# Hunting > Firearm Safety >  Safe place to store ammo?

## Dylan Pearson

Hows it going guys.

I have sat my firearms license and i'm currently waiting for the Arms officer to come over and check my gun cabinet. When i was sitting my test i was told you are not aloud to store Firearms and Ammunition together.

 So i was wondering what is considered a safe place to store Ammunition?

Cheers
Dylan

----------


## Dylan Pearson

Does it have to be bolted to the ground also?

----------


## The Rifleman

In a padlocked ammunition box buried 8ft 3inches under the dog kennel. But seriously, somewhere a thief and non-licensed person (kids etc) wont stumble on it or be able to get at it. Oh, did I mention it's good practice to have it in a ammunition box. They're cheap enough.

----------


## Survy

Best place to store ammo is in the pest you just shot
Alt an ex army ammo can with a padlock on it think gun shitty does one
Would it hurt to drill a hole in the bottom and bolt it to the floor nope it wouldn't 
Buy2 cans so you can take the other out with you.

----------


## Nibblet

Like Tussock said. Nice robust toolbox from somewhere, I got mine from superchump for $15, make sure to buy a big one though so you can stock up for the apocalypse, and hide it deep in your wardrobe or something. Keep your bolts in there as well

----------


## cbfb

I got a big old wooden chest from a junk shop for f#$@ all, padlock on it and good to go. Stores all my powder,primers, bullets & loaded ammo  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## steven

Does your gun cabinet have a seperate top lockable box? (most do) if so thats good enough.

----------


## steven

The other way is the gun must be disabled so a $25 trigger lock.

----------


## Dylan Pearson

> Does your gun cabinet have a seperate top lockable box? (most do) if so thats good enough.


They dont allow that here. Has to be in a completely separate box/cabinet .

----------


## 7mmwsm

If it must be locked away, why do we see thousands of rounds of shotgun ammo sitting on gun shop floors with nothing but an open door between it and the outside world?

----------


## madjon_

Arms Regulations 1992 (SR 1992/346) (as at 01 January 2010) 19*Conditions relating to security precautions &ndash; New Zealand Legislation
latest I can find

----------


## Josh

Just got my security rechecked after moving houses. Haven't organised a lock box for it yet (other house had a lockable cupboard), so all of my ammo is just hidden, but not locked up. Copper was completely ok with that. Said it might be worth investing in a lockable box, but I wasn't breaking the law.

----------


## P38

You could also simply put a lock on a cupboard or wardrobe door.

----------


## steven

> They dont allow that here. Has to be in a completely separate box/cabinet .


weird....it seems there are more than a few differences in how the rules are read across areas.  My AO, my inspector and a mountain council guy I know are more than happy with lockable box inside the gun cabinet. 

It would be nice if we got consistency.

 :Pissed Off: 

Got an army surplus store near you?

Otherwise I saw them for $10, Belmont ammunition plus postage.

 :Thumbsup:

----------


## 7mmwsm

I also work on the theory that there is a lock on the door of my house. If I am away the house is locked, therefore the ammunition is "locked away". If I am home the house is unlocked but the ammunition is "in my possession". 
If someone enters my house they have already breached my first line of security and they definately had "intent".

----------


## Savage1

> I also work on the theory that there is a lock on the door of my house. If I am away the house is locked, therefore the ammunition is "locked away". If I am home the house is unlocked but the ammunition is "in my possession". 
> If someone enters my house they have already breached my first line of security and they definately had "intent".


So everyone that is in your house has a FAL? Do you leave the house locked when you're away but your partner is there? Do you lock her away from the area where the ammunition is?

I like your theory but I imagine it could be picked apart in court by the prosecutor.

----------


## 7mmwsm

> So everyone that is in your house has a FAL? Do you leave the house locked when you're away but your partner is there? Do you lock her away from the area where the ammunition is?
> 
> I like your theory but I imagine it could be picked apart in court by the prosecutor.


I did not mention if I had a wife, husband(yeah right), partner or such. And as at this point in time everyone in my house does have a firearms licence.
As I mentioned in an earlier post I do not need a firearms licence to walk into a sports shop which has ammunition often sitting in the open with no security what so ever.
Your argument, if applied in other areas would suggest that it would be illegal to leave an unlicenced person unsupervised in a motor vehicle. Or leave vehicle keys where an unlicenced person had access to them.

----------


## Savage1

A person doesn't need a licence to be in possession of a motor vehicle, so my argument cannot be applied to that scenario.

The shops get away with it I image by saying that it's under supervision during store opening hours.

Police may say that it's not the actions of a fit and proper person to not have ammunition locked up when it isn't in their direct possession/supervision.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, just that people could take it the wrong way and call you careless.

----------


## mucko

> They dont allow that here. Has to be in a completely separate box/cabinet .


Just had my relocation check done for E cat. rifles in the top Ammo in bottom separate lockable compartment no issues at all.

----------


## gimp

I keep my ammo in my guns, I figure no-one will look for it there.

----------


## mucko

> I keep my ammo in my guns, I figure no-one will look for it there.


It was good enough for SAI guns to have a pistol semi ready in the desk draw then why not.

----------


## Haggie

You dont have to lock your ammo away its just recommended much like removing the bolts and mags of rifles and keeping them separate is recommended and not required by law. Just make sure your guns are ammo are not together and that your ammo is hidden or out of reach instead of rolling around on the floor. That being said when your getting your security checked its good to go all out to avoid any issues. If you could go to jail or get prosecuted for a stray .22 rooling around somewhere in your house half of us would be doing time lol. And if your driving around with your guns make sure your mags are out if possible or your in the shit.

----------


## gimp

*loaded mags are out, you mean


Although I'm pretty sure they can't search your vehicle without consent or good cause and "you look like a hunter so you might have a loaded mag in there" is not good cause

----------


## hanse

Officer " I think we need to have a look in your vehicle sir"
Me " Nah sorry mate pretty sure you need a decent reason or a warrant"

I would say my day would go downhill rapidly after that, not because I had anything to hide, but because the power hungry ahem would go all out to fck me over because I got one over him/her on a technicality.

Lets face it its becoming harder and harder to stand up to beauracracy etc because of the cost involved.

----------


## hanse

Sorry Dylan got sidetracked. The rules are as the guys outlined above eg keep it out of the way of kids etc and make it hard to find/ access if heaven forbid, someone unauthorised got ahold of your firearms.

My AO had a good point that I think some guys miss, Instead of just following the law, why not go one step further and make It as hard as possible for anyone but you, to get at you guns and ammo.

----------


## gimp

> Lets face it its becoming harder and harder to stand up to beauracracy etc because of the cost involved.


And that's the best reason to do it.

----------


## Kscott

> Sorry Dylan got sidetracked. The rules are as the guys outlined above eg keep it out of the way of kids etc and make it hard to find/ access if heaven forbid, someone unauthorised got ahold of your firearms.
> 
> My AO had a good point that I think some guys miss, Instead of just following the law, why not go one step further and make It as hard as possible for anyone but you, to get at you guns and ammo.


Exactly. But sadly too many people feel it's not worth the hassle, and doesn't work for 100% of every situation. I suspect if there was a sudden increase in random spot inspections by the Police, like check points on the road for cars have, attitudes might quickly change.

----------


## gimp

I feel like police shouldn't have the power to do random spot inspections

----------


## scottrods

I have a number of ex-army tins each with different purposes - all padlocked. One with 12g and ammo belt. One for 22 and mags. I can grab either of these and take it on a trip when I'm going hunting. I have a 6mm thick steel locker I got on TM for a song, with double padlocks for main storage.
Picked up one of those pelican case rip-offs from Supercheap - has twin padlock points on it. $25 I think. Holds about 4 boxes of 12g or whatever.

----------


## Kscott

> I feel like police shouldn't have the power to do random spot inspections


They can with cars. And their drivers  :Wink:

----------


## gimp

They shouldn't have the ability to do so for firearms!

----------


## Savage1

> I feel like police shouldn't have the power to do random spot inspections


I suggest you spend a night with the Police and get a feel for what their job is like, I imagine it will change your tune. 

Police need "good cause to suspect" in order to invoke a search of your vehicle regarding firearms, that reason could be that a vehicle of that description was used in an offence involving firearms in the area, within the past few hours. Do you think Police shouldn't have that power? How hard do you want to make their job?!

If police couldn't do spot inspections then what is to discourage the lazy from locking their firearms away?

----------


## Dundee

If ya get stuck Dylan I can lock your ammo up for you :Grin:

----------


## gimp

> I suggest you spend a night with the Police and get a feel for what their job is like, I imagine it will change your tune. 
> 
> Police need "good cause to suspect" in order to invoke a search of your vehicle regarding firearms, that reason could be that a vehicle of that description was used in an offence involving firearms in the area, within the past few hours. Do you think Police shouldn't have that power? How hard do you want to make their job?!


Good cause is totally unrelated to random spot inspections


I strongly disagree with the idea of police having the power to search my person, vehicle or home without cause/warrant, which is what random spot checks amounts to

I want to make the abuse of powers by police as hard as possible!

----------


## gimp

> If police couldn't do spot inspections then what is to discourage the lazy from locking their firearms away?


The same reason we all lock our firearms away at the moment! Because most of us are honest people and we don't need you breathing down our neck to ensure we are! Please don't treat everyone as criminals with no evidence plz and thnx

----------


## distant stalker

Im always a bit uneasy about ammo locked inside the house. Imagine if you had a housefire. Wouldnt want fire brigade going in.... much easier to ket garage/shed burn than house.

----------


## gimp

> Im always a bit uneasy about ammo locked inside the house. Imagine if you had a housefire. Wouldnt want fire brigade going in.... much easier to ket garage/shed burn than house.


SAAMI - Sporting Ammunition and the Fire Fighter - YouTube


I wouldn't worry about it too much.

----------


## steven

Mags out AND mags have to be empty.

Though if you had a belt fed "rifle"?  now there's an interesting idea.

 :Wtfsmilie: 

As my senior AO has the opinion that even stripper clips should be empty...

 :ORLY:

----------


## steven

> SAAMI - Sporting Ammunition and the Fire Fighter - YouTube
> 
> 
> I wouldn't worry about it too much.


The thing they seem to worry about is powder...

regards

----------


## distant stalker

> SAAMI - Sporting Ammunition and the Fire Fighter - YouTube
> 
> 
> I wouldn't worry about it too much.


Good demo. Had always been curious about if a rifle round would build enough pressure when not held in a chamber.
R.e the powder. I believe its more the insurers that dont like powder in the house. I just burmt half a pound on the back lawn
 Just sizzles. Less dangerous than more common accelerants like white spirits, meths etc

----------


## Savage1

> Good cause is totally unrelated to random spot inspections
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree with the idea of police having the power to search my person, vehicle or home without cause/warrant, which is what random spot checks amounts to
> 
> I want to make the abuse of powers by police as hard as possible!


So you think it's such a hassle to allow Police to check the security on firearms to ensure that they stored properly so that any old burglar can't just pick them up and leave?! 

Oh it must be so hard allowing a 10 minute inspection, the things we have to endure to have a FAL.

Not all people would lock their firearms away, just because you might doesn't mean the rest of the firearms community would, same with WOF and Reg on vehicles, if Police couldn't do spot checks then how many more people would ignore it and inevitably drive around with bald tires etc, how many more people would drink drive rather than call a taxi? Shitloads, that's why Police need the ability in some circumstances to perform spot checks, if it offends you then I suggest you grow a thicker skin as there are far worse things out there than a random check.

----------


## gimp

> So you think it's such a hassle to allow Police to check the security on firearms to ensure that they stored properly so that any old burglar can't just pick them up and leave?! 
> 
> Oh it must be so hard allowing a 10 minute inspection, the things we have to endure to have a FAL.
> 
> Not all people would lock their firearms away, just because you might doesn't mean the rest of the firearms community would, same with WOF and Reg on vehicles, if Police couldn't do spot checks then how many more people would ignore it and inevitably drive around with bald tires etc, how many more people would drink drive rather than call a taxi? Shitloads, that's why Police need the ability in some circumstances to perform spot checks, if it offends you then I suggest you grow a thicker skin as there are far worse things out there than a random check.


A cop not understanding the idea of civil liberties, colour me unsurprised

----------


## Savage1

> A cop not understanding the idea of civil liberties, colour me unsurprised


A niave and ignorant civilian unaware of what is needed to maintain a civil society, uncommon but hardly rare.

----------


## gimp

Civil society or police state?

Random spot checks with no probable cause amount to unreasonable breach of privacy and are way too open to abuse, sorry, please stop assuming everyone is a criminal. We don't have random spot checks now and there's not a massive plague of people leaving their guns lying around for burglars. Why not go check everyone in the countries house to ensure they're not in possession of a joint? Oh because of "due process". Firearms license holders have been vetted to be fit and proper to hold a license, we don't need you to check up on us to make sure we're obeying the rules.

Surely you can see the incompatibility between your view that the most law-abiding segment of the population needs constant monitoring to make sure they're not committing crimes, and the idea that the police need more powers? On the one hand you're assuming that everyone is a completely untrustworthy criminal and on the other that the police are incorruptible. It doesn't make sense, and displays a blatant disregard for civil rights which is ironically the reason I'm opposed to greater police powers

----------


## Savage1

> Civil society or police state?
> 
> Random spot checks with no probable cause amount to unreasonable breach of privacy and are way too open to abuse, sorry, please stop assuming everyone is a criminal. We don't have random spot checks now and there's not a massive plague of people leaving their guns lying around for burglars. Why not go check everyone in the countries house to ensure they're not in possession of a joint? Oh because of "due process". Firearms license holders have been vetted to be fit and proper to hold a license, we don't need you to check up on us to make sure we're obeying the rules.
> 
> Surely you can see the incompatibility between your view that the most law-abiding segment of the population needs constant monitoring to make sure they're not committing crimes, and the idea that the police need more powers? On the one hand you're assuming that everyone is a completely untrustworthy criminal and on the other that the police are incorruptible. It doesn't make sense, and displays a blatant disregard for civil rights which is ironically the reason I'm opposed to greater police powers


This is NZ, NZ isn't a Police state, far from it. If you think otherwise then I suggest again that you spend a night on the beat.

Not all random spot checks amount to a breach of privacy, your broad sweeping statement is wrong.

Vetting isn't 100% reliable, this is shown when licences are revoked.

I don't assume that everyone is a criminal, spot checks are a necessary preventative measure in certain situations. Checking a person doesn't mean that they're being assumed to be a criminal.

Where did I say that everyone was a criminal? Or are you making an assumption? Where did I say that there was no corruption in the Police? Another stupid assumption? Where did I say the Police need more powers? Stop assuming that I've either said or think something to try and further your argument which is what you have done for your entire last paragraph, making it irrelevant.

Did you get hurt feelings because somebody told you what to do or pulled you over?

----------


## gimp

> This is NZ, NZ isn't a Police state, far from it. If you think otherwise then I suggest again that you spend a night on the beat.


You're right, it's not, because police don't have that sort of power.




> Not all random spot checks amount to a breach of privacy, your broad sweeping statement is wrong.


The power to conduct random spot checks enables unreasonable breach of privacy. 




> Vetting isn't 100% reliable, this is shown when licences are revoked.


And licenses are revoked for good cause, presumably, not "because you feel like it". So you can't search my house "because you feel like it" 




> I don't assume that everyone is a criminal, spot checks are a necessary preventative measure in certain situations. Checking a person doesn't mean that they're being assumed to be a criminal.


In those cases you'll have probable cause then.




> Where did I say that everyone was a criminal? Or are you making an assumption? Where did I say that there was no corruption in the Police? Another stupid assumption? Where did I say the Police need more powers? Stop assuming that I've either said or think something to try and further your argument which is what you have done for your entire last paragraph, making it irrelevant.


You opposed my statement that "the police should not have power to make random spot checks without probable cause". Opposing that implies that you believe that the police should have that power, which literally means you do support increased police powers. 

You haven't said that there is no corruption in the police but your statements strongly imply that you distrust all who aren't police, while strongly implying that you believe that the police should have increased (easily abused) powers




> Did you get hurt feelings because somebody told you what to do or pulled you over?


No,I just firmly believe in civil rights, nice little ad hominem though

----------


## Savage1

Random checks don't open up opportunity for breaches of privacy, read up on the legislation before making such statements. They are quite closely controlled.

I never said that Police could search your house because they feel like it.

I opposed your statement because you said Police shouldn't have the power to do spot checks, I know what would happen with the number of drink drivers, unsafe vehicles etc. That no way implies that I endorse increased Police powers.

My statements don't imply anything, you are making assumptions, I think Police powers are just about bang on.

I believe in civil rights, funnily enough it's a Police officers job to protect them. You'll find a criminal will be far more willing to breach your civil rights and without Police powers then what's to stop them.

----------


## distant stalker

I dont have an issue with random checks. I would rather them than the two times a week minimum road blocks for "random" warrant checks
 I got stopped three times out kf fiur drives in two days... that sort of excessive focus in a small area does more to bother me than random firearm checks. It got to the point inwas actually starting to.calculate loss of income due to time spent in lines at check points.

----------


## gimp

> I never said that Police could search your house because they feel like it.


Well since that's literally what a random check involves...?




> I opposed your statement because you said Police shouldn't have the power to do spot checks, I know what would happen with the number of drink drivers, unsafe vehicles etc. That no way implies that I endorse increased Police powers.


that's cool but 1: it's not the context random checks were being discussed in and 2: breath testing drivers is different to searching vehicles/homes



> My statements don't imply anything, you are making assumptions, I think Police powers are just about bang on.
> 
> I believe in civil rights, funnily enough it's a Police officers job to protect them. You'll find a criminal will be far more willing to breach your civil rights and without Police powers then what's to stop them.


They're reasonable assumptions to make from what you've said

Good red herring. Police powers to search my home without good cause definitely prevent criminals from breaching my civil rights. After all, who would have any cause to worry but the guilty...... right?

----------


## gimp

> Good demo. Had always been curious about if a rifle round would build enough pressure when not held in a chamber.
> R.e the powder. I believe its more the insurers that dont like powder in the house. I just burmt half a pound on the back lawn
>  Just sizzles. Less dangerous than more common accelerants like white spirits, meths etc



I wonder if having ammunition locked in a safe or container makes it more dangerous than lying around loose (ie not dangerous at all). Wonder if a fireproof safe would prevent heat from cooking off rounds/powder.

----------


## scottrods

I grew up in Northern Ireland. I knew nothing other than random checks, and hey I treated it as "if you've got something to hide then you're going to hate these".

Anyway this topic is sooooooooooooo off now. Someone get it back on please.

----------


## Savage1

A random check means just that, a random check, not a search of the house. Two very different things. Just as Police don't have powers to search the boot/glovebox/seat pockets in a vehicle to check the WOF is up to standard or a child is correctly restrained.

I assumed your comment to mean no spot checks full stop including traffic. My bad for assuming.

They're not good assumptions you've made as they have been shown to be incorrect.

So do you feel that your privacy of having to let a person into your home to confirm your firearm storage is up to standard is more important than the potential good of what random checks would achieve in keeping firearms out of the hands of children and criminals? 

Personally I can't understand how somebody could be offended by a random check for firearm security, if a cop turned up on my door randomly to check my security I would be more than happy to oblige and would find it reassuring that people are being checked, however I've never been checked.

Back on topic. I store my bolts in a different safe to my rifles even though my safe has a seperate lockable compartment. I do store the ammo in the lockable compartment though. I know I don't have to remove the bolts by law but I see it as a responsible thing to do and I would hate to know that some burglars got away with some operational firearms if they took my whole safe, if they could lift it. Bolts are a lot harder to source than ammo which can be easily shoplifted.

----------


## veitnamcam

I would be pretty bloody upset if my house was randomly spot checked while I was at work, on holiday,out hunting, shagging the wife, having a party.
In fact Im pretty pissed if anyone turns up unannounced with out a hey mate what you up to? Courtesy tx first.

Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2

----------


## Dundee

Not every one has a fancy phone VC yeah a raid is a cunt trust me. Been there!!

----------


## veitnamcam

> Not every one has a fancy phone VC yeah a raid is a cunt trust me. Been there!!


They still make phones that don't tx?

Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2

----------


## Dundee

oh that thing on the wall with a cord :Wink:  My mistake then aye

----------


## veitnamcam

:Grin:

----------


## seano

A safe place to store ammo

----------


## Dundee

> A safe place to store ammo
> 
> Attachment 11414


Nahh Seano this is safer cause its hidden :Pacman: 

 :Grin:

----------


## mucko

> Nahh Seano this is safer cause its hidden
> 
> Attachment 11430


I like the way you think Dundee

----------


## Gunzrrr

I bought a second hand 3 drawer filing cabinet (the standard office type). The top drawer has all my manuals, warranty, receipts, and stuff. The middle drawer has all my bits and pieces like knives, torches, bipods, basically all the crap I've accumulated. The bottom drawer has all my ammo in it. Bolted to the wall. One key locks everything. Insurance companies like it. The old ones are better built. Best of all - the Mrs can't see what's in it.

----------

