Property Letters
We are encountering issues regarding property letter sizes.
Specifically, a change in policy within Police Licensing Services (PLS) on what
are adequate property sizes for certain calibre firearms. A client
recently had a firearms license application refused for a shotgun on 6 acres.
The PLS maintain they have a duty of care and responsibility to
ensure license applicants have access to a property to safely shoot a firearm
on. Property size has a large part to do with this. They do this by
applying arbitrary rules, that do not exist in legislation, to decide whether
or not a certain license application should be granted. PLS will not
officially release these figures. Subsequently, acceptable property sizes
change periodically without consultation with the industry or even a warning.
These changes make it particularly hard for firearm dealers to advise
clients on suitable firearms for their requirements. While a certain
caliber would be needed to humanely kill certain pests or to engage in a
certain style of recreational shooting, there is no certainty that PLS will
approve that caliber. This results in license applications being refused,
when similar applications were granted only weeks prior. Firearm Dealers
and license applicants lose money and considerable time is needlessly
wasted. The Police Licensing Services claim to assess applications
individually and consider other factors – we do not accept this. Our experience
is that little other than property size is considered by assessors in the
application process. License applicants are usually forced to ‘fight’ to
get applications approved, often explaining relatively simple realities of pest
eradication to assessors with seemingly little training.
History of Application Requirements
Prior to firearm licensing being centralized in 2009, firearm
applications for shotguns and .22 long rifle chambered firearms would be
approved on 5 acres regularly, and rightly so. When used sensibly it is
entirely possible to maintain the safety requirements that the Firearms Act of
Western Australia contains.
This is because, prior to 2009, the topography of the property was
considered by the local police who were in charge of processing the
license. When judging whether a certain calibre is safe to use on a
certain property, topography is more important than size.
Topography is difficult for central licensing to judge without
inspection.
As such, topography has taken a back seat and now land size is the
primary attribute judged. Land size is supplied to Police Licensing
Services on a firearm license application.
Just because topography is more difficult to judge than size does not
mean it is any less important than when firearm licensing was done at a local
Police level.
Police Licensing Services have decided to increase these property
size requirements. This isn’t in response to any particular event; no one
has accidently been killed and no property has been damaged. There are no
new threats. There has been no introduction of new technology.
Ammunition isn’t more powerful than it used to be, nor has there been a
reduction in international standard regarding sizing or area.
What has changed?
We have been able to gauge required acreage from refused applications
and from what little information we can garner from Police Firearms
Licensing. The required property size to license a shotgun is now double
that of what it used to be. The required acreage for a 22 magnum has gone
from 25 acres to 100 acres and a 22 long rifle from 5 acres to 25 acres.
Each of these changes represents a large increase on what was previously
acceptable.
These requirements do not take into consideration the many other
issues regarding safe firearm use. Rather, they are just the application
of a policy that considers the most important factor the one that is easiest to
obtain. A major factor, commonly ignored, is the requirement for firearm
license holders to ensure vermin is dispatched humanely. Placing onerous
property size restrictions on license applications means that license holders
are required to attempt to destroy vermin with firearms that are underpowered –
they are forced to destroy vermin inhumanely.
Politics and the Law Reform Commission Review
On 18 November 2015, the Hon. Rick Mazza asked several questions
regarding property letters and Police Licensing Services’ policy. The
response he received from the Attorney General, the Hon. Michael Mischin,
representing the Police Minister in the Upper House, contained only two pieces
of useful information. Firstly, an allegation that firearm license applicants
were modifying the property letter template provided on the Police website to
read ‘Owner/Manager’. This is untrue. I still possess the original
document from PLS (listing the author of the document as being an employee of
Police Licensing Services) which has the wording “Owner/Manager”. Second,
there was an assurance that “No changes to policy will be made until the
finalisation of the Law Reform Commission review.”. The Hon. Michael
Mischin has either been poorly briefed or deliberately deceitful.
The review was only out a few weeks and the Police decided the change
their internal policy regarding property sizes. It is reasonable to
assume that the recommendations contained within the Law Reform Commission
Review would be considered before making any policy changes.
The Law Reform Commission states;
“The Commission does not wish to overemphasize the relevance of the
size of the land; there are other equally important factors such as the
necessity of a certain calibre firearm to humanely kill certain size vermin”
Recommendation 56 .3 of the Law Reform Review, regarding property
letters, states;
“The size of the property should not carry greater weight than any
other consideration when determining the reasonable justification for a
particular firearm”
If the Police have read the Law Reform Commission review, not only
have they entirely disregarded this entire section, but gone further to enforce
even stricter conditions than already exist. Under the latest changes, if
a license holder has a property smaller than 25 acres, they are required to
destroy rabbits using one of two methods;
chasing vermin with shotguns and attempting to shoot them from
a moving vehicle – a practice condemned in the National Firearms Safety Code,
or
attempt to destroy them with an air rifle.
There is an argument that some powerful air rifles are adequate to
destroy rabbits. These air rifles fire relatively heavy projectiles –
some almost as heavy as a 22 long rifle projectile, at speeds well over the
speed of sound. There is no safety benefit in forcing property owners to
use an air rifle which rivals a 22 long rifle in power whilst not allowing them
to simply use a 22 long rifle chambered firearm.
Under the new property requirements, any orchardist with a property
size smaller than 10 acres is forced to either inhumanely destroy kangaroos,
face financial ruin, or falsify their firearm application by stating they want
to shoot on another property. How is this in the public interest?
How the Requirements are Calculated
It is no coincidence that the Police Licensing Services have arrived
at nice round figures such as 10 acres, 25 acres, 100 acres, 500 acres,
1000acres and 2000 acres for certain calibres. Considering the danger
area of certain cartridges, angles of error that are likely to occur,
likelihood of ricochet and ricochet angles, templating areas for certain
calibres and other factors, it would be impossible to arrive at these figures
with any formulated approach. The Police are basing their policy on
arbitrary figures they have invented with no empirical base or scientific
backing. This is further reinforced by the fact that they will not
release the methodology by which they have arrived at these figures.
These restrictions do nothing to protect the interests of small
property or recreational shooters. Nor do they increase public safety.
The PLS priority is one of self-interest, dissolving themselves of blame in the
event someone breaks the law. This attitude dominates all other factors
of licensing.
In enforcing such strict conditions of licensing, PLS reveal their
mistrust for firearm license holders. Other examples of PLS mistrust
include;
The restriction of licensing firearms the Police deem ‘Category D in
appearance’ (Reg. 26B) because they assume their owners will go armed in public
to scare people.
The restrictions placed upon firearms chambered for the 338 Lapua
cartridge, as the assumption was their owners would try and
shoot people from long distances.
The restrictions placed upon air rifles with barrel shrouds, as their
noise suppressing nature would somehow transform their owners into assassins.
Police mistrust for courier companies transporting firearms,
resulting in no firearms being able to be transported around Western Australia
without PLS approval.
License holders being required to license every spare barrel for
their firearms, the assumption being that license holders would shoot someone
and the projectiles needed to be tracked back to them and their barrel.
The restriction on the sale of firearm parts, because you are assumed
to be using those parts to piece together an unlicensed firearm.
Requirements to license objects that do not fall under the
description of a firearm as if they were a firearm, such as bolt guns. People
cannot be trusted with them.
Laws governing the importation and licensing of firearms in other
states are ignored. Interstate licenses are not recognized in Western Australia
because the Western Australia PLS do not trust anyone, including other
licensing authorities.
Western Australia Police Licensing Services must be enforcing such
hard conditions because they have serious doubt whether firearm license holders
have the required skill, knowledge or experience to be trusted to not break the
law. These points can be mitigated with training, yet bizarrely, PLS
oppose practical firearms training.
The PLS submission to the law reform commission reads;
“Comprehensive training for a person who wants to join a club is a
practical idea, but should not hinder the primary producer and/or the license
holder who wants to recreational hunt and shoot. By enforcing training
provided by an approved club or organization would add costs to the applicant
for a recreational hunting license and could force quasi membership.”
The PLS make these assertions, but give no explanation as to why club
members are deemed able to absorb the additional costs and other firearm
license applicants, such recreational shooters and primary producers, cannot.
The PLS seem concerned with the economic cost to the firearm
applicant, yet WA licensing fees are many times higher than any other licensing
authority in the country. Meeting safety requirements should never an
economic consideration – regardless of whether it is a driver’s license,
forklift ticket or skipper (boat) ticket. If someone wants a certain
license, they will meet the fiscal requirements. Additional cost of
safety training is unlikely to ever be so high as to deter anyone from applying
for a firearm license.
To surmise
The Police oppose safety training because they don’t want the extra
work of certifying training programs and organisations. They are not
interested in public safety or animal welfare, they are only interested in
keeping their work load low protecting themselves from criticism and
litigation.
Zaine Beaton
Manager
Beaton Firearms
No comments:
Post a Comment