Research archive

SSAA Victoria’s response to new proposed Victorian Regulations

16 August 1998

Submission made by Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (Vic), 710 Dandenong Rd, Springvale VIC 3171
Submission prepared by Mr John McNamara, Research Officer SSAA (Vic)

SUBMISSION BY SPORTING SHOOTERS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA (VICTORIA) TO THE REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT - FIREARMS (PRESCRIBED CIRCUMSTANCES) REGULATIONS 1998

The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (Vic) has a number of concerns regarding the proposed Regulations. Generally speaking the proposed Regulations appear draconian and unnecessary. They appear in fact to be directed solely at the concept that recreational firearms owners cannot be trusted and pose some grave threat to public safety. The Association finds this attitude unfair and offensive.

Lack of Definition Within the Proposed Regulations
A number of our members have pointed out that whilst the proposed Regulations deal with Sport/Target shooting on "private property", but do not appear to define "private property". An approved shooting range is just as much "private property" as a farm, in that it is either owned or leased by the club. The proposed Regulations should refer to "land not being part of an approved Range". This "failure" of the RIS appears to show a very limited knowledge of the practical situation. For example, many ranges are built so that the shooting takes place quite close to, but not toward, a public road. It could be expected that regulatory attempts to control shooting on private land (not being part of an approved Range) and approved Ranges would have some degree of consistency. Enormous costs would be involved if clubs were required to arrange their facilities so as to move them further from public roads. Some of our members have expressed concern that these proposed Regulations will "set a precedent" which will later be applied to Approved Ranges.

Category C Firearms
It is proposed that these Regulations will allow "sport/target shooting" on private property using Category A and B firearms and Category C shotguns. It appears somewhat unreasonable that a landowner may use a Category C rifle on his property to destroy vermin but cannot practice with the same firearm, on his/her own property. The policy of allowing property owners to own Category C rifles to destroy vermin but not allowing practice with these firearms seems at odds with the stated objectives of these Regulations. Surely this will increase the chances of a shot fired from one of these firearms at a vermin animal "going wide" and missing it’s intended target. The proposed Regulations should allow licenced owners of Category C rifles to also practice with their firearms. 

Nature and Extent of the Problem
The nature and extent of the problem described at item 2.1 is a legislative drafting problem. The Firearms Act 1996, as amended, refers to shooting activity on private land being in accordance with the regulations. There are currently no Regulations on the matter. This is the stated problem that the Regulations are intended to address.

The "problem" is therefore merely a technical or drafting problem.

A serious impact of the proposed Regulations will be to make criminals out of many farmers and recreational shooters who practice on private land. A breach of regulations will mean a firearms licence condition has also been breached, this action therefore becomes an offence under Section 6 of the Act. Penalty; 60 penalty units or 1 years imprisonment. A shooter may comply with all aspect of the proposed Regulations but give 8 days notice instead of the statutory 7, or delays in the postal system may result in late delivery, in either case, the shooter is guilty of a criminal offence.

The Regulatory Impact Statement has pointed out that "sport/target shooting and clay target shooting are traditional, well-established purposes for holding a firearms licence in Victoria. Many persons who hold firearms licences for these purposes have traditionally engaged in such activities either at special shooting ranges, on private property, or at both types of locations."

The Victorian Firearms Act 1996 as originally passed by Parliament made no reference to sport/target shooting and clay target shooting on private property.

The Victorian Parliament has now clarified concerns that sport/target shooting or clay target shooting on private property is, and will remain in the short term at least, a legitimate activity for Victoria’s recreational firearm owners.

For this reason it has been deemed necessary to produce the "Firearms (Prescribed Circumstances) Regulations 1998" to govern this recreational activity. The above mentioned technical or drafting problem.

Public Safety
The Regulatory Impact Statement accompanying these proposed Regulations reports at great length of the need to "minimise the risks of firearms-related accidents and injuries arising from such activities". We have read the Regulatory Impact Statement from front to rear but can find no reference to the "extent" of the problem of allowing recreational firearm owners to practice their sport safely on private property. Considering that probably at least half of Victoria’s 250,000 odd licensed recreational firearm owners discharge a firearm on private property at least once or twice a year, (including hunting of vermin species such as rabbits) how many cases of endangerment to public or property has been recorded?

Contrary to the apparent beliefs promulgated in the RIS, legal and legitimate firearm ownership is not a danger to the community. Overseas studies have shown that children of firearm owners are less likely to exhibit antisocial behaviour or experiment with drugs.("Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse Initial Findings Research Summary" March 1994, David Huizinga PhD. http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/prevention/urbdelin.htm)

Despite this, the Firearms Policy Branch is again attempting to "smother" recreational firearms owners with unnecessary "red tape" apparently designed solely to make the prospect of recreational firearms owners enjoying their sport as difficult, time consuming and as confrontational as possible. Since the nature and extent of the problem requiring new regulations is purely a creation of Parliament’s drafting of the Firearms Act 1996, why do the proposed Regulations impose further cost, restriction and criminal provision on law abiding firearms owners?

Controls on Sport/Target Shooting or Clay Target Shooting on Private Property

• "a person taking part in the activity will not be allowed to discharge a rifle in the course of the activity unless it is discharged at a target which has in place behind it a backstop which is capable of stopping, within 20 metres, any projectile which passes through or beyond the target"

It is already an offence under the 1996 Victorian Firearms Act to discharge any firearm (not just a rifle) in a dangerous manner, injure or damage property with a firearm, or, discharge a shot, bullet or other missile onto or across private without the consent of the owner. With these requirements in mind whether a "backstop" or dirtbank is 20, 25 or even 50 metres behind the target is quite irrelevant. The requirement also has no effect on smooth bored firearms (shotguns loaded with solid slug ammunition or large buckshot, smooth bored muzzleloading firearms etc) whose projectile/s may carry further than some low velocity rifle projectiles. The requirement for a backstop may be justified in some cases, but ignores the fact that, as with many ranges, there may be enough area for a fall-out zone. When this is the case, the proposed Regulation should provide that a backstop may be dispensed with. Presumably this condition would also require a person wishing to "sight-in" his firearm to carry a tape measure to ensure that his target is within a certain distance of a "backstop". Unsafe usage of a firearm in this circumstance is already more than adequately covered in the Firearms Act, it’s inclusion in Regulations is totally unnecessary.

• "a person taking part in the activity will not be allowed to discharge a firearm in the course of the activity within 250 metres of a public road or any dwelling (which is not a dwelling on the land which the activity takes place)"

Again the Firearms Act makes the unsafe or irresponsible usage of firearm illegal, it’s inclusion in Regulations is totally unnecessary. Also, as long as any shot fired is fired in a safe manner and in a safe direction, whether you are 250 metres from a road or dwelling, is totally irrelevant. As previously mentioned, many approved shooting ranges have their "firing lines" situated within 250 metres, but facing away from, a public road The requirement as drafted is totally unnecessary. It should be amended to read "a person taking part in the activity must not discharge a firearm in the course of the activity so that a shot, bullet or other missile carries onto or across any public road". This Association’s "special interest group", "The Working Gundog Association of Australia" has pointed out that many of the field trial venues currently in use run adjacent to country roads, this requirement would render these venues unusable.

• "a person taking part in the activity will not be allowed to discharge a shot, bullet or other missile during the course of the activity which carries, upon discharge, beyond the land on which the activity is taking place"

This is already a requirement of the Victorian Firearms Act 1996, it’s inclusion in the proposed Regulations is unnecessary and "double-handling".

• "a person taking part in the activity, when discharging a firearm in the course of the activity;
• will not be allowed to endanger any property or person; and
• will have to be stationary; and
• when not clay target shooting, will have to shoot at stationary targets."

Again it is an offence under the Firearms Act to discharge a firearm so as to endanger any person or property, it’s inclusion in Regulations is unnecessary. When any shot is fired on private land, that shot may not endanger any person or property, nor may it leave the property on which it is fired, with these facts in mind whether or not the shooter or target is moving or stationary is all totally irrelevant. Like much contained in the RIS parts of this proposed Regulations are somewhat unclear, exactly what is meant by "will have to be stationary" ? The dictionary definition of "stationary" is "not moving", however, when some types of firearm are discharged, the movement of the person discharging to firearm is unavoidable, the technical term for this phenomenon is called "recoil". The proposed Regulations, as drafted, would allow any vexatious police office to charge any person firing a large calibre rifle with breaching this Regulation due solely to the felt recoil of the firearm being discharged.

• "the activity will have to take place between the hours of sunset and sunrise"

Presumably this is a typing or printing error, this association presumes that what is meant is between sunrise and sunset (ie. during daylight hours). This question, of whether the proposed Regulations refer to "sunset and sunrise" or "sunrise to sunset" needs to be addressed prior to any decision on these proposed Regulations is made. The public cannot be expected to make submission on a RIS if any part of that RIS is at all unclear. This submission is made on the belief that the proposed Regulations refer to shooting during the hours of daylight, if this is not the case it is requested that this association(along with all others making submissions) be advised and given opportunity to amend their submissions.

A common method of dealing with "vermin" animals such as rabbits or foxes is "spotlighting". This makes a good deal of sense as these animals are generally nocturnal and are therefore more active at night. Many recreational firearms owners groups such as the various Victorian Field and Game Association country branches and the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (Vic) conduct "drives" to assist landowners to rid their land of introduced vermin. This requirement will mean recreational firearms owners involved in this activity will not be able practice their skills under conditions similar to those experienced on a "drive". Allowing people to be involved in such a drive who have never experienced shooting under artificial light previously could hardly be considered a safe practice. The Firearms Act 1996 already contains the requirement that a shot bullet or other missile cannot be allowed to endanger life or property, nor leave the property from which it was fired. This requirement of the proposed Regulations is totally unnecessary.

• "the activity will not be allowed to be advertised, formally organised or scheduled"

Why ? One would have thought that the interests of safety would have been far better served if such activity was "advertised, formally organised or scheduled". For example, a number of this Association’s "country branches" have pointed out that this requirement will have the effect of prohibiting safety or familiarisation training of shooters prior to field hunting. These branches may not have access to a suitable range within reasonable distance and may wish to organise such activity prior to duck season or a rabbit/fox drive, allowing shooters to practice their skills prior to "opening morning". Surely it is of greater benefit if such activity is organised and carried out in a single central location than carried out piecemeal on properties throughout the district. "The Working Gundog Association of Australia" has pointed out that this proposed Regulation, if adopted, "would prevent any field trials being conducted at all". This proposal will have no effect on community safety, nor will it in any way minimise the risk of firearms related accidents. This proposal is totally unnecessary and should not be included in the Regulations.

• "a person taking part in the activity will not be allowed to give or receive direct or indirect financial benefit to or from any other person for taking part in the activity"

This requirement should be removed from the proposed Regulations as it has no bearing on the supposed reasons for the Regulations (minimise the risk of firearm related accident or injury) whatsoever. It may also unfairly and unreasonably restrict what methods a land owner uses to gain income from his property or a recreational firearm owners organisation may use to raise funds. It may breach other legislation such as the "Trade Practices Act".

• "a person taking part in the activity will not be allowed to consume or be under the influence of intoxicating liquor during the activity or to be under the influence of a drug during the activity"

It is already a requirement of the Firearms Act that a person "must not carry or use a firearm if that person is under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or a drug". Yet again we see the requirements of the Firearms Act being unnecessarily duplicated in the proposed Regulations. This issue is already covered in the Act, it’s duplication in the proposed Regulations is totally unnecessary and should be deleted.

• "if more than 3 persons are to take part in the activity or if the activity is to be carried on for more than 2 hours, a member of the police force at the nearest police station to the land where the activity is to take place will have to be notified in writing, within a period of 7 days before the activity takes place, that the activity is to take place" and
• "in cases where written notice is given, the written notice will have to set out:
• the name address and contact telephone number of the person giving the notification; and;
• the land on which the activity is to take place; and
• the day on which the activity is to take place; and
• the nature of the activity."

Again we see totally unnecessary requirement being placed on recreational firearms owners and the police. Many of our members find the concept that police need to "actively monitor" recreational activity on private property rather offensive to say the least, This proposal has caused the greatest anger and concern among our members, one country branch replied to this proposed regulation with the comment that their members "are not on Parole" The proposed requirement for police to "actively monitor" lawful activity on private property brings to mind the sort of "special branch" activity which we thought the Victoria Police no longer involved themselves in. The proposed requirement would allow police to maintain files showing when and where recreational firearms owners participate in their chosen recreational activity, this is within neither the spirit or the letter of the law as passed by Parliament. One would sincerely hope that the staff of the average country police station has more important things to do than to dispatch a constable or three to watch a group of people shoot at tin cans, paper or clay targets!

The RIS and proposed Regulations also appear somewhat confusing, does the "cut-off" point of three people being involved in the activity relate to all persons present or just those shooting at any one time? For example, if three people decided to go target shooting on private property (such property not being an approved Range), but, only one of those persons was actually shooting at any one time (with the other two calling and recording fall of shot) would there be a need to inform the police? Similarly, if a person shot for one hour fortyfive minutes, at three or four separate times over the course of one day (each shooting session being 45 minutes to one hour apart), would that person need to inform the police of the activity? As stated, the proposed Regulations are somewhat confusing.

The Regulatory Impact Statement points out that recreational use of firearms (other than hunting) on private land has been occurring in Victoria for many years. This activity has been happily and safely taking place all this time without any need for Police monitoring of such activity.

This proposed requirement may in fact cause unnecessary confrontation between shooters and members of the Victoria Police, many individual police officers appear to have difficulty in determining the difference between notifying and asking permission It is noted with some concern that the proposed Regulations contain no avenue of appeal if this "notification" of a shooting activity should result in a refusal. This requirement is seen as more "thin edge of the wedge" legislation by many firearms owners, we do not need to inform (or obtain permission from) Police when we go to the range or when we go hunting, as yet. This requirement is seen by many as "setting a precedent" for even more restrictive legislation or regulation governing the private recreational use of firearms.

Contrary to the apparent belief of the Regulatory Impact Statement’s author, the average recreational firearms owner is quite capable of using his firearms safely without "active police monitoring".

Another problem that raises it’s head in dealing with this proposed requirement is how can a person advise Police of target shooting on private property as required by sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of the proposed Regulations, without breaching sub-paragraph (h) "the activity must not be advertised or formally organised or formally scheduled". The proposed requirement is totally unnecessary.

Conclusion
All of the legitimate "public safety" issues raised in the proposed Regulations dealing with shooting on private property are already covered in the Victorian Firearms Act 1996. Their inclusion in the proposed Regulations is no more than bureaucratic "double handling" resulting from poor drafting of the Firearms Act 1996 and subsequent amendments. Many of the other proposed requirements governing recreational shooting on private property are totally unnecessary and seemed based on the concept that the average recreational firearms owner cannot be trusted to carry out his/her chosen recreational activity. This association finds the belief that there is a need for Police to "actively monitor" lawful recreational activity on private property offensive in the extreme.

Contrary to the apparent beliefs of the Regulatory Impact Statement’s author, we do not live in some third world "banana republic" or "police state". Many recreational firearms owners have previously lived in countries where such active police monitoring is carried out, for this reason we believe that this requirement of the proposed Regulation would be met with massive non-compliance. The concept is clearly offensive to many recreational firearms owners.

Many recreational firearms owners are of the opinion that the recent changes to the Firearms Act 1996 have only taken place due to the quite reasonable fear of many politician’s, that their support of the 1996 changes to laws governing the private ownership of firearms will backfire on them at the ballot box. This argument has most recently been put forward in the publication "Feathers and Fur" published by the Victorian Field and Game Association. It is this association’s belief that if the changes already made to this state’s gun laws, including the "vilification and marginalisation" of recreational firearms owners that has occurred over the past two years does not cause severe "political" repercussions at any future election, these proposed Regulations certainly will. The requirements laid down in the proposed Regulations give the much feared and vilified "Gun Lobby" yet another axe to grind at any future election. Not just gun owners, but many in the community would, we feel, find the concept of the police "actively monitoring" lawful recreational activity on private property offensive in the extreme.

Many of the proposed Regulations covering the recreational usage of firearms are unnecessarily bureaucratic and appear to have no other purpose than to make the recreational use of firearms more difficult. They appear to unreasonably restrict long held practices and lawful activity. They certainly have the potential to unreasonably restrict long held rights such as freedom of movement and association. They also appear to be based solely on the concept that recreational firearms owners cannot be trusted. Some of the proposed Regulations appear to be no more than pandering to the various "anti-gun" political lobby groups. One of our members, a committee member on a number of recreational firearms owner organisations, has in fact put forward the argument that some of the requirements appear have "anti-gun" lobby involvement in their drafting.

We submit that those parts of the proposed Firearms (Prescribed Circumstances) Regulations 1998 dealing with recreational usage of firearms on private land should be completely redrafted. Preferably following consultation with owner/user groups.

We hope that this submission meets with your approval.

S. Ziccone
President
Sporting Shooters Association Of Australia (Victoria)
August 1998

Home > Research archive > 1998 > SSAA Victoria’s response to new proposed Victorian Regulations