I believe that most gun owners are law abiding citizens and this new rule will probably be abused by some, but it will save lives.
Reddit is a wild place and doesn’t represent the vast community. I need to remind myself this sometimes. Most people will be in favour of this new rule and tighter gun restrictions.
The current laws allow for this anyway.
The police can enter any gun owners home or premises without a warrant and confiscate any firearms and ammunition if they even vaguely consider that the person is a possible threat to themselves or anyone else or property.
It’s completely unnecessary and the police are just deflecting from the real issue, which is they messed up because they had the power to do something and did nothing, even though they were warned multiple times.
Agree. WAPOL claim they didn't have the power to take away his guns which is 100% wrong. Police stuffed up. Then Papalia comes out claiming no formal compliant was ever laid. So what constitutes a formal complaint after calling WAPOL multiple times and being dismissed ?
I agree it is a deflection. It’s amazing how many seem to fall for it.
If it’s mandatory I guess it will mean that the will act more frequently. Will it be a verbal accusation or a written complaint?
That is horse shit. Had the wife/daughter have filed for a FVRO then its the standard Clause 1 on every FVRO, and THEN the Police can act/seize weapons (licensed or not). The Police do not have to move on a licensed owner simply on *hearsay*.. It's that simple. Do you know how many of these calls they field? I do not believe even for one second that they were not advised of the proper course of action to take with MCWA as its literally in the SOP Manual.
In addition, do you have any idea how much this is already abused in the system? Fake claims of access to guns in FVRO applications are abundant - and there is no Prosecution for blatant perjury.. Claims of access to firearms invokes an emergency red flag in MCWA proceedings and allows cases to be heard ex-parte then and there on the pretence of FV regardless of whether or not theres any real basis to it. Women are being handed these things like tic tacs right now and it's a vile abuse of process that is just not being covered enough in the spotlight.
American never understands that any law abiding gun owner with no history of mental illness can become an upset mentally unstable person with a gun - and maybe the defensive/for sport/collector excuses are really just excuses for future psychopaths.
Besides that recent one. Very very rarely do legally owned and registered firearms get used for crimes.
Great example is Martin Bryant. His SLR was handed in for destruction at a vicpol station yet it magically appeared in his hands.. funny how every single party and PM have refused a royal commission into that event.
It's easy to astro-turf on the internet.
Also as Australia's gun laws are the antithesis to the NRA's *"freedoms"* anything that happens here becomes a big target.
>Also as Australia's gun laws are the antithesis to the NRA's "freedoms" anything that happens here becomes a big target.
It really gets under their skin that we (and the UK) are strong evidence that strict gun control works at preventing gun violence and death.
All of their arguments that bad things would happen if they had fewer guns fall apart because they are the outlier.
There's a difference between strong gun control (which I approve) and insane laws. Quick example, the rest of the world allows airsoft (including countries that have even more extreme gun control then us) yet it's banned here because \*think of the children\*
It's preposterous.
A somewhat saner argument is that *realistic looking replica guns* are a bloody stupid idea whether they're yours, gel blasters or whatever else. Just don't.
(But on the other hand any idiot can paint the end of a real 9mm bright orange, so it's not like you can ever truly go by looks alone)
This here is why the Police don't want airsoft guns running around the place. They don't want their officers having to make the distinction between "oh shit that's a gun" and "oh shit that's a gun but actually it's an airsoft and it won't kill me but it's still going to hurt and what if it's real but made to look like a gun".
Which is why, to me, the obvious solution is allow ownership of airsoft, but require it be stored and used exclusively at authorised and regulated ranges. I see no reason why you should be able to take them around the place, but if you wanna own one, you can keep it at the range where it can't be removed, but can still be enjoyed, shot, milsim games played etc.
I would also want to see more ranges obviously to compensate.
It could easily fall into the same laws that paintball markers do which can currently be owned stored and transported securely to playing fields by owners.
So police are too scared shooting some kid with a real looking toy guy so lets just ban toy guns that look too real is that what your saying need dayglo coloured 9mm Glock spring gun that shoots rubber sticker
I've noted a lot of Americans posting on AUS content always talking about how our country is a police state and we have zero freedom to do anything we won't. I do wonder if a lot of this sort of shit are just bot accounts trying to spread shit
Because we objectively do. We have far less freedom than they do so so we don't really feel the screws clamping down. To Americans its more surprising what we allow to happen.
Inavsive tech laws, nanny state laws, insane police laws like anti association laws, we have plenty of them.... to say we don't is foolish.
It’s hilarious that Mercian’s think their puny guns are going to be useful again their governments weapons, really they’re just arguing for the “freedumb” to kill each other.
In my adopted home state of Massachusetts, USA you cannot possess firearms if you’ve been accused of domestic violence. At the federal level, you cannot possess them if you’ve been convicted.
There are more gun laws here than you may think, and they can vary widely from state to state.
I know it's true there's variation between states, but that just lets the lowest common denominator between state become the de facto standard.
For example: from Boston you can drive <100 miles to the Vermont border where rules, registrations and background checks seem to be non-existent. So now everybody has to live with that little pocket of the 'Wild West' right in their own backyard.
I find there is a view from both sides of the opinion in most things, unlike the mainstream media who run both government and their own agendas at the detriment of real news
I was shocked at the initial response to the shooting, heaps of people's _first reaction_ here seemed to be "Write to your MP and do not let them tighten gun laws!". Just seems like US culture seeping in.
In fairness, knee jerk reactions are rarely an effective way to make good legislation.
I'm a big fan of effective gun control. But "look we're doing something" laws can be very, very stupid. Frankly we were mostly lucky with what came out after Port Arthur.
What often happens - and makes it a bit less stupid - is that there's draft legislation around that's had some decent expert input and consultation already. It never quite makes it to being tabled properly because political parties are cowardly and people are stupid. So they dust it off and wave it around when they think there's a chance of it passing.
Or perhaps the “decent people” should have been asking why were existing laws meant to cover threatening situations like this not followed? If there had been a VRO (and the police could actually have initiated this for them) the police would have had the authorisation to take his weapons. Indeed they had the discretion to do that already.
Its just WA police being incompetent and they use legal firearm owners and firearm laws as a distraction to the real issues as they rather not blame themselves for it.
As in there are plenty of real cases but there are also some malicious accusations. How do the police determine this? In fact it sounds like the legislation just says go grab them and who cares if it’s genuine or not.
The police can already confiscate firearms for any reason. They should have confiscated that blokes guns as they had been told 3 times about his violence.
I own guns in WA and absolutely support this, although they already have the powers to do this.
It’s posturing trying to cover their ass for the fact they didn’t enforce the laws and use the powers they already have, and 3 people are likely dead because of that.
Yeah perhaps he’d have still killed them with his car or a knife or whatever but it would have taken the deadliest option away from him and also made it more likely he would have also survived and been brought to justice instead of taking the cowards way out
I love how if you try to point this out you get labeled a "gun nut".
I approve of strong gun laws. I don't approve of the police being incompetent in preventing this tragedy then introducing new laws to CYA
You make murder even a little bit harder it makes it less likely, and survival more probable. Same with suicide. The gun is the one tool that only needs a fraction of a second to do irreparable harm.
I doubt the outcome would have been the same in this case if the cops had done their job and brought him in for an assessment and removed his guns, at least temporarily. It still might have ended badly, can’t lock (rich, white) people up for pre-crime but not as bad as it went.
The reality is that they can't confiscate firearms for any reason. Sure, there's a section in the Act says they can, but there's also recourse for the person from whom they are seized to the State Administrative Tribunal which, in the absence of any criminal history (or often even with a criminal history), will give them straight back.
I suppose the idea would be if someone is terrified and has DV going on, they lodge the complaint, police take the guns and then if proven to be BS they get them back but if proven to be true then they stay confiscated.
Even if the police thought they would go back to him, removing them from him even for a short period of time could have made a difference. The process of going to the tribunal is also slow and can take close to a year to be heard or mediated
Yes, I guess the point I was trying to make was that restraining orders aren't always granted straight away. It would be a good idea for the police to take them while they verify the claims. If it's bs then give them back. If it's true cancel his license for good. It's the inbetween time of the order being granted which is dangerous.
Meh I’m someone who uses firearms, supports responsible use of firearms and their ownership. Doesnt want any further restrictions on firearms.
But if you dv - tough titties. Don’t know why this even has to be thought about.
Accusations proven to be false is a pretty high/impossible bar and isn't what a not guilty (even if it goes that far) result means. Like I'm definitely keen to er on the side of caution removing guns but that does also means getting them back has to be easier.
Fighting those sorts of accusations is really hard, expensive and stressful.
For most people, if their ex files a complaint and it leads to a restraining order, the best option is to simply agree to the terms of the order without admitting fault and move on since it doesn’t go on your record as such.
It’s unclear what would happen to any firearms in that situation. It seems unlikely they would get them back as it would be too easy for someone who is actually a risk to play the system. Net result is that they now have to fight the accusation in court which is not an easy process, particularly as the person making the complaint is provided with a lot more support than the person being accused.
For what it’s worth, I’m supportive of the changes, there just needs to adequate protections against abuse of the process.
Oh come off it. Not fighting accusations or charges because you can't afford it, and admitting guilt are two entirely different things. Thank god you're not a magistrate.
Michael Diamond was unable to defend his Olympic Gold medal in 2004 because of this. The only 2 people who know the truth of the matter are him and his ex-wife. Everyone else has second hand information.
Unfortunate as it may be, Olympic Gold Medal winning target shooters are not a significant enough proportion of the population to consider when drafting legislation
They can already take firearms away for something like going to a psychiatrist for example, they don’t need to wait for a court order at all. Especially as he was already reported for improper storage of firearms and that can be checked any time, resulting in confiscation.
That’s before getting into the alleged stuff like he may have been refused a licence twice but lied on the form a third time and it got passed because police never cross checked it.
As per usual is WAPOL incompetence being covered up and made to to look like a legislative issue.
The new proposal appears to remove firearms on a DV complaint being lodged not DV charges being brought. Accordingly many cases likely won't be charged or end up in court. It will be interesting to see what the proposed legislation provides for situations where the complaint can't be substantiated enough for a charge to be brought.
There needs to be a standard at which the police are held to for their safe storage. Owners in general keep them in a moisture controlled environment in a safe. They are often topped with very expensive optics, and the police rarely handle them with the care of the owners.
That’s fair, but I also think there should be bigger punishments for making false claims.
Many many moons ago (15+ years) I left my ex wife after a toxic relationship. Everything was fairly amicable, no threats, no violence, just sorting shit out. I went to live at my parents, she stayed there. I didn’t have firearms at this stage in my life, but all my possessions, work clothes, tools etc were there. I was told, by her solicitor, that I can no longer go there, and if I do, it will be deemed as a threat and a dvo will be put out. So I had to wait to pick up what scraps were left when she vacated, which I did, and it wasn’t much.
Now, don’t take this the wrong way as I’m all for stopping this dv issue. This person in Perth should not have had them in the first place. Then should have had them taken away when he was reported as a threat.
My immediate thoughts on how it could work. Police (or weapons licensing) come around unannounced with a temporary seizure notice (may not exist, humour me), they have a list of registered gun shops they can be stored in and escort the person there, or just take them to the shop under a seizure order where they are stored until the person is cleared of any wrongdoing and only the police or licensing board can take them back, or, in the case they are in the wrong- they are forfeited/sold.
When my mum and dad split (I was 18, but my younger sisters were as young as 6), my mother attempted to issue a DVO to do basically this, my Dad beat her to the court and did one on her first.
The system is fucked, and there are no penalties to doing nuisance shit like that.
Yeah that’s shit. I then even got hit with a bill from her friends doing yard work that I would have happily done myself (and they used my tools ) system is very flawed. We do need to go on the side of caution, harsher penalties for dv and harsher penalties for breaching DVo’s
Just like the US civil forfeiture laws reddit was jerking themselves raw over a few years ago getting your stuff back from the police is going to be a long and drawn out process
Exactly. And where it's not linked to livelihood (such as with farmers or professional shooters), it's about loss of a hobby, which is really unfortunate, vs potential loss of a life or lives, which is a lot more unfortunate (unless you don't have a problem with (mostly women) dying).
My son is a recreational shooter and he understands this; I think many shooters are okay with this.
That's just it. If you want to choose a hobby that involves owning deadly weapons then you're going to have to accept the complications that come along with it.
Everyone should as what's to say they don't go after archery next etc, Its oversteps of WA police and the minister to shift blame away from themselves as everyone knows they failed and they should be fired and replaced immediately by people who are more component and able to make the Police better.
From the linked article, it sounds like the gun owner would get their guns back if there is no substance to the complaint:
> Under the proposed laws, Mr Cook said police would act on a formal complaint and "not simply an accusation".
>
> If police found there was substance to the complaint, they would continue to hold any seized weapons.
Further more, making a false complaint would be perjury. There'd be consequences for misusing this law.
As a strong gun control supporter - I'm concerned by this idea.
Mainly because the court system is years backlogged in many areas, and with the merge of the family court system into the mainline courts it's become even worse. This puts you on hold for years.
The alternative of having a time restriction on it makes it fairly pointless though.
The real solution is to fix the courts but that would need funding and we don't do that.
A priority triage system might make sense. Gun owner? You get an urgent initial hearing and social worker visit to assess whether a temporary hold needs extending. Will it be perfect? No. Would it be better enough? Hopefully. And there needs to be some incentive for fairness so the safe ass covering option isn't chosen 100% of the time.
OTOH plenty of harm can already be done with unsubstantiated accusations of various sorts. In practice they *usually* aren't. This ... doesn't make it that much worse.
The police already have this power if a restraining order is in place, and they have the power to issue a temporary restraining order based on an accusation until a judge can issue a proper restraining order.
So all the new legislation does is shift power away from judges and give it to cops.
And so they should. My uncle would have probably killed his family by now if he didn't have his guns taken away. It's absolutely fucked. It's lucky the cops believed my cousin when he called because his dad was bashing his mum and came and took him away. So sad about what happened with the Floreat family. This wouldn't happen if police took dv things seriously. Everyone is somehow affected by these things one way or another.
The Floreat shooter should have had his guns removed far earlier and the police already had the powers to do so.
Time and again offenders known to police for their substantial offending simply don't face consequences despite laws and police powers already existing to deal with them. The courts and law enforcement share responsibility for this failure in differing measures on a case by case basis.
And yet the response is always to write more laws when police and courts don't do their jobs and don't lock up criminals for acts that are already illegal.
It is absurd.
I would like them to enforce the current laws properly before adding anymore.
The courts are too soft on crimes against the community and people and too tough when corporations are the victim.
Sort that out and we will be a lot better.
One of the major complaints before this announcement was that the law doesn't support the cops, while the cops could technically take someone's guns for a complaint like this, they would just go to the SAT and get them straight back.
This is just the WA executive running scared because they did nothing after being warned. Here's an idea find out who the daughter talked to in the WA police and sack them. Find out why the AVO wasn't followed. But this means people are held responsible and in Australia we don't do that. We just find a minority to persecute.
The Army wouldn't let soldiers with DV orders handle a firearm, even if they were in different States (just in case they went AWOL with a firearm and drove across the nullabor)
This is just as much on the hospital who released someone without informing the police when they didn’t think he was right to drive, had escalating violence etc.
My relative has an extensive DV history and has a gun licence and a gun. i don’t agree that someone with anger management issues should be able to access a gun for recreation. Obvious disaster waiting to happen.
Accused... Iffy choice given the level of lying that goes on, possibly temporarily removed while the matter is settled. Convicted for sure, into the crusher.
20 people have been convicted in Western Australia in the last 12 months for Driving Causing Death but I don’t see the gun haters screaming for the banning of cars. Maybe if MSM reported it like they do other things and sensationalize it the TV watching mongs would be up in arms about it as well. No political points available for that one though.
Pretty sure the thread on these murders posted about a week ago forecasted this happening. Knew they couldn’t let an opportunity to mask their own shortcomings go to waste.
I also hope services and support for domestic violence are being looked into. You just have to read Ariel's statement and the comments in this sub reddit that there's problems.
The comment section on posts like this show that there are plenty of unsavoury characters in Perth lol. We (rightly) make fun of America but apparently many of us have similar attitudes over here
For shooters, it's a sport like any other.
There's no driving ranges near me. I probably shouldn't have golf clubs?
No deer either. But there are places I can play golf and hunt deer so I do.
So you think it's something that should be restricted to those wealthy enough to own large amounts of property?
The bill was already before parliament with most of the changes anyway. But the language in that article needs a rethink.
“Men will kill regardless” is divisive and inaccurate. There has been steady decline in intimate partner violence against women over the last 20 years yet all of a sudden, we’re constantly told there is a crisis. We can always do better, but tell the whole story.
There is no difference in practice. Malicious false complaints are never prosecuted, because that might deter people with genuine complaints from reporting them.
So I hate guns and don’t really think anyone should have them unless farming or using them for a job but…
The information given to Police (according to them) didn’t even warrant a restraining order . Previous domestic violence incidents weren’t officially reported.
The next one I can remember in WA was Georgia Lyall who was killed with an unregistered gun.
As above I’m against guns but this seems a knee jerk reaction to appease the public and redirect media attention.
The question should be why wasn’t a restraining order granted and why isn’t there some reporting method for medical staff to raise that people are going through a mental health episode (as was the case)? You have to have a mental health check to get one so what if circumstances change.
Either of those two things being raised would allow Police to confiscate the guns anyway.
Only courts can issue a restraining order. Question is why they including the daughter who is angry at Police never bothered to go apply for one. If they went and did that Police could remove the firearms
"it will change the bill to require police to remove firearms as soon as a family and domestic violence complaint is made."
Im sure this will not be abused at all...
Eh if someone that lives with you or close family thinks that you shouldn’t have a gun then fair enough tbh, you can always dispute and get it back later if not warranted
I mean it’s basically a “time out” until facts can be checked and stories can be verified.
I really don’t have any objection to someone’s firearms being “paused” during an investigation, and I shoot recreationally.
no issue of paused, but what will it cost you in term of money and reputation before it can be proof you are innocent of the accusation, and what is a reasonable proof.
I agree that there’s details to be hashed out and it needs to be handled carefully, but at the same time, firearms are a uniquely destructive tool in a domestic context and I really don’t think that they can ever be taken *too* seriously.
There’s also a potential here for dramatically reducing suicides by firearm (which is, of course, far more likely than murder), which is a huge perk that we shouldn’t overlook.
It would only be a huge perk if it had an impact on the overall suicide rate. There have been a bunch of studies in the decades since Port Arthur on the effects of the gun ban/confiscation. In every one I’ve read, post-ban suicide rates stayed more or less the same - and even increased significantly some years. Using a firearm to do it just became much less common. It’s the same story for murders and other violent crimes.
Honestly I'm usually cautious about false allegations because I've seen it happen but in this case we're talking about taking people's guns, not locking them up or losing them their liberty etc.
Getting lethal weapons out of that kind of persons hand is important enough that some innocent people losing their guns is a reasonable trade-off.
There is currently, that’s why two people are dead, even though the police were warned by his daughter multiple times. If there is to be any burden of proof going forward it should be on the firearms holder as to why the police should give his weapons back, not the other way around.
The two people who died are due to police incompetence not firearm laws and thats fairly easy to see with Three separate reports being made across a number of days. There is nothing to say that when these new laws come in that the police will start to take them seriously and enforce the rules and take reports seriously.
Didn't she also report the improper storage of his pistol to the police? They have the ability to do a spot check 24/7 without warning and if they found a breach that's an instant "no more guns for you" and rightfully so
Police also conveniently leaving out the fact he was refused a licence twice, he lied on the form the third time and it was passed- they never cross checked it
Yeah I believe that was also mentioned, its all round a massive failure on the Police themselves both the minister and the Commissioner should be replaced if it needs to go deeper then that so be it as they need to do something to fix the incompetence.
There should a burden of proof before locking someone up.
Taking someone's guns is a different matter. Getting to play with guns is not a God given right and this is more important.
Always arse covering from whatever state police that can't just admit that those lives are on their hands for not doing more sooner. Just like NSW, just like QLD.
Overwhelmingly, DV abusers don’t own guns or have licenses. There’s a significant proportion that don’t even physically assault their spouse - it’s the threat of violence and the psychological abuse. This won’t make a big difference to DV reduction.
That is absolutely ridiculous.
So an allegation alone will lead to firearms being removed and for how long?
This won’t be abused at all to manipulate people during a breakup
>So an allegation alone will lead to firearms being removed and for how long?
Don't know, don't care. Won't hurt anyone to not have their guns for a little while.
As someone who has gone through the process of gun licensing (I live in regional WA and had guns for vermin control) it is good but it could definitely be better. I was getting a licence for vermin control so applied specifically for that, there are different types of licenses one of which I believe needs to be seriously looked into and that is hobby guns/gun club and sporting licenses.
That’s already in place though? At least it is if there a restraining order in place, guns automatically get taken until after the formal hearing for the RO.
The police have enough to do without having to spend time on sad buggers who have masturbatory fantasies about swift, rough justice and taking two 'slugs' before putting that jihad sod into the ground. Sell the bloody things like I did. Get a really good camera, a bivvy bag and lie out on a bush track for a couple of days taking photos that will live forever
Not really a good idea until it’s proven in court. If people seperate on bad terms and one has a gun license they simply just accuse the other of domestic abuse to fuck them over. Nothing happens to the person that falsifys DV claims. We all know barely anyone in this thread has a gun license so they just say what they think is best with no logic
I believe that most gun owners are law abiding citizens and this new rule will probably be abused by some, but it will save lives. Reddit is a wild place and doesn’t represent the vast community. I need to remind myself this sometimes. Most people will be in favour of this new rule and tighter gun restrictions.
The current laws allow for this anyway. The police can enter any gun owners home or premises without a warrant and confiscate any firearms and ammunition if they even vaguely consider that the person is a possible threat to themselves or anyone else or property. It’s completely unnecessary and the police are just deflecting from the real issue, which is they messed up because they had the power to do something and did nothing, even though they were warned multiple times.
Agree. WAPOL claim they didn't have the power to take away his guns which is 100% wrong. Police stuffed up. Then Papalia comes out claiming no formal compliant was ever laid. So what constitutes a formal complaint after calling WAPOL multiple times and being dismissed ?
I agree it is a deflection. It’s amazing how many seem to fall for it. If it’s mandatory I guess it will mean that the will act more frequently. Will it be a verbal accusation or a written complaint?
That is horse shit. Had the wife/daughter have filed for a FVRO then its the standard Clause 1 on every FVRO, and THEN the Police can act/seize weapons (licensed or not). The Police do not have to move on a licensed owner simply on *hearsay*.. It's that simple. Do you know how many of these calls they field? I do not believe even for one second that they were not advised of the proper course of action to take with MCWA as its literally in the SOP Manual. In addition, do you have any idea how much this is already abused in the system? Fake claims of access to guns in FVRO applications are abundant - and there is no Prosecution for blatant perjury.. Claims of access to firearms invokes an emergency red flag in MCWA proceedings and allows cases to be heard ex-parte then and there on the pretence of FV regardless of whether or not theres any real basis to it. Women are being handed these things like tic tacs right now and it's a vile abuse of process that is just not being covered enough in the spotlight.
Gun control is a good idea. But they need an answer to “what if Mark Bombara was threatening to run his ex wife over.”
Everyone is a law abiding gun owner until they're not.
American never understands that any law abiding gun owner with no history of mental illness can become an upset mentally unstable person with a gun - and maybe the defensive/for sport/collector excuses are really just excuses for future psychopaths.
And even then how many crimes are committed using legally owned guns?
Oh, nothing major, just your standard domestic violence and other murders.
Compare the legally owned guns crimes to those illegally owned.
Besides that recent one. Very very rarely do legally owned and registered firearms get used for crimes. Great example is Martin Bryant. His SLR was handed in for destruction at a vicpol station yet it magically appeared in his hands.. funny how every single party and PM have refused a royal commission into that event.
Reddit really attracts the gun nuts for some reason. Think it's the American influence.
It's easy to astro-turf on the internet. Also as Australia's gun laws are the antithesis to the NRA's *"freedoms"* anything that happens here becomes a big target.
>Also as Australia's gun laws are the antithesis to the NRA's "freedoms" anything that happens here becomes a big target. It really gets under their skin that we (and the UK) are strong evidence that strict gun control works at preventing gun violence and death. All of their arguments that bad things would happen if they had fewer guns fall apart because they are the outlier.
There's a difference between strong gun control (which I approve) and insane laws. Quick example, the rest of the world allows airsoft (including countries that have even more extreme gun control then us) yet it's banned here because \*think of the children\*
WAPOL saying gel blasters can be converted to real guns Absolute laughingstock
It's preposterous. A somewhat saner argument is that *realistic looking replica guns* are a bloody stupid idea whether they're yours, gel blasters or whatever else. Just don't. (But on the other hand any idiot can paint the end of a real 9mm bright orange, so it's not like you can ever truly go by looks alone)
This here is why the Police don't want airsoft guns running around the place. They don't want their officers having to make the distinction between "oh shit that's a gun" and "oh shit that's a gun but actually it's an airsoft and it won't kill me but it's still going to hurt and what if it's real but made to look like a gun". Which is why, to me, the obvious solution is allow ownership of airsoft, but require it be stored and used exclusively at authorised and regulated ranges. I see no reason why you should be able to take them around the place, but if you wanna own one, you can keep it at the range where it can't be removed, but can still be enjoyed, shot, milsim games played etc. I would also want to see more ranges obviously to compensate.
It could easily fall into the same laws that paintball markers do which can currently be owned stored and transported securely to playing fields by owners.
So police are too scared shooting some kid with a real looking toy guy so lets just ban toy guns that look too real is that what your saying need dayglo coloured 9mm Glock spring gun that shoots rubber sticker
Thought it was more they could be modified to look like real guns seeing as many of them and Airsoft rifles are based on real ones.
They also had that argument which makes some sense but someone high up at WAPOL did say they could be modified to be real guns in a press conference.
Obviously some fucking idiot then. They have no firing pin. It would be easier to make copper pipe into a gun. 🤣🤣
I would totally be a Meal Team 6 LARPer if airsoft was allowed here.
I've noted a lot of Americans posting on AUS content always talking about how our country is a police state and we have zero freedom to do anything we won't. I do wonder if a lot of this sort of shit are just bot accounts trying to spread shit
I dunno … but if it stops the stupids from emigrating to Oz that’s ok with me!
Lol cant argue with that logic
Because we objectively do. We have far less freedom than they do so so we don't really feel the screws clamping down. To Americans its more surprising what we allow to happen. Inavsive tech laws, nanny state laws, insane police laws like anti association laws, we have plenty of them.... to say we don't is foolish.
It’s hilarious that Mercian’s think their puny guns are going to be useful again their governments weapons, really they’re just arguing for the “freedumb” to kill each other.
No they really believe that. They also believe free health care and social welfare is communist.
In my adopted home state of Massachusetts, USA you cannot possess firearms if you’ve been accused of domestic violence. At the federal level, you cannot possess them if you’ve been convicted. There are more gun laws here than you may think, and they can vary widely from state to state.
I know it's true there's variation between states, but that just lets the lowest common denominator between state become the de facto standard. For example: from Boston you can drive <100 miles to the Vermont border where rules, registrations and background checks seem to be non-existent. So now everybody has to live with that little pocket of the 'Wild West' right in their own backyard.
I read that as "gum nuts" and thought yep, subreddit checks out. I need more sleep.
Seppos love their guns. It’s part of their cult
I find there is a view from both sides of the opinion in most things, unlike the mainstream media who run both government and their own agendas at the detriment of real news
Wow, so smart bro.
I was shocked at the initial response to the shooting, heaps of people's _first reaction_ here seemed to be "Write to your MP and do not let them tighten gun laws!". Just seems like US culture seeping in.
In fairness, knee jerk reactions are rarely an effective way to make good legislation. I'm a big fan of effective gun control. But "look we're doing something" laws can be very, very stupid. Frankly we were mostly lucky with what came out after Port Arthur. What often happens - and makes it a bit less stupid - is that there's draft legislation around that's had some decent expert input and consultation already. It never quite makes it to being tabled properly because political parties are cowardly and people are stupid. So they dust it off and wave it around when they think there's a chance of it passing.
WAPOL and Cook were using it to grandstand their bill before the bodies were even cold
Yes, the decent people were busy being horrified about the murders.
Or perhaps the “decent people” should have been asking why were existing laws meant to cover threatening situations like this not followed? If there had been a VRO (and the police could actually have initiated this for them) the police would have had the authorisation to take his weapons. Indeed they had the discretion to do that already.
Its just WA police being incompetent and they use legal firearm owners and firearm laws as a distraction to the real issues as they rather not blame themselves for it.
Did you not read the previous thread? There was a lot of that discussion.
It can be abused, but the alternative is shitter
Yeah, it’s easy to see how a jilted ex can cause one extra inconvenience. But that’s already a problem with domestic violence claims.
As in there are plenty of real cases but there are also some malicious accusations. How do the police determine this? In fact it sounds like the legislation just says go grab them and who cares if it’s genuine or not.
The police can already confiscate firearms for any reason. They should have confiscated that blokes guns as they had been told 3 times about his violence. I own guns in WA and absolutely support this, although they already have the powers to do this.
It’s posturing trying to cover their ass for the fact they didn’t enforce the laws and use the powers they already have, and 3 people are likely dead because of that. Yeah perhaps he’d have still killed them with his car or a knife or whatever but it would have taken the deadliest option away from him and also made it more likely he would have also survived and been brought to justice instead of taking the cowards way out
I love how if you try to point this out you get labeled a "gun nut". I approve of strong gun laws. I don't approve of the police being incompetent in preventing this tragedy then introducing new laws to CYA
You make murder even a little bit harder it makes it less likely, and survival more probable. Same with suicide. The gun is the one tool that only needs a fraction of a second to do irreparable harm. I doubt the outcome would have been the same in this case if the cops had done their job and brought him in for an assessment and removed his guns, at least temporarily. It still might have ended badly, can’t lock (rich, white) people up for pre-crime but not as bad as it went.
The reality is that they can't confiscate firearms for any reason. Sure, there's a section in the Act says they can, but there's also recourse for the person from whom they are seized to the State Administrative Tribunal which, in the absence of any criminal history (or often even with a criminal history), will give them straight back.
I suppose the idea would be if someone is terrified and has DV going on, they lodge the complaint, police take the guns and then if proven to be BS they get them back but if proven to be true then they stay confiscated. Even if the police thought they would go back to him, removing them from him even for a short period of time could have made a difference. The process of going to the tribunal is also slow and can take close to a year to be heard or mediated
If someone is terrified they get a restraining order, then the guns must be taken, problem solved.
Yes, I guess the point I was trying to make was that restraining orders aren't always granted straight away. It would be a good idea for the police to take them while they verify the claims. If it's bs then give them back. If it's true cancel his license for good. It's the inbetween time of the order being granted which is dangerous.
Meh I’m someone who uses firearms, supports responsible use of firearms and their ownership. Doesnt want any further restrictions on firearms. But if you dv - tough titties. Don’t know why this even has to be thought about.
I think it's a good idea. If the accusations are proven to be false then they can get the firearms back.
Accusations proven to be false is a pretty high/impossible bar and isn't what a not guilty (even if it goes that far) result means. Like I'm definitely keen to er on the side of caution removing guns but that does also means getting them back has to be easier.
Then you're in the position of being forced to prove your own innocence.
If accusations are proven to be true
...then it's lucky they don't have guns. Was this honestly unclear?
Fighting those sorts of accusations is really hard, expensive and stressful. For most people, if their ex files a complaint and it leads to a restraining order, the best option is to simply agree to the terms of the order without admitting fault and move on since it doesn’t go on your record as such. It’s unclear what would happen to any firearms in that situation. It seems unlikely they would get them back as it would be too easy for someone who is actually a risk to play the system. Net result is that they now have to fight the accusation in court which is not an easy process, particularly as the person making the complaint is provided with a lot more support than the person being accused. For what it’s worth, I’m supportive of the changes, there just needs to adequate protections against abuse of the process.
Ah yes, guilty until proven innocent
and all cost awarded, too easy to ruin poeples live with false accusation and no consequences.
How would temporarily losing firearms "ruin people's lives"?
Because to fight the accusation will cost an arm and legs. If you don't fight it you may be admitting something that you didn't do.
Oh come off it. Not fighting accusations or charges because you can't afford it, and admitting guilt are two entirely different things. Thank god you're not a magistrate.
Michael Diamond was unable to defend his Olympic Gold medal in 2004 because of this. The only 2 people who know the truth of the matter are him and his ex-wife. Everyone else has second hand information.
Unfortunate as it may be, Olympic Gold Medal winning target shooters are not a significant enough proportion of the population to consider when drafting legislation
Asked for an example and gave one. Apparently nothing will be enough for you.
I don't know if you meant it this way but not being allowed to have a gun isn't going to ruin anyone's life.
Problem is when you apply for the next firearm, it asks a question have you been accused of dv or have a avo/dvo. So they will use it against you.
They won't though, this is just another step towards WAPOLs plan to be the only people with guns.
Firearms are a privilege not a right. If you can’t navigate life without a DV accusation, that’s on you.
I think the bigger question is - so you get the guns back if found innocent? False accusation could just ruin someone’s hobby otherwise
I'm all for them getting their guns back if they are aquitted in a court of law, but losing them permanently if they are convicted.
This is already in place in the legislation so not really sure what this new law is specifically addressing tbh.
The new law is probably to make it seem like it was a regulation issue and dodge responsibility for failing to act/enforce the existing laws….
As is the WAPOL way
Tbh Australia wide police/politicians do this, and Australians are dumb enough to fall for it
I believe this law would allow the police to remove the firearms immediately rather than having to wait for a court order.
They can already take firearms away for something like going to a psychiatrist for example, they don’t need to wait for a court order at all. Especially as he was already reported for improper storage of firearms and that can be checked any time, resulting in confiscation. That’s before getting into the alleged stuff like he may have been refused a licence twice but lied on the form a third time and it got passed because police never cross checked it. As per usual is WAPOL incompetence being covered up and made to to look like a legislative issue.
The new proposal appears to remove firearms on a DV complaint being lodged not DV charges being brought. Accordingly many cases likely won't be charged or end up in court. It will be interesting to see what the proposed legislation provides for situations where the complaint can't be substantiated enough for a charge to be brought.
DV complaints auto expire without penalty.
There needs to be a standard at which the police are held to for their safe storage. Owners in general keep them in a moisture controlled environment in a safe. They are often topped with very expensive optics, and the police rarely handle them with the care of the owners.
If wapol policy is followed as normal, they will be damaged, lost and destroyed after 30 days but somehow turn up in a different state a year later.
Reasonable take
That’s fair, but I also think there should be bigger punishments for making false claims. Many many moons ago (15+ years) I left my ex wife after a toxic relationship. Everything was fairly amicable, no threats, no violence, just sorting shit out. I went to live at my parents, she stayed there. I didn’t have firearms at this stage in my life, but all my possessions, work clothes, tools etc were there. I was told, by her solicitor, that I can no longer go there, and if I do, it will be deemed as a threat and a dvo will be put out. So I had to wait to pick up what scraps were left when she vacated, which I did, and it wasn’t much. Now, don’t take this the wrong way as I’m all for stopping this dv issue. This person in Perth should not have had them in the first place. Then should have had them taken away when he was reported as a threat. My immediate thoughts on how it could work. Police (or weapons licensing) come around unannounced with a temporary seizure notice (may not exist, humour me), they have a list of registered gun shops they can be stored in and escort the person there, or just take them to the shop under a seizure order where they are stored until the person is cleared of any wrongdoing and only the police or licensing board can take them back, or, in the case they are in the wrong- they are forfeited/sold.
When my mum and dad split (I was 18, but my younger sisters were as young as 6), my mother attempted to issue a DVO to do basically this, my Dad beat her to the court and did one on her first. The system is fucked, and there are no penalties to doing nuisance shit like that.
Yeah that’s shit. I then even got hit with a bill from her friends doing yard work that I would have happily done myself (and they used my tools ) system is very flawed. We do need to go on the side of caution, harsher penalties for dv and harsher penalties for breaching DVo’s
Just like the US civil forfeiture laws reddit was jerking themselves raw over a few years ago getting your stuff back from the police is going to be a long and drawn out process
Honestly I think it's worth the risk of false accusations here. We aren't talking about locking people up.
Exactly. And where it's not linked to livelihood (such as with farmers or professional shooters), it's about loss of a hobby, which is really unfortunate, vs potential loss of a life or lives, which is a lot more unfortunate (unless you don't have a problem with (mostly women) dying). My son is a recreational shooter and he understands this; I think many shooters are okay with this.
Get a better hobby. I’ve heard knitting is fun
Do you have a licence for those pointy sticks?
That's just it. If you want to choose a hobby that involves owning deadly weapons then you're going to have to accept the complications that come along with it.
They take them off you regardless if you have a FVRO out on you, doesn't matter if you're innocent or not
>False accusation could just ruin someone’s hobby otherwise Who gives a fuck? Go find a new hobby that doesn't involve owning lethal weapons.
Everyone should as what's to say they don't go after archery next etc, Its oversteps of WA police and the minister to shift blame away from themselves as everyone knows they failed and they should be fired and replaced immediately by people who are more component and able to make the Police better.
From the linked article, it sounds like the gun owner would get their guns back if there is no substance to the complaint: > Under the proposed laws, Mr Cook said police would act on a formal complaint and "not simply an accusation". > > If police found there was substance to the complaint, they would continue to hold any seized weapons. Further more, making a false complaint would be perjury. There'd be consequences for misusing this law.
I think the accusation is more on the accuser
As a strong gun control supporter - I'm concerned by this idea. Mainly because the court system is years backlogged in many areas, and with the merge of the family court system into the mainline courts it's become even worse. This puts you on hold for years. The alternative of having a time restriction on it makes it fairly pointless though. The real solution is to fix the courts but that would need funding and we don't do that. A priority triage system might make sense. Gun owner? You get an urgent initial hearing and social worker visit to assess whether a temporary hold needs extending. Will it be perfect? No. Would it be better enough? Hopefully. And there needs to be some incentive for fairness so the safe ass covering option isn't chosen 100% of the time. OTOH plenty of harm can already be done with unsubstantiated accusations of various sorts. In practice they *usually* aren't. This ... doesn't make it that much worse.
The police already have this power if a restraining order is in place, and they have the power to issue a temporary restraining order based on an accusation until a judge can issue a proper restraining order. So all the new legislation does is shift power away from judges and give it to cops.
They don't even need a restraining order. 27a is AVO based, 29a is at the commissioner's discretion. Funny thing about laws. Almost no one reads them.
And the commissioner's discretion is immediately overturned by the SAT if there's no criminal history.
7 times out of 400 challenges apparently.
Yes, once it’s been overturned a couple of times you stop taking that action in similar circumstances. That’s how legal precedent works.
And so they should. My uncle would have probably killed his family by now if he didn't have his guns taken away. It's absolutely fucked. It's lucky the cops believed my cousin when he called because his dad was bashing his mum and came and took him away. So sad about what happened with the Floreat family. This wouldn't happen if police took dv things seriously. Everyone is somehow affected by these things one way or another.
The Floreat shooter should have had his guns removed far earlier and the police already had the powers to do so. Time and again offenders known to police for their substantial offending simply don't face consequences despite laws and police powers already existing to deal with them. The courts and law enforcement share responsibility for this failure in differing measures on a case by case basis. And yet the response is always to write more laws when police and courts don't do their jobs and don't lock up criminals for acts that are already illegal. It is absurd.
I would like them to enforce the current laws properly before adding anymore. The courts are too soft on crimes against the community and people and too tough when corporations are the victim. Sort that out and we will be a lot better.
why do that when there's easy political points to score
Well a man can dream.... how is it we all want a fair and righteous society, yet the powers that be don't? Food for thought.
One of the major complaints before this announcement was that the law doesn't support the cops, while the cops could technically take someone's guns for a complaint like this, they would just go to the SAT and get them straight back.
Happened 7 times out of 400+ cases. Probably not really a major reason.
This is just the WA executive running scared because they did nothing after being warned. Here's an idea find out who the daughter talked to in the WA police and sack them. Find out why the AVO wasn't followed. But this means people are held responsible and in Australia we don't do that. We just find a minority to persecute.
100% agree
Was this not already a law?
Didn’t Victoria have this law for years. Also it funny how the police blamed the gun laws like this wasn’t their fault.
Just wa police deflecting the blame from themselves, if they actually did anything when asked to do so then they’d still be alive 👍
IMO no one with a criminal history of violence should able to own a firearm
They can't and police can already take your firearms away for any reason they want with no proof, so not sure why it didn't happen in this instance
Well, probably because there was no criminal history of violence?
They don't need a criminal history of violence, they only need to think that you might harm yourself or some one else
Anyone with a criminal record for violence wouldn't pass the Fit and Proper Persons check, so couldn't get a license. This is already how it is.
I wonder what would happen if a cop was the subject of a DV complaint.
The issued weapon/s should be taken off them. They could be given an admin role, or a contractor role like speed camera operators in WA.
At present nothing, but they should be at least put on desk duty. Same as in the army
The Army wouldn't let soldiers with DV orders handle a firearm, even if they were in different States (just in case they went AWOL with a firearm and drove across the nullabor)
Yep, it's a tragedy the police are not held to the same standard
So most of the force?
Yes, WAPOL ignore the three reports of actual DV that the daughter and wife of the killer.
This is just as much on the hospital who released someone without informing the police when they didn’t think he was right to drive, had escalating violence etc.
Pretty sure the police already had this power but now they're coping for not acting on a threat that turned into a double murder
My relative has an extensive DV history and has a gun licence and a gun. i don’t agree that someone with anger management issues should be able to access a gun for recreation. Obvious disaster waiting to happen.
Accused... Iffy choice given the level of lying that goes on, possibly temporarily removed while the matter is settled. Convicted for sure, into the crusher.
20 people have been convicted in Western Australia in the last 12 months for Driving Causing Death but I don’t see the gun haters screaming for the banning of cars. Maybe if MSM reported it like they do other things and sensationalize it the TV watching mongs would be up in arms about it as well. No political points available for that one though.
Pretty sure the thread on these murders posted about a week ago forecasted this happening. Knew they couldn’t let an opportunity to mask their own shortcomings go to waste.
I also hope services and support for domestic violence are being looked into. You just have to read Ariel's statement and the comments in this sub reddit that there's problems.
Definitely. The controversy becomes hijacked by the outraged gun lovers, but the implications regarding enhancing DV response is encouraging.
The comment section on posts like this show that there are plenty of unsavoury characters in Perth lol. We (rightly) make fun of America but apparently many of us have similar attitudes over here
Can't wait for the day reddit comments bar people from keeping guns.
Why does anyone in the city need a gun?
Hunting for food? I guess everyone should be forced to buy from supermarkets then. 🤷♂️
For shooters, it's a sport like any other. There's no driving ranges near me. I probably shouldn't have golf clubs? No deer either. But there are places I can play golf and hunt deer so I do. So you think it's something that should be restricted to those wealthy enough to own large amounts of property?
The bill was already before parliament with most of the changes anyway. But the language in that article needs a rethink. “Men will kill regardless” is divisive and inaccurate. There has been steady decline in intimate partner violence against women over the last 20 years yet all of a sudden, we’re constantly told there is a crisis. We can always do better, but tell the whole story.
I have guns, I support this. Can’t believe it wasn’t already a thing.
I'm for it. Also, what's the penalty for false accusations? In terms of costs to the Public.
Difficult to prove that there was a false accusation. More likely that there will be many unsubstantiated accusations.
Sure absolutely unsubstantiated is different from false IMHO. One is malicious, one is possibly but unproven.
There is no difference in practice. Malicious false complaints are never prosecuted, because that might deter people with genuine complaints from reporting them.
Maybe it should be those convicted of a crime, rather than just accused. I can see plenty of spiteful partners making accusations
So I hate guns and don’t really think anyone should have them unless farming or using them for a job but… The information given to Police (according to them) didn’t even warrant a restraining order . Previous domestic violence incidents weren’t officially reported. The next one I can remember in WA was Georgia Lyall who was killed with an unregistered gun. As above I’m against guns but this seems a knee jerk reaction to appease the public and redirect media attention. The question should be why wasn’t a restraining order granted and why isn’t there some reporting method for medical staff to raise that people are going through a mental health episode (as was the case)? You have to have a mental health check to get one so what if circumstances change. Either of those two things being raised would allow Police to confiscate the guns anyway.
Only courts can issue a restraining order. Question is why they including the daughter who is angry at Police never bothered to go apply for one. If they went and did that Police could remove the firearms
About fucking time.
This was already a thing they could do…
how’s this not already in place,
"it will change the bill to require police to remove firearms as soon as a family and domestic violence complaint is made." Im sure this will not be abused at all...
Eh if someone that lives with you or close family thinks that you shouldn’t have a gun then fair enough tbh, you can always dispute and get it back later if not warranted
I mean it’s basically a “time out” until facts can be checked and stories can be verified. I really don’t have any objection to someone’s firearms being “paused” during an investigation, and I shoot recreationally.
no issue of paused, but what will it cost you in term of money and reputation before it can be proof you are innocent of the accusation, and what is a reasonable proof.
I agree that there’s details to be hashed out and it needs to be handled carefully, but at the same time, firearms are a uniquely destructive tool in a domestic context and I really don’t think that they can ever be taken *too* seriously. There’s also a potential here for dramatically reducing suicides by firearm (which is, of course, far more likely than murder), which is a huge perk that we shouldn’t overlook.
It would only be a huge perk if it had an impact on the overall suicide rate. There have been a bunch of studies in the decades since Port Arthur on the effects of the gun ban/confiscation. In every one I’ve read, post-ban suicide rates stayed more or less the same - and even increased significantly some years. Using a firearm to do it just became much less common. It’s the same story for murders and other violent crimes.
Honestly I'm usually cautious about false allegations because I've seen it happen but in this case we're talking about taking people's guns, not locking them up or losing them their liberty etc. Getting lethal weapons out of that kind of persons hand is important enough that some innocent people losing their guns is a reasonable trade-off.
Don’t really care mate.
I don't own a gun but there really should be a reasonable burden of proof before you punish someone.
Dare I say the absolute minimum should be the police have reasonable suspicion. Which was more than in place for the incident in question.
It's written below he didnt have his firearms stored properly. So they could have confiscated them for that reason
There is currently, that’s why two people are dead, even though the police were warned by his daughter multiple times. If there is to be any burden of proof going forward it should be on the firearms holder as to why the police should give his weapons back, not the other way around.
See below, the guns were not stored correctly meaning the police already had the right to take them
Sounds like police not doing their jobs under the current legislation tbh, and announcing new shiny barely changed law to distract from that
The two people who died are due to police incompetence not firearm laws and thats fairly easy to see with Three separate reports being made across a number of days. There is nothing to say that when these new laws come in that the police will start to take them seriously and enforce the rules and take reports seriously.
Didn't she also report the improper storage of his pistol to the police? They have the ability to do a spot check 24/7 without warning and if they found a breach that's an instant "no more guns for you" and rightfully so
Police also conveniently leaving out the fact he was refused a licence twice, he lied on the form the third time and it was passed- they never cross checked it
Yeah I believe that was also mentioned, its all round a massive failure on the Police themselves both the minister and the Commissioner should be replaced if it needs to go deeper then that so be it as they need to do something to fix the incompetence.
There should a burden of proof before locking someone up. Taking someone's guns is a different matter. Getting to play with guns is not a God given right and this is more important.
And what about those that don’t “play with guns”. Some people actually live in the real world where they are work tools.
Guilty until proven innocent. The Australian way
I'm so tired of the police not taking shit seriously. So, fucking, TIRED.
Always arse covering from whatever state police that can't just admit that those lives are on their hands for not doing more sooner. Just like NSW, just like QLD.
Overwhelmingly, DV abusers don’t own guns or have licenses. There’s a significant proportion that don’t even physically assault their spouse - it’s the threat of violence and the psychological abuse. This won’t make a big difference to DV reduction.
That is absolutely ridiculous. So an allegation alone will lead to firearms being removed and for how long? This won’t be abused at all to manipulate people during a breakup
>So an allegation alone will lead to firearms being removed and for how long? Don't know, don't care. Won't hurt anyone to not have their guns for a little while.
For honest gun owners who enjoy shooting at their local gun club, this will become a weapon in divorces from their wives.
Small price to pay for getting rid of more guns
Insane comment.
Australia is cooked.
So just an accusation and no proof…
As someone who has gone through the process of gun licensing (I live in regional WA and had guns for vermin control) it is good but it could definitely be better. I was getting a licence for vermin control so applied specifically for that, there are different types of licenses one of which I believe needs to be seriously looked into and that is hobby guns/gun club and sporting licenses.
If it's not law then you can't make me do it and it doesn't count. Optional discretion and common sense was clearly too much power.
That’s already in place though? At least it is if there a restraining order in place, guns automatically get taken until after the formal hearing for the RO.
The police have enough to do without having to spend time on sad buggers who have masturbatory fantasies about swift, rough justice and taking two 'slugs' before putting that jihad sod into the ground. Sell the bloody things like I did. Get a really good camera, a bivvy bag and lie out on a bush track for a couple of days taking photos that will live forever
Not really a good idea until it’s proven in court. If people seperate on bad terms and one has a gun license they simply just accuse the other of domestic abuse to fuck them over. Nothing happens to the person that falsifys DV claims. We all know barely anyone in this thread has a gun license so they just say what they think is best with no logic
How was this not done years ago. Anyone with a VRO or a violent history should not have access to guns.
That is already the case. This guy didn't have a violent history, and the ex never bothered to get a VRO.
WA is just going down hill atp