# Hunting > Firearm Safety >  New gun security laws

## Skitsokiwi

Hey guys

Friend of mine recently went into our local h&f to inquire about their e cat safe prices. He was told not to bother as they had received a letter from the police stating that they no longer recognise any of the current e cat safes as approved methods of storage no matter the cert they have and have put a hold on all e and a cat storage checks or something along those lines. The reasoning is that they are going to an approved police engineer that will be the only one able to certify a firearms safe etc and each safe will have to be individually approved not just a model of safe. Apparently due to some safes being approved when really they shouldn't be and the police having no "control" over the certifier.

Anyone else heard anything about this happening?

----------


## Koshogi

Not a new "law". If anything a new police policy. 

Police policy is not law.

He's/she's  going to be one very busy engineer. Only about 20,000 safes to individually inspect (Just noticed you said A cat too, make that 240 odd thousand ).

Good luck to him/her. 

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

----------


## mikee

So that's going to open a very very big can of worms. I brought a safe on the proviso that complies it with the regulations and is certified so.NZ Police gonna write me the cheque or replace it with a new one when they change the rules and if so where do I deliver the old one too

----------


## Jexla

I can tell you that's bullshit right from the get go as I have a storage check to do (he called me yesterday to sort a time) from moving house, that means that there's no hold at all.

----------


## AzumitH

> where do I deliver the old one too


Through Greg O'Connors front door.

----------


## 199p

It would be good to have an update to the current laws especially regarding the A cat regulations way to 1980's and well over due an update

----------


## gimp

probably bullshit

----------


## stumpy

i had a police check 2 weeks ago , guy looked at the safe , noted its rounded edges (as he stated you cant get sharp edge bends on 6mm or more metal) and was fine for the goodies it held .... i say a misinterpretation from HnF ....

----------


## Rushy

Agreed.  Hardly likely

----------


## Maca49

Shit I better get in to H&F tomorrow for a bargin :Grin:

----------


## hillclima

I had a discussion the other day when I renewed my FAL, one potential source of the rumour is that the AO was telling me once the Chinese cornered the market in E cat safes, they then dropped the quality, so while the door was 6mm and looked good, the bits you couldn't see were only 4mm, or something along those lines

Of more concern to me was him telling me that you aren't allowed to store your bolts in the same safe as the guns, not even the separate locked cabinet at the top as they could just take the whole safe (even though bolted to the wall and concrete floor).  I challenged him on the legal requirements and he relented and said it was what they wanted and a recommendation only, but then there's a box they tick on the renewal form which they tick if you've complied or not......

The other "recommendation" to get the box ticked was that you needed to take the forestocks off your shotguns and store them with the bolts in that other safe spot

I've got nothing against good security and I will take on a few of his recommendation, if I don't use my shotty in the off season it's no hassle to be that much safer.  But I think some of it may be starting to get a bit far what is legally required

----------


## res

I would say the H&F staff member was spouting BS. 

Not that I disagree with a slight upgrade to the minimum requirements, as I understand they were intended to keep guns away from kids and they work well for this(the child death from gun stats are very interesting) but don't do much to stop even a casual burglar who stumbles across guns. Maybe the E standard is unrealistically high to impose on every one but a bike lock around a pipe is a bit low I feel.  

Of course nothing can stop a targeted attack. 

Flame on

----------


## Beavis

I think it was the Hyscor brand or something like that hunting a fisting was peddling, they got rejected by police as being not up to spec

----------


## P38

I call


To start with, A cat fire arms are not required to be stored in a safe.

Cheers
Pete

----------


## Skitsokiwi

I thought it was a bit strange thats why I asked. Might go in and talk to one of the guys I know there during the weekend, see if I can get a look at this apparent letter.

----------


## P38

> I thought it was a bit strange thats why I asked. Might go in and talk to one of the guys I know there during the weekend, see if I can get a look at this apparent letter.


 @Skitsokiwi

If us do get a peek at it, take a photo of it an post it up for us all to see.

Cheers
Pete

----------


## mikee

> i had a police check 2 weeks ago , guy looked at the safe , noted its rounded edges (as he stated you cant get sharp edge bends on 6mm or more metal) and was fine for the goodies it held .... i say a misinterpretation from HnF ....


if its a "safe" and not a "Steel box or Steel Cabinet" then 6mm steel thickness is NOT required but it appears that all the inspection people and AOs dont seem to understand the regulation, nor is it on security inspection check-sheet (see below) I think its just more "interpretation"

----------


## 10-Ring

A gun safe is quite a lot more robust than any 6mm steel gun cabinet ever will be. Gun cabinets are not gun safes. 

There are some E cat gun cabinets that have been sold that have been certified by a registered engineer that have had no actual testing done on them. Also they have not been certified by a qualified locksmith. 

Obviously, it's in our best interests to have stringent security standards for E, B, and C category firearms. The regulations regarding A category need upgrading IMHO. Firearm theft should be a concern to all of us who love our sport. Lets not give the anti-gun brigade and media more ammo (so to speak) to take pot shots at us.

----------


## Skitsokiwi

@P38 I'll try my best, I'll talk to the my shooting buddy that was told all this again tomorrow as well.

----------


## HNTMAD

> I had a discussion the other day when I renewed my FAL, one potential source of the rumour is that the AO was telling me once the Chinese cornered the market in E cat safes, they then dropped the quality, so while the door was 6mm and looked good, the bits you couldn't see were only 4mm, or something along those lines
> 
> Of more concern to me was him telling me that you aren't allowed to store your bolts in the same safe as the guns, not even the separate locked cabinet at the top as they could just take the whole safe (even though bolted to the wall and concrete floor).  I challenged him on the legal requirements and he relented and said it was what they wanted and a recommendation only, but then there's a box they tick on the renewal form which they tick if you've complied or not......
> 
> The other "recommendation" to get the box ticked was that you needed to take the forestocks off your shotguns and store them with the bolts in that other safe spot
> 
> I've got nothing against good security and I will take on a few of his recommendation, if I don't use my shotty in the off season it's no hassle to be that much safer.  But I think some of it may be starting to get a bit far what is legally required


shit, it sounds like we are going to need multiple safes and dismantle our guns and scatter between safes, no wait the crim could take all the safes!!!

Hamish

----------


## gimp

the onus should be on people to not steal our guns, not us to have to comply with expensive onerous security requirements that have no evidence of their efficacy

----------


## Skitsokiwi

So my buddy ended up ringing our local AO about it, in short some safe manufacturers have been cutting corners, and their Certs say that they "appear" to meet the standard not that they do, he wouldn't say which are fine and which ain't (ridiculous I think). Said  they are still processing permits/endorsements but here's the kicker, if you have a safe as your storage they won't sign off on it until they have finished deciding which are going to be reclassified so in effect you won't be able to purchase anything.

----------


## Savage1

> the onus should be on people to not steal our guns, not us to have to comply with expensive onerous security requirements that have no evidence of their efficacy


Maybe when we live in a fantasy land, morally I agree but know that it would never work. 

I can't recall from the top of my head an E-cat safe being accessed up here except one where the dick put the key to it in a weak safe right beside it, which also contained the bolts etc, the safe also happened to contain C-cat assault rifles and pistols  :Yuush:  Nice guy, but really?!?! However the vast majority I've come across have been taken from unsecured houses or pathetic a-cat security.

Sorry, rant over.

----------


## Pineapple

> Maybe when we live in a fantasy land, morally I agree but know that it would never work.
> 
> I can't recall from the top of my head an E-cat safe being accessed up here except one where the dick put the key to it in a weak safe right beside it, which also contained the bolts etc, the safe also happened to contain C-cat assault rifles and pistols  Nice guy, but really?!?! However the vast majority I've come across have been taken from unsecured houses or pathetic a-cat security.
> 
> Sorry, rant over.


Can I ask what you class as "pathetic a-cat security"?

Im not having a dig but am genuinely curious. When organising the security of my firearms I took it very serious and would like to think others do too. While i dont have an e-cat safe (cost was prohibitive) I would like to think I have done what I can to avoid being part of the problem.

----------


## Jimmynostars

> i had a police check 2 weeks ago , guy looked at the safe , noted its rounded edges (as he stated you cant get sharp edge bends on 6mm or more metal) and was fine for the goodies it held .... i say a misinterpretation from HnF ....


You can't get a sharp bend with a poked press brake either, and yes there are quite a few of them out there....

----------


## 10-Ring

> the onus should be on people to not steal our guns, not us to have to comply with expensive onerous security requirements that have no evidence of their efficacy


You've got to be kidding? Dream on. Thieves are exactly what the name implies and we will always have them. Why make it easier for them to steal your firearms. There is plenty of evidence that stringent B, E and C security requirements work at stopping opportunistic thieves from getting access to the firearms within. Professional criminals are a different matter but they're probably not likely to target your place unless you advertise the fact that you own those category firearms.




> Can I ask what you class as
> 
> Im not having a dig but am genuinely curious. When organising the security of my firearms I took it very serious and would like to think others do too. While i dont have an e-cat safe (cost was prohibitive) I would like to think I have done what I can to avoid being part of the problem.


While your question is directed at Savage1, I can assure you there are plenty of examples of "pathetic a-cat security" out there. The problem is that the original regulations are out of date regarding A cat security. A gun cabinet made out of thin MDF that can be broken into 30 seconds or a thin walled metal locker that can be jimmied open in the same time with a screwdriver are common examples.

----------


## Taff

On a daily basis we get people coming in having just done there safety test, asking for a cable and padlock to put around there hot water cistern, as this is what they are told on there course, we do not sell them, we only sell cabinets, customers will spend 000s on guns but object to paying $299 on the cheapest cabinet ? , you will never prevent the people who target guns to steal, but you will stop the opportunist thief

----------


## hillclima

What I think they need to sort out is that the advice I consistent.  Dad also just did he renewal yesterday, and he has one of the thin walled metal lockers, with a small safe for bolts.  AO said locker was fine and no worries, whereas mine had been saying they weren't.

----------


## Maca49

If they can steal money machines, what hope huh? Better under the bed where you've got a chance of stopping the theft?

----------


## Maca49

> What I think they need to sort out is that the advice I consistent.  Dad also just did he renewal yesterday, and he has one of the thin walled metal lockers, with a small safe for bolts.  AO said locker was fine and no worries, whereas mine had been saying they weren't.


Might be an age thing, I've seen the same here, grandad ok, grandson, no,no. Both with the same security in diff house?

----------


## Marty Henry

Here a family move out 6 weeks after husbands fal is renewed, new owners move in when police get round to following up change of address he is told it wont pass (both are A cat only). Went up the chain and a second vetter passed it.
Seems to be a lack of consistency in applying the rules in a lot of these posts.

----------


## 10-Ring

> Seems to be a lack of consistency in applying the rules in a lot of these posts.


That's going to happen with A cat security because the regulations aren't as specific as they should be. What exactly does "stout construction" mean in absolute terms? It's too loose and open to interpretation and thus we have the variables.

----------


## res

Lax A cat  security story's 

I used to have a push bike shop, a large one by NZ standards and in a high profile location so we got a lot of people-several every week-coming in asking for bike locks to lock up guns. We even ended up labeling one model as suitable after getting sick of people who didn't ask for advice bringing locks back as the lock heads were to big to fit through actions. It became our biggest selling lock, maybe because bike owners thought that if it was good for guns it must be extra strong-it wasn't as like all cable locks it could be cut through in seconds with good side cutters.  

I thought this had gone the way of the dodo over the last few years but only a couple of months I got a bike lock around a pipe ticked off as A cat security at my nominated NZ address. I would not have done this if I thought I would ever have a gun at that house but I was surprised the veter  suggested it.  

A year ago a young guy I know had his house burgled, he had a couple of cheep guns in a old thin sheet metal  clothing locker-the crim just kicked the door to bend it and the peeled the top open enough to lift his guns out.

----------


## Jexla

> Obviously, it's in our best interests to have stringent security standards for E, B, and C category firearms. The regulations regarding A category need upgrading IMHO. Firearm theft should be a concern to all of us who love our sport. Lets not give the anti-gun brigade and media more ammo (so to speak) to take pot shots at us.


Do you really feel an E cat gun is any more deadly than an A cat gun?

I know you mean well, but this is part of the issue, we accept their horrible made up definitions and classes as fact and as if they make sense....

----------


## 10-Ring

> Do you really feel an E cat gun is any more deadly than an A cat gun?
> 
> I know you mean well, but this is part of the issue, we accept their horrible made up definitions and classes as fact and as if they make sense....


I know where you're coming from, however it really doesn't matter what I think about the E cat firearm classification. The law makers have decided that MSSA firearms are potentially more lethal and that's it (at least for now). 

My main concern is with the poor level of A cat firearm security out there. The licence holder of an A cat is often unaware that their security is inadequate because it was passed as being okay up to ten years ago. Some just don't think they'll ever be robbed and some don't seem to care one way or the other. Some grew up in the era of having the .22 situated behind the washhouse door and haven't got over it. 

One thing for sure is that more and more criminals are using firearms. In this age of aggressive drugs what responsible person wants a P fuelled criminal getting there hands on any firearm? Surely common sense should tell us that the tougher the security the harder it is a criminal to steal your firearm and use it in a crime or sell or trade it to an organized crime gang.

----------


## ChrisF

Actually , the safe is only a delay device is ONLY works when no one is at home & for a limited time , when people are home then , all the crim does is treaten you or family , and you will open up the safe for the crim , and he has access in side a few secs , that was told to me my a member of the Police .

----------


## Taff

Yes but as home invasions are actually rare, and most robberys take place in empty homes, then the policeman is giving stupid advice. Yes a safe is only a delaying device, as is the door on your car, but would you be without it.

----------


## Savage1

> Can I ask what you class as "pathetic a-cat security"?
> 
> Im not having a dig but am genuinely curious. When organising the security of my firearms I took it very serious and would like to think others do too. While i dont have an e-cat safe (cost was prohibitive) I would like to think I have done what I can to avoid being part of the problem.


Anything that entry can be gained with only basic hand tools in little time. Cables and chains around rafters and cylinders are a joke.

I've seen many pathetic A-cat approved cabinets which I could access in seconds without any tools, just with a few swift kicks.

I'd like to see E-Cat security as a minimum, it's not overly expensive, but I believe the most important requirement with a safe is how they're fixed, bolted on two faces is a must, or at least bolted on the bottom and large bolty screw thingys on the back, I've seen too many safes been ripped from the floor with a crowbar or no tools even. I've even ripped one out myself with a hooligan bar, took less than thirty seconds.

----------


## Savage1

> Do you really feel an E cat gun is any more deadly than an A cat gun?
> 
> I know you mean well, but this is part of the issue, we accept their horrible made up definitions and classes as fact and as if they make sense....


I do, there's a reason the army uses the Steyr over the Tikka T3.

----------


## GravelBen

> One thing for sure is that more and more criminals are using firearms.


Is that really 'for sure' though? Based on what data? Or is it just a throwaway line trotted out by the media (and that goon from the police union) to drum up reactions without any supporting evidence?

----------


## stumpy

@Savage1         " large bolty screw thingys "     do i get these at bunnings? 


 :XD:

----------


## Savage1

> @Savage1         " large bolty screw thingys "     do i get these at bunnings?


I would post a picture, but screw you.  :Thumbsup:

----------


## tetawa

> Anything that entry can be gained with only basic hand tools in little time. Cables and chains around rafters and cylinders are a joke.
> 
> I've seen many pathetic A-cat approved cabinets which I could access in seconds without any tools, just with a few swift kicks.
> 
> I'd like to see E-Cat security as a minimum, it's not overly expensive, but I believe the most important requirement with a safe is how they're fixed, bolted on two faces is a must, or at least bolted on the bottom and large bolty screw thingys on the back, I've seen too many safes been ripped from the floor with a crowbar or no tools even. I've even ripped one out myself with a hooligan bar, took less than thirty seconds.


I know where your coming from having had mates and family take the cheapest option that might keep their kids from accessing, but that's all. But where does it end with firearm security when there is little if any deterrent from the courts when the few thieves and unlicensed that are caught ( probably pulled up in the first place for exceeding the speed limit). In smaller communities it doesn't take a genius to know who owns firearms.

----------


## 10-Ring

> Is that really 'for sure' though? Based on what data? Or is it just a throwaway line trotted out by the media (and that goon from the police union) to drum up reactions without any supporting evidence?


Such data is confidential. Nothing to do with the person you're referring to or the bull that the media churns out either. They have their agendas for sure. 

Do you really think that firearms related crime has fallen or stayed static in NZ? Might have something to do with methamphetamine, although that's just my opinion.

----------


## gonetropo

meth is huge, my ex boss was doing 40k$ a year, when he finally quit he was telling me its lawyers, doctors and even surgeons using the stuff. if the cops can intercept 1/2 a billion bucks worth in one swoop gives you an idea of demand
d

----------


## Jexla

> I do, there's a reason the army uses the Steyr over the Tikka T3.


We'll ignore the fact that the army do use a bolt action rifle and that the Steyr is select fire shall we?

Sounds good.

----------


## Jexla

> Such data is confidential. Nothing to do with the person you're referring to or the bull that the media churns out either. They have their agendas for sure. 
> 
> Do you really think that firearms related crime has fallen or stayed static in NZ? Might have something to do with methamphetamine, although that's just my opinion.


How's this for an opinion? 

My opinion is the fact that the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population has remained much the same since 1995 that gun crime is not increasing and has fallen dramatically from what it was pre 1995.

We've even had record low rates during 2011 and 2012.

The annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is:

----------


## timattalon

> That's going to happen with A cat security because the regulations aren't as specific as they should be. What exactly does *"stout construction"* mean in absolute terms? It's too loose and open to interpretation and thus we have the variables.



I looked it up in a dictionary

"bulky in figure; heavily built; corpulent; thickset; fat:"

Stout = Short and fat........(or its a beer...)

----------


## zimmer

> How's this for an opinion? 
> 
> My opinion is the fact that the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population has remained much the same since 1995 that gun crime is not increasing and has fallen dramatically from what it was pre 1995.
> 
> We've even had record low rates during 2011 and 2012.
> 
> The annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is:
> 
> Attachment 52298


Whilst this set of figures is one perspective and represents sadly actual deaths it may be misleading on the actual extent of firearms crime. In 1990 for example David Grey was probably the total contributor to that year's statistic.

----------


## 308

The news in our neck of the woods pertaining to E-cat safes is that the inspectors will need to sight a manufacturer's guarantee that an e-cat safe is 6mm thick and/or an engineer's guarantee that a home-made safe is minimum 6mm thick with the appropriate locks.

The rule is not retrospective so if you are good now you are good in the future.

I gather that the idea is that the inspectors do not have the technical know-how to say if an e-cat safe is good or not. Obviously a set of calipers would do the trick but apparently that is not to be.



All that aside, I agree that A-cat safes in general should be stronger than they are - a personnel locker with a hasp and staple on it is as much good as a one-legged man in an arse kicking party

----------


## Fawls

> I looked it up in a dictionary
> 
> "bulky in figure; heavily built; corpulent; thickset; fat:"
> 
> Stout = Short and fat........(or its a beer...)


There a times when a beer safe could be handy!  :Psmiley:

----------


## nzvermin

> The news in our neck of the woods pertaining to E-cat safes is that the inspectors will need to sight a manufacturer's guarantee that an e-cat safe is 6mm thick and/or an engineer's guarantee that a home-made safe is minimum 6mm thick with the appropriate locks.
> 
> The rule is not retrospective so if you are good now you are good in the future.
> 
> I gather that the idea is that the inspectors do not have the technical know-how to say if an e-cat safe is good or not. Obviously a set of calipers would do the trick but apparently that is not to be.
> 
> 
> 
> All that aside, I agree that A-cat safes in general should be stronger than they are - a personnel locker with a hasp and staple on it is as much good as a one-legged man in an arse kicking party


Thats always been the rule for e/b/c

----------


## timattalon

> The news in our neck of the woods pertaining to E-cat safes is that the inspectors will need to sight a manufacturer's guarantee that an e-cat safe is 6mm thick and/or an engineer's guarantee that a home-made safe is minimum 6mm thick with the appropriate locks.
> 
> The rule is not retrospective so if you are good now you are good in the future.
> 
> I gather that the idea is that the inspectors do not have the technical know-how to say if an e-cat safe is good or not. Obviously a set of calipers would do the trick but apparently that is not to be.
> 
> 
> 
> All that aside, I agree that A-cat safes in general should be stronger than they are - a personnel locker with a hasp and staple on it is as much good as a one-legged man in an arse kicking party



Because we all know how tricky using those callipers can be.....Almost need a degree :ORLY:

----------


## stumpy

hey , wait a min ..... i might be effing great in an ass kicking party .......

----------


## Savage1

> We'll ignore the fact that the army do use a bolt action rifle and that the Steyr is select fire shall we?
> 
> Sounds good.


It took you longer to bite than I expected, do you really think c-cat is more deadly than a-cat?

----------


## Savage1

> How's this for an opinion? 
> 
> My opinion is the fact that the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population has remained much the same since 1995 that gun crime is not increasing and has fallen dramatically from what it was pre 1995.
> 
> We've even had record low rates during 2011 and 2012.
> 
> The annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is:
> 
> Attachment 52298


What a great example of using very selective statistics to back an argument. 

Come on jexla, I'm sure you can see the blatantly obvious holes in that argument.

----------


## Jexla

> It took you longer to bite than I expected, do you really think c-cat is more deadly than a-cat?


Depends what the firearm is that is on C cat. If it's select fire then yes Mr policeman, I do think it is more deadly, don't you?




> What a great example of using very selective statistics to back an argument. 
> 
> Come on jexla, I'm sure you can see the blatantly obvious holes in that argument.


Sure, we don't have statistics on actual gun crime because your lot don't record it. What we do have however is statistics on gun murders and it's the best we have to go off, unless you know some better stats to use, cough 'em up....

----------


## Savage1

> Depends what the firearm is that is on C cat. If it's select fire then yes Mr policeman, I do think it is more deadly, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, we don't have statistics on actual gun crime because your lot don't record it. What we do have however is statistics on gun murders and it's the best we have to go off, unless you know some better stats to use, cough 'em up....


So you think E cat is no deadlier than A but C is more deadly than A if it is select fire? I fail to follow your logic.

If you only have a narrow amount of information then avoid coming to broad conclusions, homicides are far from being the only crimes that involve firearms, a lot aren't reported, often some of the worst of them. Going off of your logic then there wouldn't have been a single firearms offence in Northland so far this year, which is funny because I've personally lost count of the number of crims I've confronted this year that who have been carrying firearms at the time and/or very recently used one in the commission of a crime. But hey, what would I know compared to someone who sits at a desk most days.

----------


## Beavis

The problem I see is that there doesn't appear to be any clear direction or game plan to tackle organised crime and the drug trade. Everybody wants an end to gangs, P etc but the approach we are taking is a broken record and doesn't appear to be making an impact. 

With regards to firearms, the police association is taking a disjointed and rambling crusade against legal gun owners who they dont differentiate from criminals. They cry for gun registration, restrictions on .50 BMG's, further restrictions on MSSA's. None of those things will serve to enhance officer safety. Most illegal guns are obtained through theft, so registration won't do shit. .50BMG's are pretty much never used in crime. Restricting them is pointless. MSSA's are already among the most tightly controlled guns. They are already registered anf required to be kept in more substantial security. What more could they want to increase officer safety? There is something to be said for A category security being to relaxed, most A cat safes are shite. But as has been pointed out, why should we have to saddle a burden caused by organised crime?

Perhaps we need take a drastic new direction. Maybe we need to legalise all drugs. That would basically destroy the economy of the gangs. If meth addicts could get a cheap hit without having to commit crimes to feed their habits we might see a steep decline in burglary, which may result in less guns being stolen. We should introduce warrentless searches for anybody known to be associated with organised criminal gangs. MSSA owners are burdened with this so why the fuck can't we do it to gang members. Imagine how impossible it would be to operate a crime ring if the cops could pay a daily visit to the gang pad or the associates houses.

----------


## stumpy

omg .... im one legged , and i sit at a desk ....... this is becoming all about me  :Grin:

----------


## Jexla

> So you think E cat is no deadlier than A but C is more deadly than A if it is select fire? I fail to follow your logic.



You're thick, I have finally found my signature. I won't bother arguing with you.

----------


## Savage1

It's not often that I get called thick, when I do it is normally by people with notably less intellect than me or my wife, however I'm not suggesting that you fall into either of those categories.

If you're unable to explain your logic then that doesn't make me stupid.

----------


## 308

> The problem I see is that there doesn't appear to be any clear direction or game plan to tackle organised crime and the drug trade. Everybody wants an end to gangs, P etc but the approach we are taking is a broken record and doesn't appear to be making an impact. 
> 
> With regards to firearms, the police association is taking a disjointed and rambling crusade against legal gun owners who they dont differentiate from criminals. They cry for gun registration, restrictions on .50 BMG's, further restrictions on MSSA's. None of those things will serve to enhance officer safety. Most illegal guns are obtained through theft, so registration won't do shit. .50BMG's are pretty much never used in crime. Restricting them is pointless. MSSA's are already among the most tightly controlled guns. They are already registered anf required to be kept in more substantial security. What more could they want to increase officer safety? There is something to be said for A category security being to relaxed, most A cat safes are shite. But as has been pointed out, why should we have to saddle a burden caused by organised crime?
> 
> Perhaps we need take a drastic new direction. Maybe we need to legalise all drugs. That would basically destroy the economy of the gangs. If meth addicts could get a cheap hit without having to commit crimes to feed their habits we might see a steep decline in burglary, which may result in less guns being stolen. We should introduce warrentless searches for anybody known to be associated with organised criminal gangs. MSSA owners are burdened with this so why the fuck can't we do it to gang members. Imagine how impossible it would be to operate a crime ring if the cops could pay a daily visit to the gang pad or the associates houses.


Damn straight - people wanna get high - why not legalise ecstasy? We already know it is safer than alcohol, or horse-riding for that matter

If it were up to me I'd have warrentless searches on gang pads, gangs having to prove clean legal ownership of assets to avoid forfeiture, decriminalise drugs that do sod-all harm but keep the crime of dealing drugs as illegal and ban fucking pokie machines - problem gambling does no good whatsoever to anyone

Sorry - pissed rant over

----------


## Sasquatch

C-mon guys... The whole E-cat firearms are more "deadlier" then A-cat is pointless. If you subscribe to this view then you are no better then the goofballs that thought up the legislation that a 'free standing' pistol grip makes a semi more... More what? Deadlier!? No way. 

That whole outcome was an absolute monstrosity to law abiding FAL owners.

How can an Ecat AR be _more_ deadlier then an Acat? They both fire .223/5.56 except one can legally own standard capacity mags, the other can't. Mag change takes 2 seconds who cares. It's a pointless argument.

----------


## chrome

> I looked it up in a dictionary
> 
> "bulky in figure; heavily built; corpulent; thickset; fat:"
> 
> Stout = Short and fat........(or its a beer...)


Hey that's me.   



Sent from the swamp

----------


## timattalon

> Hey that's me.   
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from the swamp


Dont worry, I was not having a dig. I am the definition of stout myself....

----------


## Ryan

> You're thick, I have finally found my signature. I won't bother arguing with you.


When one stoops to ad hominem attacks the argument's already lost.

----------


## Jexla

:Thumbsup:

----------


## 199p

> C-mon guys... The whole E-cat firearms are more "deadlier" then A-cat is pointless. If you subscribe to this view then you are no better then the goofballs that thought up the legislation that a 'free standing' pistol grip makes a semi more... More what? Deadlier!? No way. 
> 
> That whole outcome was an absolute monstrosity to law abiding FAL owners.
> 
> How can an Ecat AR be _more_ deadlier then an Acat? They both fire .223/5.56 except one can legally own standard capacity mags, the other can't. Mag change takes 2 seconds who cares. It's a pointless argument.


I think what the police where trying to do its make all ar15 ak types e cat

weather you agree or not doesn't matter imagine someone having a few ar15's in a locked wooden cupboard or with a bike chain to the hot water cylinder how easy it would be for them to be stolen. 
As a firearm owner I don't want that type of problem to be there in the 1st place.   

I would rather see E-cat security being the minimum standard across the board,
Way better then what they trying to achieve having every semi auto firearm regarded as E-cat.

Sometimes people have to step back and see the bigger picture

----------


## Beavis

I think they would need to water down the requirements a little. All good having a 6mm safe as a standard, but it isn't realistic for a lot of people to meet the standards required to fix them to the premise.

And lets not forget that a _determined_ gun theif will get in with tools and time.

----------


## gimp

> We should introduce warrentless searches for anybody known to be associated with organised criminal gangs. MSSA owners are burdened with this so why the fuck can't we do it to gang members.


no no fuck no

----------


## Steve123

> no no fuck no


I agree, who determines what is association?

----------


## Pineapple

Thanks for the responses guy - As entering the scene from a background with little to no firearms exposure simply chucking a cable around a post never came into the picture. I agree that A-cat minimum requirements should be raised to align a legal requirement with what I percieve as a moral obligation. While I also agree that they will not stop a determined theif, if it stops an oppertunistic one then everyone wins.

----------


## gonetropo

i have a my A cat safe made of 1.5mm folded steel. recessed door, full length internal hinge, electronic combo lock with 2 20mm sliding bolts. bolted down to wall and floor.
its in an alarmed house with a dogo cross brit bully in the back yard. i consider this beyond what should be required for any A cat firearm including ar15's
remember that if we give the cops an inch they will take a mile, ar15's today and it will be 10/22's tomorrow

----------


## Steve123

> i have a my A cat safe made of 1.5mm folded steel. recessed door, full length internal hinge, electronic combo lock with 2 20mm sliding bolts. bolted down to wall and floor.
> its in an alarmed house with a dogo cross brit bully in the back yard. i consider this beyond what should be required for any A cat firearm including ar15's
> remember that if we give the cops an inch they will take a mile, ar15's today and it will be 10/22's tomorrow


They can do a buy back on my 10/22 for the right price, over priced pieces of crap that they are

----------


## gonetropo

> They can do a buy back on my 10/22 for the right price, over priced pieces of crap that they are


some are crap shooters, other are great. i use one on rabbits all the time.
i once spent near on $1800 (inc scope) building one up and it was a pure tack driver!!
unfortunately had to sell all the guns when we split up as i needed the cash. all on target for a full safe now though

----------


## Savage1

> You're thick, I have finally found my signature. I won't bother arguing with you.


So, 

I'll assume your logic is that a C cat can put down a higher rate of fire.

A cat rifles, can only hold 7 rounds unless .22lr. An E is unlimited. Sure you can change magazines in under 5 seconds but that is still a lot of mag changes, four to get 30 rounds out so at least 10 seconds, especially fumbling small 7 round magazines. So the rate of fire is far far higher out of an E cat than an A cat rifle and would take less skill to lay that fire down accurately. 

Full auto is very hard to control, so only when you have a crush of people within 25m will it actually be any more deadly, even then it'd be questionable. I'd rather take on an idiot with a full auto than an idiot with an E cat.

E cats are also easier to conceal as you can get folding and telescopic stocks which reduce the length to below 762mm. They can also chuck a bayonet on the front. You can even get an E cat MP5 with only a slightly longer barrel than standard.

There's a reason why most Police and Army rifles have almost all the same features as an E-cat rifle.

To say an E-cat is no more deadly than an A cat is wrong in my opinion, sure it's easy enough to buy large capacity magazines and clip onto an A cat but that's another matter, and it also makes them E cat.

So keep your signature up as long as you want, it just shows a level of arrogance and immaturity.

I'm actually disappointed in myself that I bothered to reply.

----------


## gonetropo

> So, 
> 
> I'll assume your logic is that a C cat can put down a higher rate of fire.
> 
> A cat rifles, can only hold 7 rounds unless .22lr. An E is unlimited. Sure you can change magazines in under 5 seconds but that is still a lot of mag changes, four to get 30 rounds out so at least 10 seconds, especially fumbling small 7 round magazines. So the rate of fire is far far higher out of an E cat than an A cat rifle and would take less skill to lay that fire down accurately. 
> 
> Full auto is very hard to control, so only when you have a crush of people within 25m will it actually be any more deadly, even then it'd be questionable. I'd rather take on an idiot with a full auto than an idiot with an E cat.
> 
> E cats are also easier to conceal as you can get folding and telescopic stocks which reduce the length to below 762mm. They can also chuck a bayonet on the front. You can even get an E cat MP5 with only a slightly longer barrel than standard.
> ...


i think you mean rimfire not just 22lr. 
17hmr, 22 mag etc are still allowed 15 in the mag

----------


## Steve123

> some are crap shooters, other are great. i use one on rabbits all the time.
> i once spent near on $1800 (inc scope) building one up and it was a pure tack driver!!
> unfortunately had to sell all the guns when we split up as i needed the cash. all on target for a full safe now though


A mate had a good fully suppressed one years back but my JW bolt out shoots my  standard one. I can't see the point spending heaps on a 22. It's average but nothing spectacular 

Sent from my SM-G388F using Tapatalk

----------


## gonetropo

> A mate had a good fully suppressed one years back but my JW bolt out shoots my  standard one. I can't see the point spending heaps on a 22. It's average but nothing spectacular 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G388F using Tapatalk


depends on what your passion is, i like 100m head shots with a 22lr. guess its my thing and i like doing it.

----------


## systolic

> i think you mean rimfire not just 22lr. 
> 17hmr, 22 mag etc are still allowed 15 in the mag


.17 HMR or .17 HM2 are restricted to seven rounds in a semi-auto for A-cat.

15 rounds is for .22 inch rimfire, which would include short, long, long rifle or magnums.

Read section 2 of the Arms Act.

----------


## Beetroot

> remember that if we give the cops an inch they will take a mile, ar15's today and it will be 10/22's tomorrow


Unfortunately this is true and is what stops sensible discussions and laws being created.
We like too shake our head at Americans and their gun lobby, but all you need to look at is Australia and the UKs gun laws too see this is exactly how it happens.

----------


## gonetropo

> .17 HMR or .17 HM2 are restricted to seven rounds in a semi-auto for A-cat.
> 
> 15 rounds is for .22 inch rimfire, which would include short, long, long rifle or magnums.
> 
> Read section 2 of the Arms Act.


law applies to rimfire regardless of caliber. its ok to buy a 22 mag etc with a 10 shot mag

----------


## Jexla

> A cat rifles, can only hold 7 rounds unless .22lr. An E is unlimited.


You heard it here first folks, no A cat rifle can hold more than 7 rounds.
Better hand in your Troy pump actions to Savage1 directly.




> E cats are also easier to conceal as you can get folding and telescopic stocks which reduce the length to below 762mm.


Chop chop chop, swap swap swap, they simply don't give a fuck about e cat rules.




> They can also chuck a bayonet on the front.


A criminal doesn't care, he'll do it anyway, the firearm is stolen anyway and he's trying to kill people, why would he care?
Also you have a bigger problem to worry about than a pointy thing at the end of the gun.




> You can even get an E cat MP5 with only a slightly longer barrel than standard.


Guess what that means? You could even make an A cat one too!




> To say an E-cat is no more deadly than an A cat is wrong in my opinion, sure it's easy enough to buy large capacity magazines and clip onto an A cat but that's another matter, and it also makes them E cat.


Well that sure would stop a criminal using a stolen A cat AR, he'd never dare to use a 30 round mag in it and risk being done for having an E cat gun right?




> So keep your signature up as long as you want, it just shows a level of arrogance and immaturity.


Didn't need your permission (Believe it or not).


Think you overall missed the boat here Savage.
Stealing an A cat AR vs an E cat AR makes not a single drop of difference, both can fit normal capacity magazines. Both can have pistol grips. Both can even be converted to full auto.
All of those are facts.

EDIT:
P.S Shout out to those PMing me.

----------


## Moutere

Man, lose the signature. 
You're coming across like an ass.

----------


## GravelBen

> law applies to rimfire regardless of caliber. its ok to buy a 22 mag etc with a 10 shot mag


 @systolic is right that the law (presumably written before .17hmr and .17hm2 existed) specifically refers to 'a magazine designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges'. I guess you could argue that a .17hmr magazine is 'designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges' though as manufacturers generally use the same magazine for both. Would be interesting to see that one tested in court!

Only applies to semi-autos though of course, bolt/lever/straight pull/pump etc can take as many rounds as you like.

----------


## Savage1

> You heard it here first folks, no A cat rifle can hold more than 7 rounds.
> Better hand in your Troy pump actions to Savage1 directly.
> 
> 
> 
> Chop chop chop, swap swap swap, they simply don't give a fuck about e cat rules.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See now you're just moving the goal posts to cover your argument. Now you're talking about guns being modified, essentially making them a different category. As I was talking about rates of fire I was obviously talking about semi autos. 

Good luck getting an mp5 on a cat considering it has a freestanding pistol grip and telescopic stock. 

So your logic is that a cat is just as deadly as e cat because it can be modified to e cat making it an e cat, therefore an a cat isn't as deadly as an e cat. Makes perfect sense. You also admit that they can be converted to c cat, therefore making c cat no more deadly than a cat by your logic, however you said that c is more deadly than a cat. Since they can be chopped then they're all as deadly as a pistol?

You're not the only one that gets PMs.

----------


## 223nut

@Savage1 @Jexla if a rifle is pointed at you, do you think you will be worried about if its got a big mag or a telescoping stock, it only takes one bullet in the right place. theives will do as they wish with no regard to the law so this debate is moot.

----------


## stumpy

> Man, lose the signature. 
> You're coming across like an ass.


you have come across enough times in most of your posts your feelings on police, @Jexla ... and i agree with moutere , lose the sig .... and for all the guys pming you to do what ? give their support ... do it pubicly ... i support @Savage1 and pretty much everything he says .... you ... not so much .

----------


## gimp

Heck of a lot of words about being terrified that someone might do something nasty


Fuck someone might run over 83 of us with a truck

----------


## 223nut

Or fly a plane into a building

----------


## Sasquatch

> A cat rifles, can only hold 7 rounds unless .22lr. An E is unlimited. Sure you can change magazines in under 5 seconds...


Semi A-cat rifles can only hold 7 rounds, non semi is unlimited too. I find your post suggesting which FAL holder would be more deadly in some sort of shootout with police amusing.

Reality is, they are criminals and they don't care what _features_ the firearm has. That's why they are criminals.

I think it's sad you two are caught up in a ruckus on this forum, in some ways I agree with both of you. I can see why @Jexla has his view on police considering top level brass is upto some serious ultra vires shit currently.

However this has nothing to do with you @Savage1 or any other law enforcement personnel on this site.

----------


## mikee

> Reality is, they are criminals and they don't care what _features_ the firearm has. That's why they are criminals.


Best statement of the thread yet. 

If someone can explain to me how restricting the rights and freedoms of  law abiding has a direct effect on criminal activities then I would love to hear it.
Truth is the "law abiding" are easy targets and since they are easily found its easier to hound them on "technicalities"

----------


## Kscott

> ultra vires


Everytime someone says that, God kills a puppy.

Because it's the go-to, copy 'n paste, phrase  :Grin:

----------


## Jimmynostars

Emotions run high on our rights and responsibilities, we should be able to enjoy our sport without worrying about somebody pinching our hard earned toys. Unfortunately our hobby's tools are more appealing to criminals than a skier's.

I would feel shithouse if mine got pinched even tho they can be replaced be insurance.

Tighter security measures wouldn't worry me too much ( a few grand in a 800 dollar safe spot or a few grand in a glorified cupboard)

Let's not argue the finer points of the alphabet AbCdeF. Geee why can't we all just agree.

While some people have issue with the police, I have always been polite even when in the wrong and it has gone fine. No matter what walk of life you will always strike assholes.

If you bump into more than 2 assholes a day.... Maybe your the asshole

----------


## gonetropo

> Everytime someone says that, God kills a puppy.
> 
> Because it's the go-to, copy 'n paste, phrase


or even worse justin bieber releases a new single

----------


## Jexla

Police inspector says gun and knife crime has stayed steady or declined. Maybe I'm not just making it up with the statistics available to me? 

"Glossop said gun and knife crime had remained steady or declined across most districts, which was an encouraging trend."

The surprising items wielded as weapons in New Zealand | Stuff.co.nz

----------


## gimp

WE MUST CHANGE THINGS TO MAKE OUR LIVES HARDER TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TERRIFIED OF THAT oh it doesn't actually exist

----------


## Kscott

> Overall statistics showed firearms made up about 10 per cent of weapons offences, while sharp instruments; knives, glass bottles etc. accounted for 20 per cent.
> 
> Glossop said gun and knife crime had remained steady or declined across most districts, which was an encouraging trend.
> 
> But he said he was concerned about people carrying around weapons or keeping them in their car for protection - which could be an offence without a lawful excuse.
> 
> The danger, he said, was the risk of weapon escalation.
> 
> "If the baddies start thinking everybody's armed with something then they'll carry a bigger weapon and before you know it we're talking about firearms and before you know it we're going to hell in a handbasket.
> ...


Nailed it. Too many people keep possession of something that they carry to 'protect' themselves, and that's where Police should be directing their actions. Perhaps if more strident measures were policed, a South Auckland 2 year old wouldn't have been killed by a shotgun kept under the bed. How the shotgun got there and why should be a top priority.

----------


## gonetropo

sawn off shotgun owned by a non licensed owner at that. this is what the cops should make the focus of any gun laws not the law abiding

----------


## Kscott

As per the original post for this thread, was it security ? And just how said firearm ended up in the wrong hands. Not every FAL holder is law abiding  :Wink:

----------


## systolic

> Not every FAL holder is law abiding


Here's a few from a couple of minutes googling:

John Mowatt
The Bedroom Murders: 29 shots, 3 people dead. Why? - National - NZ Herald News

Peter Edwards
Man jailed for selling guns to gang | Radio New Zealand News

Dale Jenner
Gun stash on show - news - waikato-times | Stuff.co.nz

John Mabey
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10593826

----------


## Dead is better

Re-railing this thread 

- Has there been anything in the media on this? Not that I've seen and those muck raking turd-farmers are always onto this crap like it's 1/10th of the threat they portray it to be. 

Ps   "turd-farmer" is my fav insult for the week. Funny AF imo

----------


## Beavis

Latest info from Firearms Owners United is that there are no approved BCE category safes and that police will have to approve a certain make and model for compliance. It sounds like the issue may stem from dodgy Chinese manufacturers, who have sent compliant samples and then cut lots of corners come production time.

----------


## Marty Henry

So if you are the lucky owner of a now non complyant jobbie what are your options. It was approved when you bought it.

----------


## Ryan

Oh well, this should be interesting. 

One has to ask, how many of these safes have been burgled and as a result, how many B/C/E category firearms have been stolen and used in the commission of a crime? What is the exact make and model of the safe(s) in question deemed to not be compliant? Where is the evidence to show that these safes are not compliant?

----------


## Beavis

> Oh well, this should be interesting. 
> 
> One has to ask, how many of these safes have been burgled and as a result, how many B/C/E category firearms have been stolen and used in the commission of a crime? What is the exact make and model of the safe(s) in question deemed to not be compliant? Where is the evidence to show that these safes are not compliant?


As i understand it with regards to make and model, none currently meet the police spec, but that'smy understanding not necessarily the truth.

And as I understand it, if effected, you're fucked, unless you take the CGA approach.

----------


## Jexla

> Latest info from Firearms Owners United is that there are no approved BCE category safes and that police will have to approve a certain make and model for compliance..


This is something he was told outside of FOUNZ, don't take it as fact. Could be completely untrue. 

Unfortunately the police are not very good when it comes to communication and are just saying, yeah nah lots of safes aren't good enough, we won't tell you why.

----------


## Ryan

> As i understand it with regards to make and model, none currently meet the police spec, but that'smy understanding not necessarily the truth.
> 
> And as I understand it, if effected, you're fucked, unless you take the CGA approach.


Sounds a little bit far-fetched IMHO. I've a certificate from a chartered, ISO 9001 accredited New Zealand engineering company declaring that my safe is compliant in terms of Arms Act 1983 Regulation 28(1)(c). The safe is secured in the prescribed manner as approved by AO.

Short of an equally accredited engineer coming to my house and proving otherwise, I'd say they can tell their story walking.

----------


## gonetropo

one safe i saw had a hollow door full of ball bearings, if you tried to cut into it the bearings would roll and make it damn hard to cut. i did make the comment that it would be even more of a deterrent if it was filled with ball bearings and gunpowder.  :Grin:

----------


## Beavis

> Sounds a little bit far-fetched IMHO. I've a certificate from a chartered, ISO 9001 accredited New Zealand engineering company declaring that my safe is compliant in terms of Arms Act 1983 Regulation 28(1)(c). The safe is secured in the prescribed manner as approved by AO.
> 
> Short of an equally accredited engineer coming to my house and proving otherwise, I'd say they can tell their story walking.


I can only relay what I've read from other sources. But the police have a history of doing what they want and requiring court action to put them right.

----------


## Ryan

I wonder if class action litigation is an available option in the New Zealand legal system?

----------


## WallyR

Class action going on now, appealing the non-punishment of directors of Pike River Mine, over the 29 deaths of Pike River employees.
Action is being taken through the Companies Act, Work Safe Act and OSH regulations.
Duty of Care being the grounds for the action.
So I'd think that a class action over this commentary, by police, is a possibility.
Stop the importation and sale of non-compliant B/C/E safes.
Maybe the industry needs an AS/NZS standard for manufacture of same.
Which should also include 'approved fixing methods' to a structure.
Takes that decision out of police hands all together.
The Arms Act safe specification is too loose in this regard.
If the AO makes an on the spot decision, then the FAL license applicant could be up for a lot of extra, unanticipated costs.
A properly constructed Standard, means then the safe (all categories), is either compliant/non-compliant.
If it meets the standard, then it is certified as such.
Same as fixing the safe to a structure.

----------


## Koshogi

There already is a New Zealand standard for safes, AS/NZS 3809:1998 Safes and Strong rooms. 

You don't want that standard for gun safes in NZ.


Funnily enough in "gun control heaven " Australia,  gun safes don't have to comply with the standard either. 

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

----------


## gunnerjacky

Government should focus on gun control only to an extent where it doesn't hinder with carrying the gun for the self defense. These days gun control is only to irritate gun owners. They have to take care a lot of things to keep their license safe.

----------


## Ryan

It makes no sense that we as licensed firearm owners, who have our characters more thoroughly scrutinised than any member of civil society, are demonised so much by the media and the police. 

I read an old NZ Herald article from 2006 which stated that firearm related crime accounts for less than 1.3% of crimes committed annually. For a country that has such a low rate of firearm crime, one can only surmise that there are ulterior motives for the NZP's latest incentive. 

It's all about control, maintaining it and expanding it where possible.

----------


## Kscott

> Government should focus on gun control only to an extent where it doesn't hinder with carrying the gun for the self defense.


Say what ?

----------


## MassiveAttack

The fact that there is two simultaneous pushes to arm front line police and restrict private gun ownership indicates that Ryan is right.  This isn't a tinfoil hat conspiricy theory it's the logical conclusion given the facts.

On a similar note there is a worldwide push headed by the USA to restrict the ability of private individuals to share\copy information or media that they own (anti piracy, IP laws, Sky copyrighting the Olympic news) at the same time state governments are affirming their rights to read all of your web traffic and private e-mails whenever they want.

Why is it ok for the NSA\GCSB to read my e-mails the contents of which are private and something I care about personally but I can't download a movie off megaupload.com which only has a very small monitary value and no privacy implication?  Why does a Hollywood movie studio have more rights than I do?

The only bright spot in all this is that anything is hackable so the Panama papers got released and Hillary Clinton's emails got hacked and released.  Eventually they will intimidate the hackers into stopping though...

----------


## Kscott

> Sky copyrighting the Olympic news


Going to pick one thing in your post (because it's the easiest). Sky has paid a lot of $$ for Olympic broadcast rights. News media in NZ have _always_ worked with restrictions for access and video if they are not the rights holder - same for any big event like RWC, Commonwealth Games, America's Cup, etc.

Fairfax aka Stuff and NZME aka NZ Herald have said they want to use Sky video as much as they like, on their websites. Not in newspapers which is their origin, but web sites. And Sky have said no, unless you agree to limiting the duration of the video. TVNZ and TV3 have always been in the same boat and have always agreed to the restrictions. 

Both Stuff and NZHerald and said no, they don't want to follow those rules, despite they're using the video just like TVNZ and TV3. Which is why Sky took Fairfax to court for breach of copyright - it's business. 

There's no grand world wide conspiracy. 

It's simply Stuff and NZHerald acting like dicks and getting their hand smacked and complaining.

The IP discussion for individuals is more complex, so a glib one liner won't be good enough.

----------


## Jexla

I'm glad some of you can see it how it is really is and are not afraid to call a spade a spade. The rest of you are happy to watch your rights wither into nothing then pretend you don't know how it happened.

----------


## Taff

> The fact that there is two simultaneous pushes to arm front line police and restrict private gun ownership indicates that Ryan is right.  This isn't a tinfoil hat conspiricy theory it's the logical conclusion given the facts.
> 
> On a similar note there is a worldwide push headed by the USA to restrict the ability of private individuals to share\copy information or media that they own (anti piracy, IP laws, Sky copyrighting the Olympic news) at the same time state governments are affirming their rights to read all of your web traffic and private e-mails whenever they want.
> 
> Why is it ok for the NSA\GCSB to read my e-mails the contents of which are private and something I care about personally but I can't download a movie off megaupload.com which only has a very small monitary value and no privacy implication?  Why does a Hollywood movie studio have more rights than I do?
> 
> The only bright spot in all this is that anything is hackable so the Panama papers got released and Hillary Clinton's emails got hacked and released.  Eventually they will intimidate the hackers into stopping though...


Bloody hell were all doomed.

----------


## Ryan

> Bloody hell were all doomed.


Not necessarily. 

It would however be remiss to deny that there is an insidious movement to erode people's rights under the guise of "national security". The USA Patriot Act (USA), Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (NZ), Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act, 2002 (South Africa) to name but a few examples.

Is it just coincidence or convenience that at least two of these countries happen to have well funded lobbying organisations that advocate additional legislative firearm controls through a campaign of fear mongering and misinformation?

----------


## Taff

I was being sarcastic , not paranoid

----------


## Ryan

Okay - I was being neither.

----------


## Beavis

Sort of Ironic that with mass surveillance they still have a difficult time stopping terror attacks. It is abundantly obvious that the states are just asserting their monopolies on all things - information, force, money etc.

----------


## Ryan

> Sort of Ironic that with mass surveillance they still have a difficult time stopping terror attacks. It is abundantly obvious that the states are just asserting their monopolies on all things - information, force, money etc.


They surveil foreign countries with impunity. They never needed laws passed to do so. If the threat is supposedly coming from beyond the borders, why the need for increased powers for domestic surveillance?

----------


## outdoorlad

The bottom line is that it's the crim's who are stealing firearms, the sentencing for this is a joke, that's the first thing that needs to change, harsher penalties are required & once all the bastards are locked up the theft rate will drop.

I saw a news article last night about record numbers of tradies tools being flogged, mainly to fuel meth heads, burglary rates also at an all time high. Here's a novel idea for those clowns in Wellie, how about some more funding for the police so they can go after the gangs hard, if your a gang member & get caught with a firearm, 10yrs! no gangs = no meth = no need for stolen guns= no crack heads ripping our shit off to feed there habits & us law abiding folk can go about enjoying our hobby/sport, etc

----------


## 223nut

Slight topic change... Mainstream media doesn't cover the shooting where some nutted goes off in a shopping mall and an average citizen pulls a pistol and cuts things short. Concealed carry does have its place. Cant remember the examples but know there where at least 2 in the last 4 years.

----------


## GravelBen

Its not just about giving the police funding, its about how their bureaucrats decide to use the funding. I wonder how the 'investigate burglaries' budget compares with the 'issue speeding tickets' budget?

----------


## GravelBen

> Mainstream media doesn't cover the shooting where some nutted goes off in a shopping mall and an average citizen pulls a pistol and cuts things short.


Don't remember them saying much about that nutjob in Japan stabbing a bunch of people recently either?

----------


## Chilli_Dog

> Going to pick one thing in your post (because it's the easiest). Sky has paid a lot of $$ for Olympic broadcast rights. News media in NZ have _always_ worked with restrictions for access and video if they are not the rights holder - same for any big event like RWC, Commonwealth Games, America's Cup, etc.
> 
> Fairfax aka Stuff and NZME aka NZ Herald have said they want to use Sky video as much as they like, on their websites. Not in newspapers which is their origin, but web sites. And Sky have said no, unless you agree to limiting the duration of the video. TVNZ and TV3 have always been in the same boat and have always agreed to the restrictions. 
> 
> Both Stuff and NZHerald and said no, they don't want to follow those rules, despite they're using the video just like TVNZ and TV3. Which is why Sky took Fairfax to court for breach of copyright - it's business. 
> 
> There's no grand world wide conspiracy. 
> 
> It's simply Stuff and NZHerald acting like dicks and getting their hand smacked and complaining.
> ...


Getting off topic here, but even though sky paid the big bucks for brodcasting rights NZ copyright law has exemptions for fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting. Sky say Stuff is using too much and costing them suscribers, Stuff say they acting within "fair use". Its not up to Sky to dictate what is fair, this is why a judge is now involved.

----------


## Sasquatch

Order out of chaos comes to mind. Criminals and gang members caught with firearms should be punished severely but that just doesn't happen. The question is why?

My Grandmother (rest her soul) once told me; it's easy to be a bad person & an arsehole in life, but it's hard to be good and stand out from the rest. Ya know, don't lie & steal peoples shit.

Why is it in this country our justice system systematically makes it _easier_ to be a criminal. Or for them to even exist for that matter. It's simply not fair. As mentioned before we who are law abiding, for the most part honest too and from my experience with you folks on here and other friends & family I shoot with are _good_ people. It baffles me that crime in alot of cases gets pathetic sentences which in my opinion is more injustice.

But hey, at least we all still have our integrity.

----------


## Kscott

> Getting off topic here, but even though sky paid the big bucks for brodcasting rights NZ copyright law has exemptions for fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting. Sky say Stuff is using too much and costing them suscribers, Stuff say they acting within "fair use". Its not up to Sky to dictate what is fair, this is why a judge is now involved.


It's new territory for Fairfax and NZME who want to play video sourced from someone else, but more importantly, play adverts around that footage and earn money from it, without paying a cent getting the footage. The game is changing, Sky is 1st out of the box on this. 

"Friday at the High Court in Auckland, Justice John Fogarty ruled it was impossible to decide what was fair use in such a short hearing." So Fairfax have won round 1. That Fairfax wanted to place adverts around that footage, and earn money off it, dilutes the fair use for News term a little bit. Because it's all click bait for them. Which brings in advertising money.

----------


## Rushy

> Order out of chaos comes to mind. Criminals and gang members caught with firearms should be punished severely but that just doesn't happen. The question is why?
> 
> My Grandmother (rest her soul) once told me; it's easy to be a bad person & an arsehole in life, but it's hard to be good and stand out from the rest. Ya know, don't lie & steal peoples shit.
> 
> Why is it in this country our justice system systematically makes it _easier_ to be a criminal. Or for them to even exist for that matter. It's simply not fair. As mentioned before we who are law abiding, for the most part honest too and from my experience with you folks on here and other friends & family I shoot with are _good_ people. It baffles me that crime in alot of cases gets pathetic sentences which in my opinion is more injustice.
> 
> But hey, at least we all still have our integrity.


Cut off the hand that steals and that thief will not likely steal again. There is some rationale from ancient middle eastern culture that resonates well with me.

----------


## GravelBen

> Cut off the hand that steals and that thief will not likely steal again. There is some rationale from ancient middle eastern culture that resonates well with me.


Of course, the flipside is cut off the hand accused of stealing with marginal evidence and you'll look a right prick if it turns out they're innocent later. Still need a fair trial and all that.

----------


## Rushy

> Of course, the flipside is cut off the hand accused of stealing with marginal evidence and you'll look a right prick if it turns out they're innocent later.


Then the prudent thing to do would be to not make mistakes.

----------


## shooternz

Chopping hands off doesn't work either the middle east is full of thieves and murders, The dumb bastards think they are going to get away with it just like the dip shits here, only here they are getting away with it
the burglary rate clearance is a disgrace if were a cop  I would be ashamed to admit the fact, catch the thieves and put them away for a long stretch will dry up the money pool to buy drugs,
and stop being nice to prisoners most of them are better cared for in prison than on the out side, they come out for a few months visit wth whanau then go back in, maybe the family of convicts should pay 
for their upkeep while in prison would be an incentive to stay on the outside.

----------


## Friwi

Then first New Zealand should step out of United Nations.
 Then we can lock up and do all the miserable things we want to those stealing bastards. 
And we won't have to worry about our gun laws being in trouble because we can decide on our own and would not have to follow New York or Tokyo ruling!
And we, the honest citizen,would  be able to buy back the old weapons of our army and police as we would not have to obey the small arm proliferation bullshit that our gvt signed at the un. And we would not have to pay them to have representive like clark over there. Save us some $$$ as well.
And we could shut the mouth of a few politically correct journalists , and put the like of heather in front of a real tribunal to deal with her case. 
Some kind of a better democracy isn t it?

----------


## Jexla

> Then the prudent thing to do would be to not make mistakes.


Clearly our "justice" system is not capable of that, seen the news in the last 6 months?

----------


## Kscott

> Then first New Zealand should step out of United Nations.
>  Then we can lock up and do all the miserable things we want to those stealing bastards. 
> And we won't have to worry about our gun laws being in trouble because we can decide on our own and would not have to follow New York or Tokyo ruling!
> And we, the honest citizen,would  be able to buy back the old weapons of our army and police as we would not have to obey the small arm proliferation bullshit that our gvt signed at the un. And we would not have to pay them to have representive like clark over there. Save us some $$$ as well.
> And we could shut the mouth of a few politically correct journalists , and put the like of heather in front of a real tribunal to deal with her case. 
> Some kind of a better democracy isn t it?


FFS, where to start ?

Chopping the hands off burglars ? What else, maybe just execute hunters who shoot other people ? Torturing people under the belief of handing out justice is what ISIS are doing, because they believe they're right and everyone else is wrong, so let's grab a gay guy and throw him off a building. After all, why stop at just thieves ?

Our gun laws are some of the best in the world - common sense with a touch of security. Unless you'd prefer UK or Australia restrictions, or USA better pack a Glock going to the shops because every nutjob has one tucked under their shirt because they think you're the threat.

Clark doesn't represent us at the UN, she's an employee of the UN as "Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme" She has never represented NZ at the UN except when she visited as PM.

Ironically, your better democracy you've just described wouldn't allow you to post what you've said, because you don't want freedom of speech.

Facts, pesky things but vital to know.

----------


## Rushy

There are many different beliefs in this world that we live in and it is arrogant of us in the more liberal, democratic, westernised, Christian world to believe that we have got our justice system right and those that think differently have got it wrong. Whilst attitudes toward a justice system different from ours may seem barbaric to many, it is a fact that there are 58 countries in the world that still have capital punishment and among them is the leader of the democratic (so called "free") world (USA), the most highly populated countries like China and India, and several of our other foreign trading partners such as Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan.

----------


## Tommy

I like the way Singapore has a ton of harsh sentencing measures, but doesn't really have to do much in the way of actually carrying it out. They play serious, and as a result everything works. Best system of government really, the benevolent dictatorship

----------


## mikee

Honest people would generally be that way even if there were no "rules' 

Ratbags will always be ratbags regardless of  rules or lack there of. 

Dealing with them is difficult as they usually don't care about the "consequences" unless it is directly applying to them at the time

----------


## Ryan

> I like the way Singapore has a ton of harsh sentencing measures, but doesn't really have to do much in the way of actually carrying it out. They play serious, and as a result everything works. Best system of government really, the benevolent dictatorship


Singapore is a Confucian society. Has some benefits but I prefer thinking for myself.

----------


## Tommy

I wash confushed at how everything worked and was sparkling clean, for sure.

----------


## Ryan

> I wash confushed at how everything worked and was sparkling clean, for sure.


Much like here.

----------


## Dead is better

My wife just got back from the local bottle shop. She witnessed a teenager knock a whole case of beer off the shelf to create a distraction, then legged it a minute later with a 6 pack of RTDs into a waiting car. Freakin dirtbags

----------


## 223nut

> My wife just got back from the local bottle shop. She witnessed a teenager knock a whole case of beer off the shelf to create a distraction, then legged it a minute later with a 6 pack of RTDs into a waiting car. Freakin dirtbags


Geez shouldn't that be the other way round? Muppet

----------


## stretch

> Hey guys
> 
> Friend of mine recently went into our local h&f to inquire about their e cat safe prices. He was told not to bother as they had received a letter from the police stating that they no longer recognise any of the current e cat safes as approved methods of storage no matter the cert they have and have put a hold on all e and a cat storage checks or something along those lines. The reasoning is that they are going to an approved police engineer that will be the only one able to certify a firearms safe etc and each safe will have to be individually approved not just a model of safe. Apparently due to some safes being approved when really they shouldn't be and the police having no "control" over the certifier.
> 
> Anyone else heard anything about this happening?


Getting back on topic, just had a similar experience. A few months back I bought a second hand e-cat safe off a forum member. He provided the original receipt, that shows the store sold it as e-cat rated, but didn't provide an engineer's certificate.

I emailed the shop explaining the situation, sent a scan of the receipt and requested the certificate.

Here's the reply:

"The E-Cat safe situation is a little complicated at the moment - a couple of weeks ago the Police demanded a re-certification of all restricted category safes, so we are currently in the process of going through this with our supplier"

Fingers crossed my model of safe DOES get recertified.

----------


## Rushy

> My wife just got back from the local bottle shop. She witnessed a teenager knock a whole case of beer off the shelf to create a distraction, then legged it a minute later with a 6 pack of RTDs into a waiting car. Freakin dirtbags


Fucking scumbag.

----------


## Friwi

She did not take the regio for the cop?

----------


## shooternz

Getting back on track, I am about to move house and checked out the new security regs for cabinets and safes it says for wooden floors should be bolted through a steel plate but does not give the thickness of said plate
anybody know what it should be no point in asking Mr plod most of them have no idea even those that should, be interested in what people have had passed do not want to waste money on thicker than I need to do the job.

----------


## Kscott

> A cabinet should be bolted to a minimum of two surfaces, one of which shall be the floor. Bolt shafts shall be a minimum of 10 mm in diameter and when bolted into concrete, expanding or chemical setting bolts may be used. Where the cabinet is bolted to a wooden floor it shall be through bolted to a steel plate which exceeds the floor area of the cabinet and is retained on at least two floor joists. All nuts must be on the inside of the cabinet, and bolts welded or burred to resist removal. It is recommended that the cabinet or box be bolted in a confined space, such as a wardrobe or cupboard.


http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/defa...nts-pol67n.pdf

Firearms forms and guides | New Zealand Police

----------


## stretch

> Getting back on track, I am about to move house and checked out the new security regs for cabinets and safes it says for wooden floors should be bolted through a steel plate but does not give the thickness of said plate
> anybody know what it should be no point in asking Mr plod most of them have no idea even those that should, be interested in what people have had passed do not want to waste money on thicker than I need to do the job.


I haven't had my wood-floor installation certified yet, but I have assumed the minimum plate thickness would be 6mm for mild steel. I've gone with 8mm checker-plate, as that's what I was able to score for free. Using 1/2" threaded rod for the bolts because again, free.

----------


## shooternz

Yes I have read the specs on that, and there is no plate thickness mentioned.

----------


## shooternz

That's what I thought with the plate bolted to the floor joists the only way to get it out is with a chainsaw and I have 3 safes with not enough room between them to fit a chainsaw so I will go with the 3mm our vetting officer and AO are both pretty reasonable people,

----------


## Brian

Just filled my renewal form out. It's interesting to see that the police are using drivers licence numbers as i d for all concerned.
I believe this is illegal but who is going to argue if he wants to keep hunting.

----------


## timattalon

> Just filled my renewal form out. It's interesting to see that the police are using drivers licence numbers as i d for all concerned.
> I believe this is illegal but who is going to argue if he wants to keep hunting.


They simply have presumed that because it is on the form they have to fill it out. But that is not the case. The drivers license details are there for the purchase of Airguns where they buyer does not need a FA license, but has to be over 18. This way the cops use the same form and simply put a Driver license down as proof of age. Apparently this is too simple. 

Question has to be asked...why would a DL make any difference? You dont have to have a DL to buy a car so why would you want one to buy a rifle? Could be handy if you are buying a LAV or a Tank though.....

----------


## Jexla

> They simply have presumed that because it is on the form they have to fill it out. But that is not the case. The drivers license details are there for the purchase of Airguns where they buyer does not need a FA license, but has to be over 18. This way the cops use the same form and simply put a Driver license down as proof of age. Apparently this is too simple. 
> 
> Question has to be asked...why would a DL make any difference? You dont have to have a DL to buy a car so why would you want one to buy a rifle? Could be handy if you are buying a LAV or a Tank though.....


Pretty sure I made a post about this exact scenario. Copper tried to tell me if I was using this form I had to fill it all in. Told him to send it to the AO and she can talk to me about it if she so wishes.
Never heard from her, but it took over a week for it to get sent to the dealer.

----------


## Koshogi

I tried to explain it to one the other day, to no avail. 

Even showed the AO where it says "Firearms  Licence OR Drivers Licence (as the case may require )" on the back of THEIR form. Unfortunately, I guess reading comprehension isn't a requirement for the job.

----------


## gunnerjacky

I have a deep hatred for the Police. They have this history of doing whatever they feel like. We cannot rely on police to protect us from the criminals. We ought to get firearms safety training and own a gun for the safety of our family.

----------


## systolic

> I have a deep hatred for the Police. They have this history of doing whatever they feel like. We cannot rely on police to protect us from the criminals. We ought to get firearms safety training and own a gun for the safety of our family.


You are a complete idiot and I really hope you stay in India or Boston, or wherever you are, and never come to New Zealand.

----------


## 308

> I have a deep hatred for the Police. They have this history of doing whatever they feel like. We cannot rely on police to protect us from the criminals. We ought to get firearms safety training and own a gun for the safety of our family.


Then go to the US because your ideal society awaits you

Not here, sunshine

----------


## Kscott

> I have a deep hatred for the Police. They have this history of doing whatever they feel like. We cannot rely on police to protect us from the criminals. We ought to get firearms safety training and own a gun for the safety of our family.


We have firearms safety training already and yet hunters shoot each other. Putting firearms in the hands of angry people in a tense situation is fucking stupid.

Where abouts do you live anyway ?

----------


## Beavis

Probably just trolling

----------


## timattalon

> Probably just trolling


Probably??? Whats this Probably business...?

Actually, it seems by the tone of his posts that he has a very different perspective to firearms ownership and use than we do. For what its worth, our Police are not the ones he does not like. I suspect he does not yet realise what we have down here.....

----------


## Kscott

Perhaps a product of the awesome US education system, not realising other countries in the world have freedom.

----------


## Bunker

Yeah.. have to admitt some of the safes i've seen arent exactly what i'd call secure..

----------


## res

> Yeah.. have to admitt some of the safes i've seen arent exactly what i'd call secure..


Given your user name I would assume you have very high security standards

----------


## bang-thud-thump

gunnerjacky sounds like an ideal person to have access to firearms. 
Nothing like self admitted hatred to balance you decisions on. 

I hope your kids get far away from you as soon as possible and find a way to undo the rot you have no doubt instilled in their poor minds. 
For some reason I picture you and your friends in white hooded robes..............

----------


## kotuku

> I have a deep hatred for the Police. They have this history of doing whatever they feel like. We cannot rely on police to protect us from the criminals. We ought to get firearms safety training and own a gun for the safety of our family.


unfortunately we have here a classic example of the fact that even  DNA has shortcomings.
pal ,wherever you are id suggest you give us a miss and try ultra rightwing /national socialist type forums ,sure they'd adore you.

----------


## Shahin

Actually know a close friend that works at hunting and fishing and have had a similar talk but not everything in your original post is true... I haven't read all 12 pages so forgive me if I'm repeating someone else's answer  :Thumbsup:  
To be short they have stopped stocking "ECAT" safes as new regulations are coming into place where a locksmith and engineer have to provide a cert for the safes now. Nothing has changed regarding ACAT. H&F will still sell you an ECAT safe but they need to order certain pre approved ones from there supplier to stop them from getting in the shit for selling you a supposed ECAT when really it's only an ACAT.

Hope this helps  :Psmiley:

----------


## Ernie

From Otago Arms Officer today

"The report that comes with the safe is sufficient." :Thumbsup:

----------


## mucko

> Hey guys
> 
> Friend of mine recently went into our local h&f to inquire about their e cat safe prices. He was told not to bother as they had received a letter from the police stating that they no longer recognise any of the current e cat safes as approved methods of storage no matter the cert they have and have put a hold on all e and a cat storage checks or something along those lines. The reasoning is that they are going to an approved police engineer that will be the only one able to certify a firearms safe etc and each safe will have to be individually approved not just a model of safe. Apparently due to some safes being approved when really they shouldn't be and the police having no "control" over the certifier.
> 
> Anyone else heard anything about this happening?


Tauranga AO currently auditing E cat safes doing sight inspections making sure they comply.

----------


## Beavis

So I wonder what happens of they decide they don't comply?

----------


## mucko

> So I wonder what happens of they decide they don't comply?


Don't know mate both my home builds comply

----------


## stretch

According to http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/defa...nts-pol67n.pdf, the minimum lock standard for Strongrooms, Rooms of stout construction, Steel boxes and cabinets, and Safes is a 5-lever Mortice lock complying with BS3621.

Strongrooms, Steel boxes and cabinets, and Safes require 2x locks, while Rooms of stout construction seem to only require 1. That fucks my safe.

From a security perspective, I wonder how a Group 1 combination dial compares to a 5-lever mortice lock.

----------


## nzvermin

> According to http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/defa...nts-pol67n.pdf, the minimum lock standard for Strongrooms, Rooms of stout construction, Steel boxes and cabinets, and Safes is a 5-lever Mortice lock complying with BS3621.
> 
> Strongrooms, Steel boxes and cabinets, and Safes require 2x locks, while Rooms of stout construction seem to only require 1. That fucks my safe.
> 
> From a security perspective, I wonder how a Group 1 combination dial compares to a 5-lever mortice lock.


Buggers me too, my safe only has one digital combo lock with a single key lock backup. It would be interesting to know how many people have the Sentry Safe like me and how the police are going enforce their "new rules"? I was planning on building a "room of stout construction" anyway, but whats to stop them changing their mind on that too?

----------


## Beavis

I think basically everybody is fucked.

----------


## stretch

> According to http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/defa...nts-pol67n.pdf, the minimum lock standard for Strongrooms, Rooms of stout construction, Steel boxes and cabinets, and Safes is a 5-lever Mortice lock complying with BS3621.
> 
> Strongrooms, Steel boxes and cabinets, and *Safes require 2x locks*, while Rooms of stout construction seem to only require 1. *That fucks my safe*.
> 
> From a security perspective, I wonder how a Group 1 combination dial compares to a 5-lever mortice lock.


Yet the last AO I spoke to (last week) said only 3 models had been reapproved, including the Kilwell one. Kilwell Deluxe 10 Gun Safe - E-Cat Key Lock | GD-10K | Kilwell Sports Ltd. Strangely enough, the picture shows it only having ONE lock.

----------


## Taff

I think you may find its locking points that matter.

----------


## stretch

> I think you may find its locking points that matter.


Let's hope so.

----------


## stretch

Pinched from one of the other forums:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ru4947lssl...safes.pdf?dl=0

----------


## Shahin

> Pinched from one of the other forums:
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ru4947lssl...safes.pdf?dl=0


Hahaha someone should take that to parliament and cause an uproar  :Thumbsup:  But knowing New Zealand politicians, It would most likely end in stricter gun laws  :Oh Noes:

----------


## Danger Mouse

can you advise which forum, if this is legit im printing and keeping a copy.

----------


## stug

Pistol NZ has it on their website.  Police and Legislation

----------


## timattalon

Very interesting. Worth reading.

----------


## Dr. Watson

Yip that was sent to me a couple days ago via PNZ.

i think as owners we need to be as proactive as reasonably possible.

But it's important that we fully understand the current law so we don't get walked over by overbearing dribblers that somehow gravitate to positions of authority and enforcement...

Should you print the legal advice off? Yes I certainly would.

And laminate it.

And hang it on the wall next to your safe along with the relevant parts of the act.

----------


## Jexla

> Hahaha someone should take that to parliament and cause an uproar  But knowing New Zealand politicians, It would most likely end in stricter gun laws


Needs to be taken to court and let a judge make a decision. Parliament won't hold the police liable, they'll just cover their tracks and make it legal for them to do what they were already doing.

----------


## sambnz

Mm very interesting indeed. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## steven

Here is a legal opinion on the crap the police are saying, last part is cat A but it is all interesting reading.

http://www.pistolnz.org.nz/media/119...n_re_safes.pdf

It isnt law a case has to go to court for that  for a decision I believe.

----------

