The Closing Days of WA Government's Firearm Reform Debate

Its clear. Its drawing to a close. Firearm Reforms are coming but what's coming & why is little less clear. Regulations that underpin what police officers actually enforce is very unclear. There are not even suggestions what the regulations will involve. Be aware a law is an Act of Parliament. A regulation is an Act of Administration. A law must pass through the Parliament to be changed, a regulation only needs a minister pen. That means it could be good or it could be very bad.

What else that's bad is consultation appears to be be token & selective.
Going by yesterday's sitting of the Legislative Committee the reasons for the changes are looking decidedly fluid & also shaky.

Its bad enough that the statistics for each of many hundreds of clauses are not available it's almost looking like they weren't used if they do exist. The reply that police resources would need to be reallocated to find the supporting data is a red flag suggesting a terribly serious disaster if this is how legislation is constructed.

One minute its to reduce Domestic Violence (DV). That the new laws will make it possible for police to seize firearms in the case of DV. A completely understandable position & I cannot understand anyone of sane mind opposing that. It's simple & universally supported.

Except those powers already exist & as we saw with deeply tragic Floreat shooting, the calls to seize the shooters firearms were both several, desperate & not acted upon. It sounds that Police did attend when the shooters wife needed to get property from the home. It sounds that hospital staff had very deep concerns over the shooter with a cricket ball size cyst on the brain was exhibiting very aggreesive behaviour. 
I think everyone is unable to see how the new laws would prevented this very tragic loss of innocent life

One of the other reasons for the reforms is the Act is 51 years old & its out of date. Perhaps but it's not unchanged & this government has amended once since coming to power & the key recommendations in the Law Reform Commission report were not taken up then. 

Then another reason for the legislation that it shape shifts to & from is to stop, quoting the Government is to "get guns off the streets", to try to stop access to "unlimited guns" and the big one, prevent what some people want..."US style gun laws"

We cannot have US Style Gun laws. It would require a complete rewrite of the Australian Constitution. There has been no one calling for that, its not possible if anyone were. It was thoroughly rubbish emotional levering card trick.
Guns off the street? It turns out the numerical limits only affect a small number of licence holders. between 3 & 5%
So the majority of owners might even see that whilst they have 1-4 firearms they might want to increase thier numbers right up to the limit.
Unlimited guns? No never could happen & never can happen. You have 2 prime tests, fit & proper person test & a genuine need test. You cannot get 2 identical firearms except in some cases of club competition use. Try applying for 2 identical air rifles or .22 pea rifles. That application put in the bin.
In fact if you have an approved firearm of one calibre & you apply for another firearm of the same calibre YOU MUST demonstrate why the new firearm is required & why the existing one on your licence cannot be used for the suggested genuine need of the new firearm being applied for. 
Both current & previous Labor Premiers & the Minister for Police have got things very very wrong here.

Yesterday its to reduce the amount of firearms that can be stolen. We cannot access how many are stolen of which type & how many of them have gone onto commit how many crimes. The Government cannot produce the supporting data for the new laws or their reasons.

As for the laws changing to reduce numbers to reduce theft, Stephen Dawson MLC stated in the Legislative Assembly last night 

"I am told that about a quarter of those are stolen because they are not secured properly, and that about 30 per cent are stolen because the keys for the cabinet have been found, or they jemmy the lock"

That explains how only 45% of stolen firearms are removed from a safe. Not why nor the effeciency of penalties as a deterant. Stephen Dawson MLC said under the new laws, the 14 firearms stolen from one South West property would be 10.
Apparently that's better, much better & a supporting premise for numerical limits. 
Now if all those firearms had a genuine need (they did) and all were required with a farming operation then using multiple licences the same 14 firearms could still be on the property with the new laws.
The Government is so busy shape shifting on improperly constructed legislation & the reasons for it they're having trouble making sense & trouble supporting their own legislation.
We don't know what types were stolen & how many fall into the most likely type to be used in crime.

Meanwhile look at this when it comes to the Govt talking up their legislation on penalties.

Now imagine a world where in WA you are charged, convicted & the sentence is PER FIREARM and each penalty is served separately.
Imagine someone steals 200 firearms & instead of 8-10 years for the lot its 8-10 PER FIREARM.

Imagine stealing 200 firearms & you're facing 1600-2000 years in jail. 
Too serious?
No, 200 guns that end up in the hands of criminals & each could end a life or many lives. 
Either stopping gun theft is a good thing or it isn't
The Govt's message to organised crime is don't steal 1 or 14 firearms steal hundreds because the illegal rewards are much bigger but the penalty for stealing 200 is the same as stealing 14 in the southwest or one in Perth.

I think there will in time be a parliamentary inquiry into how this legislation was actually constructed, by whom & why. It appears to come from a very narrow view from a very small number of people & stakeholder consultation was purely token.

Then we learn that the new law to remove all firearms from a person automatically due to mental stress or marriage split will apply to all Western Australians but not members of WA Police who are undergoing the worst mental health crisis, with the highest applying for professional help & around a 1000 officers leaving in the last 1-2 years.
The 30 year average of resignations is 100 per year.

Officers at the coal face are in a dire position, worse than ever before and the upper echilon that appear to not helping officers are perhaps too busy building the legislation they wish to enforce without proper stakeholder involvement to help it be a wise, fit for purpose Act of Parliament.

On top of all that, bad enough that is a decidedly undercooked Bill, that its being rammed through without all clauses prosecuted properly...all amendements by the opposition are being opposed...bad as that all is, its much worse.

The government prevented this Bill being referred to the Legislation Committee for proper review.
It is a nuclear disaster of the Parliamentary kind. That committee that used to be very busy has had nothing to do since Labor took control of both Houses.
Democracy is being seriously eroded.