and CCTV in place due to insurance and being responsible to the industry. 25 P a g e