WE’VE HAD THIS opinion piece published in The West Australian, after the paper had run several anti-gun stories in March, including one aimed at us.

However it came good on an offer to give us a right of reply, which appeared in today’s edition, so here it is.

This comes as we come within about 4 or 5 days of the letterbox drop of Papalia’s electorate that we told you about a few days ago – and a meeting request with the WA Government to discuss his performance.

8 thoughts on “Our Opinion Piece in The West Australian

  1. Jonathan Laird says:

    Well said Peter “hear hear!”
    And thank you to the West Australian newspaper for the right of reply.

  2. Grandad says:

    after the ‘map of guns’ article in the West I told them I would cease to buy the paper anymore . Perhaps others did the same. I also told SSAA to ask all members ditto. Imagine if all WA members ceased to buy the paper that is a lot of advertising not being seen… who knows. Your article is sound and I am pleased the West saw fit to allow a reply.
    With the election coming up there is no SF&F delegate on the ballot papers which can be for several reasons but the insistence of SSAA to play the middle ground instead of backing LFO in the Parliament has to be one.

  3. Alan Duncan says:

    Your critique of where we are with the States gun laws is accurate – Many gun owners are treated suspiciously rather than law abiding club shooters just getting on with their recreational hobbies- The use of Auspost to collate firearm applications is a costly anomaly that allows another party into access of private information -Serviceability certificates are another level of meaningless paperwork – Over the last 5 years the disallowance of a backup rifle of the same caliber ( especially for club supported firearms )demonstrates the lack of understanding of the mechanicals of rifles- Overuse of one firearm firing thousands of rounds for training and club events is what causes failures and damage but scant regard is given to this normal situation- Likewise the use of double rifles ( esp old English doubles)
    where a club shooter is supposed to to use a double to match the event ie , light ,medium and heavy calibers with 20 to 40 rounds for the light , 8 to 14 for the medium and 6 to 10 for the heavy- If a club shooter purchases a large caliber say 500 N E that rifle is deemed shootable for all events – So a shooter if he wants to shoot this rifle in all double rifle events is expected to fire up to 50 rounds at a shoot- The clubs and manufacturers requirements may be that no more 10 shots in total to prevent concussion caused by recoil – Firearms will not allow smaller caliber doubles with less recoil to be licensed because they once again do not understand the mechanical aspects of double firearms –
    Accordingly I have overused a double that now needs to be brought on face ,by brazing the barrel hooks ,refiling ,,refitting and brought on face using soot to perfectly align the barrels –
    A complicated and costly repair costing around $2000- and take at least 6 months to fix – So I am unable to partake in any club double rifle event-
    Usual application fees are $ 175- approx – If the application is declined the fee is lost and no refund is given-
    It is difficult to respect a system or its officers who make up the rules as they go ,and the only way an existing firearm owner can get an additional firearm licensed is to be prepared to hire a firearms lawyer to fight a case in a tribunal – cost usually $3 to $5000- A lawyers rate is $500 per hour-I suspect many responsible club shooters face this situation-

  4. Dave Longrigg says:

    If only the SSAA were more inclined to work for their money like the NSC do, (for much less cash & for the right reasons)! Keep up the excellent work NSC, we need you.

  5. Mike Woods says:

    Excellent article Peter! Well done mate, hopefully this article will get ‘traction’ Australia wide and sanity will finally return to firearm ownership in Australia.
    Excellent work mate!

  6. Tony says:

    Thank you Peter
    For your excellent, pragmatic article given what should always be a given – ‘ right of reply ‘ by the editors of the WA newspaper particularly in context of their extraordinarily prejudiced original opinion piece by the biased Papalia
    Writing from Tasmania here in United support of the necessary efforts of the NSC to resolutely stand against the tyranny this particular State police minister would otherwise exact unaccountably on LAFOs in your great State
    While WAs Firearm legislation is the most draconian of all the States efforts in compliance with the umbrella NFA; we are not immune from this modus operandi in Tasmania or any State – hence my complete unequivocal support for NSCs great work on our behalves.
    The situation has become so serious given the largest ( by number & resources ) shooters representative crowd deliberately choosing not to engage and advance our interests rights politically. As others have said forget Left & Right, our adversaries are far more sophisticated to allow their core leanings interfere with their despising of Firearms and all the uses & purposes generally. Thank you Neil, Peter & entire NSC team for going straight to the political heart in our advocacy and bona fide support; lobbying, middle ground approaches, soft read weak engagements with politicians has not & clearly evidently not worked. Avenues of legal pursuit and engagement in the Courts is both necessary and achieves tangible outcomes for us passionate shooting stakeholders, hopefully deeper NSC support financially in the spirit of progressing our collective & individual Firearm matters will be forthcoming as we go forward
    Great commentary from all contributors above Thank you all – particularly like ‘ Grandads ‘ approach as commercialisation and non-patronage of the WA paper defines voting with our feet – a valid approach that has immediate effect to that entities viability which is exactly how the various levels of governance in this country have knobbled us LAFOs since 1996 without an equitable, merit based approach – to the extent of the blanket ‘ Fit and Proper Person ‘ requirement not being defined in any of the State or Territory’s Firearms Legislation or the NFA document for that matter – how incredibly wide is legal interpretation under those 4 stealthily chosen words
    Really appreciate and reciprocate Alan Duncan’s words above as I too am way past being treated suspiciously rather than as LAFOs & Club members getting on with the practise of our chosen recreational hobbies
    Thirty years ago I once read that the greatest need / want of the world is that for men ( persons ) prepared to stand for their established moral compass & democratic principles though the heavens fall ( our adversaries intensify their attacks on our freedoms ) ………. so true in 1989 and more so now in today’s 2022 world.
    To my mind NSC are doing just that – people of conviction, character and strength advocating FOR us passionately – Sincerely Thankyou

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *