Police were aware of the cache of guns kept by the Floreat killer and could have confiscated them even without evidence of criminality or a violence restraining order.
But any early seizure would likely have been temporary because current gun laws mean Mark Bombara would have been given back the firearms that were used to murder a mother and daughter in cold blood.
The 1973 Firearms Act contains a clause giving police broad discretion to confiscate weapons if officers believe the owner poses a threat.
A war of words has erupted over whether officers should have seized his 13 guns, given police knew he owned them when his ex-wife sought protection while moving out of their Mosman Park house on April 1.
Seven weeks later, Bombara killed Jennifer Petelczyc and her daughter, Gretl, while searching for his ex.
“A member of the Police Force may seize and take possession of any firearm . . . if, in the opinion of the member of the Police Force, possession of it by that person may result in harm being suffered by any person,” section 24 of the Act states.
Shooters Union official and former police officer Steve Harrison said Section 24 of the Firearms Act included a “provision for a police officer to make immediate assessments and determinations as to the appropriateness of continued possession of firearms by a person at that time”.
“Section 24 reads succinctly and lends itself to being an effective, immediate action where any concern is held for either the firearm owner or others determined to be within the context of the risk for potential harm being done against them,” he said.
“It requires a police officer to consider and decide if the powers are to be exercised. This is an on-the-spot tool, and there is no requirement for decision referral or a need for warrants.”
Police close to the investigation believe an immediate seizure of Bombara’s weapons would not necessarily have prevented the tragedy because the guns would have been returned to him if he appealed the confiscation order.
With no official history of lawlessness and no violence restraining order against him, a State Administrative Tribunal win was likely.
“At face value, it would appear logical that the firearms definitely should have been removed from this individual, however, without full knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the situation, I will wait for the results of the investigation before making further comment,” shadow police minister Peter Collier said.
Police Minister Paul Papalia brushed aside Section 24 of the Firearms Act, labelling existing laws “inadequate” and flagging further amendments would be made to Labor’s proposed gun reforms.
Mr Papalia confirmed the woman had contacted police on March 31 asking for police help to collect her belongings the following day because “she was leaving him following a series of FDV-related (family domestic violence-related) matters”.
“But none of those had been reported to police and he was not known to the police in any other way other than her approaching them at that time,” he said.
“Under the current laws, he was still deemed a fit and proper person (to hold a firearm) . . . police act lawfully. This individual, sadly, was a fit and proper person right up until the time he committed that act.”
Asked when police found out about the historical domestic violence, Mr Papalia said: “Understanding that in talking to Police on March 31 — and bearing in mind, I wasn’t there — his ex-wife would have been explaining why she was requesting police presence the following day to remove belongings from the residence”.
Asked why police did not use the information for further investigation, Mr Papalia said: “They wouldn’t have met the threshold for being an offence or something to charge.”
Mr Papalia also revealed Bombara’s ex-wife was not staying with Ms Petelczyc on Friday and confirmed that she had not been cable-tied during the ordeal.
The West Australian understands Bombara’s ex-wife had successfully applied for a rental property and had left Ms Petelczyc’s home in the days before the shooting.
Bombara was not subject to a violence restraining order, and there was none in the pipeline. Police would have immediately seized his weapons had a VRO been lodged.
It was also clarified that a vehicle parked outside the home, later driven away by officers, did not belong to Bombara.
After initially saying the killings did not meet the definition of a “family violence incident” because the perpetrator and victims were not related, WA Police issued a statement on Monday saying officers had “always accepted that the motivation for these crimes was family and domestic violence-related”.
Bombara, who had 13 firearms, had two handguns on him at the time of the incident, which was registered as collector’s firearms.
Mr Papalia said under the proposed gun reforms, Bombara would not have been eligible to hold the two collectors’ handguns without an associated membership of a related historical organisation.
Bombara’s recreational licence would have had to have been converted to a new category, with justification, and he would have been limited to five firearms.
“What it demonstrates is how our current laws are inadequate, and we need to address every part of the law to make them tougher, but particularly around this seizure of firearms at what point that seizure is made with respect to incidents of this nature,” he said.
“What we’ve asked the police to do is assess the circumstances and the nature of the contact between his ex-wife and the police and then this event and determine whether there are things we can do to toughen up laws.
“I think there is — I think we will be acting earlier to remove firearms from premises where there’s potential for harm to be done.”
Mr Cook said the scale of Bombara’s scale of gun ownership was “hard to fathom”.
“There is no reason a person living in Mosman Park should be able to legally own 13 guns,” he said. “One man with 13 guns legally owned right in the suburbs of Perth.”
Bombara’s neighbours on Monday told The West they were left feeling “outraged” and unsettled to learn he had more than a dozen guns stored at his multi-million dollar Mosman Park home.
One resident — who did not wish to be named — said: “No one should have 13 guns . . . in any neighbourhood,” he said. “I’m outraged. I don’t think they should have granted the licence to him, and I gather they were all licenced to him, so no one should have that many guns.”
Another neighbour — who also wanted to remain anonymous — said it was “disconcerting” that Bombara was able to have so many guns. “You don’t expect it here, let alone that many,” he said.