Draft letter for SSAA to send
members
The Law Reform Commission has asked for submissions about the many issues covered in its
Discussion Paper on the Firearms Act. The SSAA has identified the most important issues
and now urges you to write to the Commission (preferably snail mail to Law Reform
Commission of WA, 12/141 St Georges Tce, Perth 6000 - or email to
firearmsreview@justice.wa.gov.au) and make the points set out below.
ISSUE: PROPERTY LETTERS AND GENUINE REASON FOR
WANTING TO LICENCE A FIREARM
Background information
The Discussion Paper asks these questions:
 Should a firearm licence be restricted to the property referred to in a property letter?
 Should landowners have to maintain a register of those to whom they give permission
to shoot on their land?
 Should a property owner who issues a property letter be required to provide adequate
storage facilities?
SSAA ASKS YOU TO MAKE THESE POINTS
1) A firearms licence for a long arm should not be restricted to the property referred to in
a property letter.
2) A restriction like that would breach the commendable principle the Law Reform
Commission describes at page 19 of the Discussion Paper: “measures taken to protect
the public must be appropriately adapted so as not to impose too great a burden on
persons who possess or use firearms for reasons recognised as legitimate by the
Firearms Act and care should be taken not to expose people seeking to comply with
the Act to the risk of inadvertent non-compliance”.
3) Restricting firearms possession to fit and proper people protects public safety:
restricting the safe and lawful use of firearms by those people does not. When the
police determine someone is a fit and proper to have a firearms licence then it must
follow he or she can be trusted to get the owner’s permission before shooting on
their property. It is a crime to fail to do so.
4) Most recreational hunting and shooting on private land now happens with verbal, not
written, permission. For example, someone with a property letter will take a friend
with firearms to the property referred to in the letter. The friend has only verbal
permission to use firearms. But both will safely and lawfully use their firearms.
Outcomes like this are desirable.
2
5) The address of the property letter does not provide a logical reason for restricting a
licence.The licence applicant producing a property letter is merely a step in the
bureaucratic procedure for getting a licence. The WA police typically accept this.
Restricting safe hunting and shooting does not protect public safety. That only
happens by making sure only fit people are doing the hunting and shooting.
6) The landowner who gives permission to a person to shoot on their property should not
have to maintain a register of the permission and people to whom it was granted. The
issuing of property letters is a private matter between the people concerned. Land
owners permitting licensed people use firearms safely on their land is no threat to
public safety.
7) A property owner who issues a property letter should not be required to provide
storage facilities. There is no need for such a requirement. Anyway, at all times,
firearm licence holders are obliged to provide for the safe keeping of their firearms
whether they are in transit or in storage. As fit and proper people it is up to them to
ensure they comply with that law.
8) Typically, when someone visits a farm for hunting he or she has close custody and
control of the firearm at all times. So the need for unattended storage does not arise.
9) For the same reasons, it is wrong to restrict a licence for a long arm to range use only.
A licensed club member can be trusted to use a firearm safely and lawfully off range.
It does not make sense for a person to have some firearms which he or she can only
use on range and some which can be used anywhere.
ISSUE: CENTRALITY OF THE CHARACTER OF THE LICENCE
HOLDER – LICENCE THE PERSON, NOT THE FIREARM
Background information
The Discussion Paper (at page 83) discusses the concept of “licensing the person, not the
firearm”.
SSAA ASKS YOU TO MAKE THESE POINTS
The central plank of a sensible, fair, logical firearm licencing regime is the character of the
licence holder. It follows that when the police accept a person is fit and proper to have
firearms, and will keep them securely, then there should be an expedited procedure for the
noting of additional firearms on to their original licence.
Dealing with an addition as an original application does not protect public safety. It creates ill
will to the police because licence holders resent the unnecessary red tape.
ISSUE: MULTIPLE FIREARMS
Background information
At page 95 the Discussion Paper asks should there be an upper limit on the number of
firearms a single firearm licence holder may possess?
SSAA ASKS YOU TO MAKE THESE POINTS
3
There should be no upper limit on the number of firearms a single firearm licence holder may
possess.
The central plank of a sensible, fair, logical firearm licencing regime is the character of the
licence holder. It follows that when the police accept a person is fit and proper to have
firearms, and will keep them securely, then the number of firearms on the licence is not a
public safety concern.
Decisions about whether a person “has enough” firearms are arbitrary. The variety of
circumstances in which firearms are used is infinite. So too is the combination of variables in
specifications of different firearms. The characteristics of users (e.g., age, sex, fitness,
proficiency) are innumerable. No decision maker can objectively take all this into account to
determine a person what is or is not “too many”. These decisions always cause a justifiable
sense of grievance against police for no public safety benefit.
Once a person satisfies the test for wanting a firearm (now called the genuine reason test), the
next test is the genuine need test. That test relates to whether a firearm of a lesser category
would be adequate. There is no need for a further test relating to the number of firearms
already on the licence.
ISSUE: OTHERS USING THE ONE STORAGE FACILITY - WHAT IS
ADEQUATE STORAGE?
Background information
At page 95 the Discussion Paper asks should two or more people be able to use the one
storage facility and what is adequate storage?
SSAA ASKS YOU TO MAKE THESE POINTS
The Firearms Act should be amended to permit two or more people to use the one storage
facility. That will improve public safety. Now, when travelling, you cannot store your
firearms in a friend’s cabinet while you stay overnight. This means the firearms are left in
places less secure than that cabinet.
The law now regarding storage and security is reasonable. But some police don’t understand
it and have charged innocent people. That needs to stop.
ISSUE: LICENCE TERMS AND RENEWALS
Background information
At page 112 the Discussion Paper asks should licence holders have to re-apply for a licence
every five or so years.
SSAA ASKS YOU TO MAKE THESE POINTS
No public safety reason justifies theidea of having to effectively re-apply for a licence every
five or so years. The sheer cost of renewing the licence will cause people who do not have a
reason for keeping a firearm to get rid of it. Making people who have been held to be fit to
have firearms go through the licence procedure every five years would cost the tax payer
4
dearly, consume scarce police resources and burden the licence holder – all for no public
safety benefit.
ISSUE: PERSONS UNDER 18
Background INFORMATION
The Discussion Paper asks should the law provide for junior licences and if so in what
circumstances?
SSAA ASKS YOU TO MAKE THESE POINTS
A junior licence could be issued to minors so that they can use any firearm on a range, not
just the firearm of an adult.
ISSUE: LENDING FIREARMS
Background information
The Discussion Paper asks should a person other than the licence holder be permitted to use a
firearm and if so in what circumstances?
SSAA ASKS YOU TO MAKE THESE POINTS
A person who is not licensed should be allowed to possess a firearm if the licence holder
supervises the use of it, or the possession is temporary (e.g., transporting a friend’s firearm to
a range) or reasonable in the circumstances, such as for safety reasons (e.g., handing a
firearm to someone to get it through a fence, helping to clean it). The lending of firearms
whereby both parties are licenced of the same category is a sensible measure and accepted in
other states.
ISSUE: REGULATION 26B OF THE FIREARMS REGULATIONS
Background information: This regulation allows the police to ban a gun if, in the Police
Commissioner’s opinion it “closely resembles” a prohibited firearm (see page 67 of the
Discussion Paper). The Law Reform Commission asks the question is this regulation
necessary?
SSAA ASKS YOU TO MAKE THESE POINTS
In your submission please make these points:
 The regulation should be removed.

The concept of “close resemblance” is very uncertain.

The opinion of the Commissioner changes over time.

Different police Commissioners can have different opinions.

The appearance of a firearm makes no difference to victims of crime.

The application of this regulation is arbitrary and creates unnecessary ill will to the
police from responsible firearms owners.
5

The appearance of a firearm should not determine its category. So the definition of
Category D1 should be changed by removing any reference to appearance.
OTHER ISSUES
Background information: The Discussion Paper raises other issues such as possession of
ammunition components, a smart card replacing the paper licence, recognition of interstate
licences, sound moderators (suppressors) and issuing of licence renewal reminders.
SSAA ASKS YOU TO MAKE THESE POINTS
1. The possession of ammunition components without a licence should not be an
offence. Having to deal with components such as empty shell cases, wads etc as if
they were real cartridges is impractical and does not protect public safety.
2. A plastic smart card is a good idea. The card can simply state licence category (A B H
Ect ) and other endorsements . A paper licence can end up in the wrong hands and
disintegrates easily.
3. Interstate licences should be effective in WA for travellers and to give new residents
time to get a WA licence within 6 months.
4. Sound Moderators (suppressors) should be permitted, as they are in New Zealand.
They minimize sound and recoil and assist in effective vermin control, especially in
places where the sound of firearms use may be a problem.
5. The police should be required to send a reminder if a licence is not renewed. A
reminder would reduce the inconvenience caused when the renewal does not arrive.