Primary producers may have an ABN and the taxation department may have classified them as primary producers, but if they earn any money outside that line of work, Queensland’s Weapons Licensing Branch is likely to determine they don’t have a genuine reason for owning a handgun.

It’s a clarification that comes as the branch breaks its silence on the increase in category H licence refusals that have bewildered longstanding licence-holders and been the subject of vociferous political debate.

The LNP and Katter’s Australian Party have protested for nearly 18 months that licences for concealable firearms are being refused to primary producers for no legitimate reason, with the tacit approval of the Palaszczuk government.

Previously, the Weapons Licensing Branch has been largely silent on its rationale but this week sent a statement to the Queensland Country Life.

In it, an un-named police spokesman said recent court and tribunal decisions from Queensland and other states have supported the decisions to refuse concealable licences.



“Each decision has provided a further clarification of the ‘genuine need’ provisions, the type of business, the type and size of properties and are consistent with the current decision-making processes of Weapons Licensing,” he said.

“Weapons Licensing applies further scrutiny as to whether an applicant is meeting the requirements of a ‘primary producer’ in the Act which states that they must be ‘primarily engaged in the occupation’.



“A number of recent applicants have been found to have other occupations not engaged with the business of primary production.

“The applicant must prove they derive the majority of their income in their occupation as a primary producer.”

The spokesman cited a number of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decisions – two of them, Harm in 2010 and Shaxson in 2014, have been noted earlier by QCL, but a further decision, Feeney, 2017, was described as clarifying “occupation” for category H purposes.

As documented by firearms lawyer, Simon Munslow, for the Australian Sporting Shooter magazine, retired Lieutenant Colonel Feeney, a Vietnam veteran, had established the Professional Vermin Control and Training company in 1997, with a fee that covered costs rather than made a profit.

QCAT was unable to conclude this provided an occupational requirement for a concealed firearm as required by the Act.

Read more: Feeney v Qld Police Service - Possession of Category H - Loose Cannon



AgForce guns spokesman, Graham Park, described the use of these cases as a “justification, not an explanation”.

“It means this issue is a moving target and that’s what’s causing confusion,” he said.

“Weapons Licensing likes a case by case approach but AgForce would like a system that’s clear for all.

“The parameters already exist – the taxation department classifies people as primary producers.”

Terrain type assessed

According to the police spokesman, another part of the approval process requires the applicant to demonstrate the property in question is of such a nature that a concealable firearm is required to carry out the humane destruction of stock that may be injured in remote parts of the property.



He said Weapons Licensing utilises Queensland Globe to assess the terrain of the nominated property.

“Weapons Licensing have regard to the CSIRO model codes of practice for humane destruction of animals and the Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines when determining suitability for use of handguns,” he said.

This is in response to the question of the need for a pistol rather than a rifle, due to a property’s land type.

The police spokesman made a number of other points: