Triggering Thoughts of Tyranny in WA

A disarmed population is defenceless in the face of tyranny. America’s Founding Fathers mistrusted the monopoly of government to weaponry and believed, on the basis of English history and their own colonial experience, that governments are prone to oppress the people. They believed that whenever governments plan to destroy our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, they always attempt first to disarm their prospective victims.[1]

In societies with a real concern for the protection of human life, self-defence is understood as a fundamental right of the individual. In countries like Australia, however, firearm ownership is not considered a right of the individual but a mere concession of the state.[2] Guns are allowed only under limited circumstances, such as for recreational shooting or hunting animals on eligible private properties. A familiar, repetitious message heralded by the 1996 (updated 2017) National Firearms Agreement (NFA) states: “personal protection is not a genuine reason for acquiring, possessing or using a firearm.” [3] 

The former Soviet Union had a gun ban for over 70 years. And yet, during the 1970s and 1980s, the murder rate was twice higher than the murder rate in the United States. [4] Obviously, disarming law-abiding people did not succeed in stopping criminals obtaining firearms.[5] Need it be said that the former Soviet Union had a deeply oppressive government?

Considering that the possession of a firearm in Australia is only allowed as a concession of the government, an Australian citizen might not be allowed to use a firearm on her premises while experiencing a home invasion in which she reasonably fears death or grievous bodily harm.  It is hard to believe that any Western democracy would go to the extremes of the former Soviet Union in making sure citizens have no weapons for self-defence and,  should the need arise, to fight against political tyranny. Of course, disarmed citizens are defenceless, not only in the face of external aggression and but also in face of political tyranny.

The Labor government in Western Australia, not especially known for its regard for basic human rights, is now preparing an extreme form of gun control legislation.[6]  If crime, or the potential for crime, is the reason behind the new laws, perhaps such a government would be better off concentrating on the reasons behind the rise in crime, which are generally related to drugs, gangs and organised crime. 

While it is understandable that increased scrutiny be placed on some individuals, it is not socially helpful to publicly point at a portion of the population and make a case they are a threat to security.  Of course, the licensed citizen is easy to locate, easy to target and easy to intimidate. Such people are obviously much more compliant than the criminal. Accordingly, law-abiding citizens with access to legal firearms are increasingly vulnerable to government fear-mongering and disingenuous messages designed to promote fear, claiming that these socially responsible individuals are a threat to others and the Police.

Dr John Lott is the former president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, a U.S.-based organisation dedicated to conducting academic quality research on the relationship between laws regulating the ownership or use of firearms, crime, and public safety. Israel and Switzerland, he notes, have the world’s highest gun-possession rate and some of the world’s lowest homicide rates; indeed, Switzerland actually has the lowest homicide rates in Europe. When we look at all the countries for which date is currently available, “we find that those countries that tend to have higher gun-ownership rates tend to have lower homicide rates”.[7]

The problem with banning firearms is that the criminals always end up getting a hold of illegal weapons.[8] In the United Kingdom, most guns were banned in January 1997 but over the next eight years that nation experienced a 45 per cent increase in homicides.[9] Crimes committed by use of a firearm in the UK more than doubled over the 5½ years following the confiscation of firearms.[10] Just to give another example, firearms were banned in Ireland in 1972 and what had been a relatively stable homicide rate then became a three-fold increase in homicides after that ban.[11]

The United States provides a good laboratory because it is relatively easy to compare the 50 states and Washington DC. One may find almost every kind of gun legislation, varying from liberal laws about gun ownership such as in Texas and Tennessee, all the way to an almost total ban of firearms in places such as Chicago and Washington DC. When we look at the complete firearm bans in Chicago and Washington DC, there was a huge increase in murder rates and violate crimes in both places after the gun bans went into effect.[12]

Of course, some people claim that banning firearms would have the positive effect of preventing suicide. However, a firearm is just a means to an end and not the end in itself. If someone wants to kill himself he will find a way. This might explain why since the 1996 federal gun legislation firearm suicides have reduced but hanging has correspondently gone up.[13] According to Sarah McKinnon, legal affairs manager at the National Farmers’ Federation, no link can be found between access to firearms and suicide rates. The notion that more firearms lead to more suicide is “dangerous because it can cloud the message around suicide prevention”, she says.[14]

While WA Police does not publish official gun crime statistics, the WA Police Minister, Paul Papalia, acknowledges that most gun crime is committed by individuals not licensed to possess a firearm.[15] Indeed, almost every single gun used for criminal activity is not licensed and not owned by a licensed gun owner. Criminals who seek to acquire, say, a semi-automatic pistol, know that Chinese semi-automatic pistols or Czech made blank firing pistols (easily converted to use real ammunition) are available for little money on the black market. As noted by Dr James Arthur Lemon from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (University of New South Wales): “There are very few firearms that have been stolen and subsequently used in illegal acts or established as coming from pathway from a registered firearm owner, through theft, into a recorded crime”.[16]

Gun violence is almost non-existent among the licensed firearm owners using registered firearms. And yet, WA Police has been diverting massive financial and strategic resources away from combating violent crime and towards bureaucratic micromanagement and control of farmers, competitive target shooters, antique collectors and other licensed firearm owners, a grouping of arguably the least likely people likely to commit any type of crime. According to Brian Allan Cheers, president of NSW Amateur Pistol Association Inc.,

Shooters as a group, seem to be condemned for the actions of either a few or someone who is not even a shooter, merely a criminal. What most people must, or should, realise that we in the shooting organisations condemn gun crime more than normal people, because we are going to be tarred with that brush. Unfortunately given the way the police work, and with laws preventing communication about crimes, the details of thefts – the modus operandi and causes of theft – are kept form us so we are not able to react to those sorts of things. [17]

The WA government claims to be “committed to ensure our community and our Police Officers have the best possible protection from gun violence”.[18] But this has not prevented such government from recklessly releasing a map that reveals the exact location of thousands of handguns and long arm firearms across the state, which has caused a reasonable concern that such a release could be used by criminals to target and steal guns. The map was pulled from an internal WA Police database on 22 March 2021.[19] As noted by Paul Fitzgerald, president of the WA Sporting Shooters Association, “responsible gun owners have been unfairly targeted, and their safety has been compromised by releasing of data which can easily identify where our members”.[20]

Indeed, it is hard to see how placing thousands of firearm owners at risk of having their homes broken into, and have their licensed firearms stolen by criminals, will improve community safety! As noted by a veteran WA police officer,

It’s dangerous [to reveal the location of these firearms]. I’m actually worried now … They were trying to cause fear and panic by showing people, ‘here’s a map, you’re surrounded by guns!’ But what you’ve done is actually show the criminals where to go to get the guns.[21] 

While many would agree that a reform of the state firearms legislation is necessary, it should be noted that the Firearms Act 1973 (and its regulations) underwent continual and consistent amendments over the last 50 years to meet community needs and technological developments.

Above all, when considering any need for legislative reform and update, it should be especially noted that, on 30 October 2015, the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia (LRCWA) released its comprehensive 198-page (318 pages including the annexures) “Review of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA)”, a discussion paper that sought submissions from stakeholders regarding responses to 46 proposals and 44 questions.

In the course of preparing its Final Report, the LRCWA undertook extensive consultations and the reference garnered an enormous amount of public interest. By the close of the public consultation period, the LRCWA had received an unprecedented level of responses to its call for submissions. It was clear that the individuals and organisations preparing these submissions had gone to considerable lengths to consider and respond to the questions and proposals. Through the consultation period an understanding was formed that “most crimes involving firearms are carried out by people who are not licensed to carry the firearms”.[22]

Ultimately, the Commission received 1,244 written submissions. This included submissions not only from ordinary gun owners but also those who wished for greater restrictions on firearms, as well as from various agencies and organisations, including WA Police. In sum, that was the largest response that the Commission has ever received on one of its referrals.[23]

Released to the community in October 2016, the LRCWA’s ‘Final Report on the Review of the Firearms Act 1973 (WA)’ contains 143 recommendations, many of which are broken up into sub-recommendations to provide specific guidance on recommended reform.[24] First of all, the Final Report informs us that “the vast majority of firearm users in Western Australia are law-abiding”. The Commission thus found no reason to recommend any legislative change that could make it more difficult for firearm users to abide by the law.[25] As such, a new legislation is recommend that merely strikes a better balance between the need for firearms regulation while reducing red tape for the users of firearms. Two recommendations read as follows:

♦ Recommendation 52.2: The fact that an applicant [to a firearm] already has a firearm or firearms similar to the firearm that is the subject of an application, should not of itself be a reason to assess the additional firearm as being unjustified.

♦ Recommendation 54: There should be no upper limit on the number of firearms a single Firearm License holder may possess.

Firearms are often categorised by considering factors such as action type, magazine capacity and ammunition. The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia Final Report recommends the categorisation method to be maintained as the basis of the regulatory firearms scheme because, as the report explicitly says, no evidence was provided to suggest that the current system has been a threat to public safety.[26]

Presently, Category D firearms are not allowed to the average citizen. To satisfy the ‘genuine test’ for firearms under Category D, the applicant must satisfy the Police Commissioner that the firearm is required for government purposes. WA Police Minister Paul Papalia even talks about further gun restrictions and confiscation of firearms.

However, the LRCWA Final Report notes that other Australian jurisdictions currently permit the use of a Category D firearm for hunting or culling. Since the Commission was fully satisfied that a Category D firearm could be genuinely required for some types of pest control, the Final Report also recommends:   

A professional shooter whose occupation is the extermination of feral animals or a Prime Producer may obtain approval for a Category D firearm where the Licensing Authority is satisfied that the use of such firearm is for that specified purpose.[27]  

These recommendations were made only a few years ago and absolutely nothing has changed to justify another “community consultation”, let alone any legislation that ignores the LRCWA’s Final Report recommendations. Still, the WA government has ignored the Report in order to achieve what may be described as the biggest gun control and gun confiscation in Australia’s history. Indeed, the WA government is now promising a complete overhaul the firearms legislation but such a government has no right to ignore the 143 recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission just a few year ago. There is nothing in the LRCWA’s Final Report that recommends further gun restrictions or the confiscation of existing licensed firearms.

Of course, this aggravates the strong suspicion that the new consultation is only a set up and the government will push their anti-gun agenda regardless of any feedback provided. The government may contemplate an overhaul of the present legislation but this should not be done in complete disregard of the 143 recommendations provide by the LRCWA after a very comprehensive process that involved consultations with thousands of organisations and members of the community.  Unfortunately, these new laws are destined to be enacted because Western Australia because both houses of Parliament are controlled by the WA Labor government, thus facilitating the enactment of virtually any law unimpeded.

• The above is an edited version of a paper delivered at the Firearms Bill 2024 (WA) Roundtable, April 14, 2024

Prof. Augusto Zimmermann is a former member of the Law Reform Commission in Western Australia. He is also head of law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education, in Perth, Western Australia, and a former associate dean (research) at Murdoch University, School of Law. During his time at Murdoch, Professor Zimmermann was awarded the Vice Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Research, in 2012. 

[1] Nelson Lund, ‘To Keep and Bear Arms’, in: Edwin Meese II et al, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, The Heritage Foundation, 2005, 319.  

[2] Essenberg v The Queen [2000] HCATrans 297; Essenberg v the Queen B12/2002 [2003] HCATrans 836

[3] https://www.abf.gov.au/prohibited-goods-subsite/files/2017-national-firearms-agreement.pdf

[4] Senate Committee Hansard, ‘Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun related violence in the community’, Senate, Friday, Canberra/ACT, 31 October 2014, 4. 

[5] Senate Committee Hansard, ‘Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun related violence in the community’, Senate, Friday, Canberra/ACT, 31 October 2014, 4. 

[6] https://sportingshooter.com.au/news/wa-to-impose-five-gun-limit-on-hunters-10-for-target-shooters/

[7] Senate Committee Hansard, ‘Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun related violence in the community’, Senate, Friday, Canberra/ACT, 31 October 2014, 3. 

[8] Senate Committee Hansard, ‘Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun related violence in the community’, Senate, Friday, Canberra/ACT, 31 October 2014, 3. 

[9] Senate Committee Hansard, ‘Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun related violence in the community’, Senate, Friday, Canberra/ACT, 31 October 2014, 3. 

[10] Brian Allan Cheers, President, NSW Amateur Pistol Association Inc., ‘Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun related violence in the community’, Senate, Canberra/ACT, Monday 13 October 2014, 34.

[11] Senate Committee Hansard, ‘Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun related violence in the community’, Senate, Friday, Canberra/ACT, 31 October 2014, 3. 

[12] Senate Committee Hansard, ‘Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun related violence in the community’, Senate, Canberra/ACT, Friday 31 October 2014, 3. 

[13] Senator Reynolds, ‘Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun related violence in the community’, Senate, Canberra/ACT, Monday 13 October 2014, 20.

[14] Sarah McKinnon, Manager, Workplace Relations and Legal Affairs, Senate Committee Hansard, ‘Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun related violence in the community’, Senate, Canberra/ACT, Monday 13 October 2014, 19.

[15] Daniel Khmelev, ‘Western Australia Takes Aim at Gun Ownership Laws’, The Epoch Times, 24 March 2022, at

[16] Gary Bryant, General Manager, Firearm Safety and Training Council, Senate Committee Hansard, ‘Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun related violence in the community’, Senate, Canberra/ACT, Monday 13 October 2014, 5. 

[17] Brian Allan Cheers, President, NSW Amateur Pistol Association Inc., ‘Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun related violence in the community’, Senate, Canberra/ACT, Monday 13 October 2014, 30.

[18] ‘New Firearms Act Information’, Western Australia Police, 21 February 2023, at https://www.theepochtimes.com/western-australia-takes-aim-at-gun-ownership-laws_4358776.html https://www.police.wa.gov.au/About-Us/News/New-Firearms-Act-Information

[19] Daniel Khamelev, ‘Outrage After Exact Locations of Aussie Gun Owners Shared by Government’, The Epoch Times, 24 March 2022, at https://www.theepochtimes.com/outrage-after-exact-locations-of-thousands-of-aussie-gun-owners-distributed-by-police_4361160.html

[20] Daniel Khamelev, ‘Outrage After Exact Locations of Aussie Gun Owners Shared by Government’, 24 March 2022, at https://www.theepochtimes.com/outrage-after-exact-locations-of-thousands-of-aussie-gun-owners-distributed-by-police_4361160.html

[21] Daniel Khamelev, ‘Outrage After Exact Locations of Aussie Gun Owners Shared by Government’, The Epoch Times, 24 March 2022, at https://www.theepochtimes.com/outrage-after-exact-locations-of-thousands-of-aussie-gun-owners-distributed-by-police_4361160.html

[22] ‘Review of the Firearms Act 197 (WA) – Final Report’, Project 105, Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, October 2016, 9. 

[23] ‘Review of the Firearms Act 197 (WA) – Final Report’, Project 105, Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, October 2016, 9. 

[24] ‘Review of the Firearms Act 197 (WA) – Final Report’, Project 105, Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, October 2016, 14. 

[25] ‘Review of the Firearms Act 197 (WA) – Final Report’, Project 105, Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, October 2016, 9. 

[26] Recommendation 58.1, ‘Review of the Firearms Act 197 (WA) – Final Report’, Project 105, Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, October 2016, 59. 

[27] Recommendation 80.1, ‘Review of the Firearms Act 197 (WA) – Final Report’, Project 105, Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, October 2016, 78.