# Hunting > Firearm Safety >  More consultation - fees this time

## small_caliber

As you know, we have shared a number of consultations with you in the past and we have always listened to what you had to say. Now we want to hear from you again.
I want to give you a heads up that consultation on proposals to change fees will start tomorrow. Consultation opens 8 December and closes 16 February 2023. It will be open for ten weeks rather than the standard six weeks to take into consideration the Christmas break.
Proposals cover changes to current fees for firearms licences, dealers licences, visitor licences and licence endorsements, and the setting of new fees where no fee has been previously set. This is about the balance between the individual contribution and the government contribution.
We recognise this will have an impact on you and your networks, so we genuinely need to hear from you. Your submissions will support the Governments decision. In the coming weeks, I will provide more information and answer any questions you may have about the proposals.
More information on proposals and how to provide feedback will be available on the website when consultation opens.
New fees are likely to take effect in the 2023-2024 financial year.

----------


## Cyclops

Easy to answer. 

State that there is considerable "public good" in people obtaining their firearms license.
Therefore the fees need to be set at a very affordable level to encourage as many as possible to get their license. 

If fees are set too high people won't get the training and won't get their license. 
This will decrease public saf

Because the public benefit from as many as possible obtaining and holding firearms licenses there should be considerable public (i.e. government) cost sharing.

----------


## Woody

Ba,,,rds.

----------


## 308

Has anyone got a link?

I'll give them consultation all right

----------


## Woody

Taxinda big time bureauracy. Watch the black market crims now.

----------


## Sidetrack

Once again public servants forgetting that there is no such thing as government money. It’s all taxpayer money. One way or another we pay.

----------


## chainsaw

Hold my beer will you, while I f..k you

----------


## Sideshow

Link plz cheers

----------


## Woody

C'mon @small_caliber. Where's your link please?

----------


## small_caliber

note that the post says giving you a heads up the consultation starts on Dec 8th .........that is Thursday

----------


## 300CALMAN

I wish I could believe that a submission will make a difference but experience with those currently in charge says no.

----------


## Krameranzac

https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/...022?nondesktop

And here it is. Huge increases. Got a B endorsement? That’s a 480% increase right there.

----------


## Beavis

Yikes I'd be looking at around 4k for my renewal

----------


## Tommy

Pay zem nussink

----------


## Woody

They seem to be indicating a fee of $436 EACH (assuming a discounted subsidy) for my wife and myself for our 10 year renewals. Thats a big chunk of our superannuation. I don't believe we as a couple are making NZ unsafe and should be punished because of criminals actions and NZ Police ineptly issueing licences to criminals.

----------


## Ingrid 51

I seldom become upset, but my blood is boiling! Ive speed read the reasons but stopped at Appendix 4, the first part of which states the purpose is, in part,to reduce firearms/ number of licence holders to make NZ safer ffs!

----------


## Woody

And superannuants are already on less than 2/3rds of average wage to start with and IMO even less than that. It is simply repressive .

----------


## muzza

> The full cost to Police of issuing a 10-year firearms licence including the safety training course is $960 – $1,060.


Could someone far smarter than me make an Official Information Request to find out how that cost has been determined? I suspect its a figure someone has pulled out of their arse and said " thats it! "

----------


## madjon_

Mine expires 2029,after which the enforcement section can come and kick the door in and confiscate any remaining,jw15 and a Baikal 12 guage.If I make it that far.
Now looking forward to a visit next week.We will be so much safer :Sick:

----------


## Ingrid 51

> Could someone far smarter than me make an Official Information Request to find out how that cost has been determined? I suspect its a figure someone has pulled out of their arse and said " thats it! "


Costs are alluded to in the outline, with mention of predicted wages increases, admin expenses and other imaginary fairytale costs.

----------


## No.3

> They seem to be indicating a fee of $436 EACH (assuming a discounted subsidy) for my wife and myself for our 10 year renewals. Thats a big chunk of our superannuation. I don't believe we as a couple are making NZ unsafe and should be punished because of criminals actions and NZ Police ineptly issueing licences to criminals.


They do - and on a 10yr renewal basis (although the first one is a 5yr renewal now) it roughly equates to 100 million recovered from the 240,000 licence holders over the 10 year renewal cycle.  Seems a little bit weighted against licence holders when you consider things like the funding model for road traffic and driver licencing or ACC etc.  If you were to divide that 100million figure over 5million new zealanders it's $20 each.  Possibly the system is actually excessively complex and expensive when you look at it like that?  I don't know...

----------


## Moa Hunter

Weren't some stations diverting allocated Firearms Licencing fees to 'other activities' - where did I read about that ? Anyway if funds could be diverted from the Firearms budget, that suggests that the allocation was more than what was required to carry out licencing, hence fees and budget is adequate as is

----------


## Finnwolf

> https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/...022?nondesktop
> 
> And here it is. Huge increases. Got a B endorsement? That’s a 480% increase right there.


m


Bastids! :Yuush:

----------


## Beetroot

I used to think the Yanks were a bit OTT with there opposal of anything that threatens the 2nd Ammendment, the last few years have forced me to change my views completely.
In a time where violent crime is skyrocketing and ram raids are happening almost daily, nothing but Politics can be the reasons behind the Police pushing this shit through now.

----------


## GDMP

The fact is that the costs mentioned of offering licensing services, are already being paid for.....the costs of running the Police are paid for by every taxpayer, and services such as firearm licensing are all part of that.To my mind this is just an attempt to put another unjustified hurdle in the way of lawful ownership.I would also say that if their costings are true then they are quite obviously not very efficient and someone else should be doing it....

----------


## No.3

> I used to think the Yanks were a bit OTT with there opposal of anything that threatens the 2nd Ammendment, the last few years have forced me to change my views completely.
> In a time where violent crime is skyrocketing and ram raids are happening almost daily, nothing but Politics can be the reasons behind the Police pushing this shit through now.


Yeah, possibly - but in all honesty we do all benefit from an effective, efficient and safe licensing system around firearms.  However, the issue I have is that the system as it stands is not efficient (circa over 9,000 licence holders awaiting renewal/application processing), not effective (example being the numbers of ad-hoc changes made to the regulations to catch up with changing technologies or fix/close the gaps after dumb decisions have been made) and arguably no longer safe due to the way changes have been rammed through and the changed environment around criminal activity in NZ.  

From reading the proposals - the document appears to have been produced in a real hurry, as it's full of errors and bits that just don't make sense (one example, the section on licencing renewals talks about Options A, B and C then a couple of sections down Option D is discussed as not being preferred - but there is no Option D).  I haven't got the whole way through the document yet but it's not easy reading due to the poor employment of written English.

I'm not sure that this one is entirely the fault of Police as well, as it's a Govt financial thing to review all of this stuff on a regular basis.  I am noticing the fact that the entire document is created from the viewpoint that 'it is a privilege to own and use firearms' (and I'm not getting into that debate), and that firearms users have a requirement to promote public safety - but it ignores the fact that the beneficiaries of a safe regulatory system aren't just firearms licence holders and owners it's the 5,000,000+ population of NZ. 

I would be thinking that it would be good to work towards basing the charging regime on the cost of the regulatory system, with the costs divided equally between taxpayers and firearms licence holders on a percentage basis (i.e. if there are 15% of the population holding licences the renewal fees are based on recovery of 15% of costs or equal share between all) reflecting we all benefit from a safe effective and efficient regime in terms of lower crime not just licence holders.  For that to happen, the total costs of the system need to be known and the document in the opening pages state that the total operating costs are completely unknown at this point.  Until the total operating cost of the regulatory regime is known my viewpoint would be that costs need to be kept as close to current levels as possible which for example of the licence renewal options would be Option A.  Otherwise if the total operating costs aren't known then there is no 'cost recovery amount'.

Another point I noted, is that there is a very flawed assumption that the only 'professional' firearms users are 'P' endorsed with the remaining 'basic' licence holders (circa 97%) only comprising recreational users.  I know a lot of people that only use firearms 'professionally' for pest and bird control around airfields, farms, orchards and for things like putting animals down for butchery or animal welfare purposes.  A large percentage of erroneous assumptions in the formation of this document!

----------


## Danger Mouse

They don't care. The objective is to price people out. They are only ticking the consultation box because they have to.


Consultation will be ignored as they have already made their decision

----------


## 300CALMAN

> I used to think the Yanks were a bit OTT with there opposal of anything that threatens the 2nd Ammendment, the last few years have forced me to change my views completely.
> In a time where violent crime is skyrocketing and ram raids are happening almost daily, nothing but Politics can be the reasons behind the Police pushing this shit through now.


This

----------


## No.3

> They don't care. The objective is to price people out. They are only ticking the consultation box because they have to.
> 
> 
> Consultation will be ignored as they have already made their decision


If that was true they wouldn't have changed the law around the renewals.  The feeling I get from talking to people in that side is that they are not anti-owner, but the fact that they deal with the criminal element every day and probably more importantly the increases in criminal use of firearms every day means that they see the downside risks and place them a lot higher than the average licence holder.  It's not anti-owner (or anti-licence holder) but the effect of dealing with all of the criminal issues means that the other side (the safe use and no threat to anyone side of ownership) gets lost in the sidelines.  That really leaves us Nicole Mckee and her like to keep the proportionality of the settings.

----------


## tiroahunta

> They don't care. The objective is to price people out. They are only ticking the consultation box because they have to.
> 
> 
> Consultation will be ignored as they have already made their decision


Yeh....thats pretty much it...Imagine how many will 'disappear'....not condoning or suggesting.

Sent from my SM-A135F using Tapatalk

----------


## OGM

If licensing were an independent agency and done more efficiently I would be willing to pay more. I suspect its a gig the Police would rather not have.

----------


## Makros

Don't the buggers know I've got guns to feed....The proposed fees seem exorbitant. 
I'll be making a submission.
The burden of cost should fall on those who benefit. The licensing structure is not something licence holders benefit from, it is imposed upon us to comply with.
The benefit of regulating firearms is societal. As such fees should reflect a modest cost recovery but ultimately the cost of firearms regulation should be equitably shared across all tax payers.

----------


## Ned

> I seldom become upset, but my blood is boiling! Ive speed read the reasons but stopped at Appendix 4, the first part of which states the purpose is, in part,to reduce firearms/ number of licence holders to make NZ safer ffs!


With that logic they could make the roads safer where ridiculous numbers of people are killed and maimed by bumping the rego up to 4 or 5 figures.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

----------


## 308

Yep, that'll be $4000 next time I renew if these changes go through


They are trying to kill our sport

----------


## dogmatix

Its bureaucracy gone made,
First create regulations for the sake of there being none. 
Not because there was a problem to solve.
Then charge end users for the bureaucracy you have created.

Dont expect any independent authority (as proposed in the 1997 Thorpe are report) to be any cheaper either.

If Im going to be paying $727.50 for my 10 year renewal, Ill be be expecting better f**king service than NZP currently provide.
I want a week turn around, not the 18 months they are f**king averaging.
Any delays, then I expect discounted fees.

----------


## Husky1600

And lets not forget, there is no mention of what its gonna cost for registration. Given what I've just read, they could easily impose a $50+ charge per firearm just to register them. Im gonna guess that the average licensed firearms owner has maybe 5 firearms in their safe - thats possibly another $250....or more.

----------


## Beavis

> If that was true they wouldn't have changed the law around the renewals.  The feeling I get from talking to people in that side is that they are not anti-owner, but the fact that they deal with the criminal element every day and probably more importantly the increases in criminal use of firearms every day means that they see the downside risks and place them a lot higher than the average licence holder.  It's not anti-owner (or anti-licence holder) but the effect of dealing with all of the criminal issues means that the other side (the safe use and no threat to anyone side of ownership) gets lost in the sidelines.  That really leaves us Nicole Mckee and her like to keep the proportionality of the settings.


They see licensed owners as the primary source of illicit firearms that they encounter. Even if via theft and not outright unlawful sales. Their solution is to make licensed gun owner ship extremely onerous so license holders give up, and there bye slowly strangle the supply to criminal elements. It's way to hard to unfuck the miscreants involved in all of the incidents, and too hard to fix society so it produces less of them, so we suffer as a result.

----------


## No.3

> They see licensed owners as the primary source of illicit firearms that they encounter. Even if via theft and not outright unlawful sales. Their solution is to make licensed gun owner ship extremely onerous so license holders give up, and there bye slowly strangle the supply to criminal elements. It's way to hard to unfuck the miscreants involved in all of the incidents, and too hard to fix society so it produces less of them, so we suffer as a result.


Yet the downside risk they themselves identify is firearms licence holders saying stuff it and going dark - more firearms disappearing, driven into the ether never to return because the risk of getting caught in a system that's drowned itself in paper is virtually nil and the costs have blown out way out of proportion.  What you highlight is the exact same comment I made earlier - the entire Police team viewpoint appears to be that everyone is a criminal just most of them haven't come up on the radar yet.  As far as firearms owners - the viewpoint that they are the feeder network for criminals is sketchy at best and at worst just plain damaging in all facets of the operation of the regime.  Yes, there are individuals across the board and not just in firearms licence holders that fall under the curse of addiction and the like, but that literally comes under the Police's own remit to fix.  Where the policy will fall over is in treating all of the group as a criminal-in-waiting the system just will not cope.  There aren't sufficient spare warm blooded admin types in NZ to run the thing, especially at the discount pay rates Police have recently been offering.

But from the viewpoint of the pointy end of the stolen guns and having to deal with that end of it you could possibly forgive that criminal-in-waiting belief if you are in a generous mood.

----------


## GDMP

We have always had a lot of firearms in NZ.....the problems this country currently faces are not caused by firearms ownership,the blame can be squarely laid at the feet of Government driven social policies over the past 3 or 4 decades and the complete lack of any real consequences for the lawless in this country.I must say it is becoming increasingly difficult to stay positive about living in this country and the direction it is headed in.

----------


## Lauries Hut

Got this in my inbox overnight.

Got got suspicious at  “consultation” and stopped reading at “we are seeking your feedback”
What a pile of horseshit.
You mean you’re seeking feedback like you did for 3 Waters? You’re going to analyse the feedback, and ensure you’re carefully considering the feedback from those you seek it from? Yeh we’ve seen that haven’t we! You know those 80,000 that weren’t even read!
Or perhaps you mean the submissions which were ignored when you revamped the firearms licensing laws. You know the law you changed because you (NZ Police) did not follow your own procedures, and laws which subsequently provided Tarrant with a firearms licence. 

Do you have the slightest comprehension of the word trust Jevon?
How about you Jacinda? Stuart? 
Let me give you a couple of single word clues as to why you’re now at 25% from 50% in the polls. 
TRUST.
DELIVERY.

Kia ora

Consultation has begun today on proposals for fees to contribute to an arms regulatory system that keeps us all safe. A greater contribution from licence holders is being sought.

We are seeking your feedback on proposed changes to firearms fees.

Licence fees were last set in 1999 and, other than GST adjustments, haven’t increased since then. For more than 20 years the cost of firearms licensing has been increasingly subsidised by the taxpayer as costs have risen. Some services of direct commercial and private benefit, such as applications for import permits, are delivered for free.

A greater contribution towards the cost of providing regulatory services (licences, endorsements, permits, approvals) is being sought. This contribution will be sought from licence holders whether they use firearms for business, employment, or recreation. We want to make it more equitable for all.

We are not consulting about the recent changes to the Arms Act 1983 that lay out the criteria for the recovery of costs which have already been decided by Parliament.

We are also not consulting on fees related to shooting clubs and shooting ranges because these have now been finalised and published. 

The Act requires the Minister to be satisfied that the Police Commissioner has consulted with anyone affected, or likely to be affected, by these changes.

Feedback

As the majority of licence holders only hold a firearms licence you may only want to submit on the fee for a firearms licence and answer the questions directly related to this. The submission forms are set up in a way that allows respondents to download and submit on that part only.

We would welcome your feedback as this will help inform decisions. More information on proposals and how to provide feedback can be found here

What happens next

Consultation opens 8 December and closes 16 February 2023. It will be open for ten weeks rather than the standard six weeks to take into consideration the Christmas break.

Once consultation has closed all submissions will be analysed and used to inform final decisions by Cabinet on fees. 

Yours sincerely



Jevon McSkimming
Deputy Commissioner

Image

----------


## Slug

Cannot wait to see ACT's and National's views on this.

To the "bus throwers & The Nah, don't affect me crowd"...eating your own words yet?

----------


## Slug

Reminds me of the softening the public up add campaign that was on TV etc of making roads safer being solved by simply reducing road speeds.

----------


## Rushy

I got the email last night and I completed the on line submission. They will not like what I have said as I encouraged low to no fees throughout on the basis that firearms safety training benefits wider society much more than it benefits the individual trainee so therefore should be funded from the public purse. I also said that dealers should be subject to low or no fees on the basis that more dealers would mean a more competitive market.

Whichever guys take the time to have your say on this. I dont for a minute believe it will alter the course but to quote Dylan Thomas, they need to know that we in the firearms community will not go quietly into the night.

----------


## NAKED_GOOSE

The proposed fees are pretty out there, especially with endorsements, seems to like they want to try and price people out of have a license

----------


## Rushy

> The proposed fees are pretty out there, especially with endorsements, seems to like they want to try and price people out of have a license


I agree but it will not work on this old fucker.

----------


## NAKED_GOOSE

I certainly shared my thoughts with them although I have my doubts about that survey actually going anywhere, wouldn't be surprised if it was just routed straight off the printer into the rubbish

----------


## Ingrid 51

Submission made, though the questions are def geared towards increased fees with biased wording

----------


## Bol Tackshin

Okay... So only the wealthy will be able to afford to legally own firearms now? My concern is how the societal distribution of legally held firearms is likely to change, especially in areas that are economically below average. These areas often coincide with high rates of crime. 

Police would do well to research the potential impacts of drastic fee increases. I'm concerned that we will end up in a situation where where firearms mysteriously disappear and begin a new life in unlicensed hands. The police have enough on their plates with the current crop of illegal firearms, and a whole new cohort isn't something I'd like to see. 

My feeling is that costs increase and we have had a relatively good run with no increases for a while, so accepting an annual increase at CPI - or even better at the average wage increase - from the current price would be the only acceptable proposal.

----------


## Eat Meater

I used to work for passports, which is fully cost recovered, so I have a different perspective from most. 
In passports, adult applicants subsidise most of the other classes of holder. There is no government subsidy of passports.
E.g. refugee travel documents cost over $1000 to process but the price is limited to the cheapest product,  so refugees pay the child's fee. A child's passport costs the same to produce as an adult passport but people object to paying the same amount as for an adult given the shorter validity. 
The result? Adult passport applicants subsidise all other types of travel documents. They are also the bulk of applications.
I don't think the Police are doing that here.  Like in passports,  most FAL holders are class A. The numbers in the consultation document look like there is no cross subsidization of other license classes involved. So A holders pay the cost of A licenses.  E holders pay the full cost.  

I'm up for paying the full cost of my FAL PROVIDED the service is as efficient as possible. I'm not up for subsidising the E cat or the C cat applicants because the other categories are over and above the main needs of most holders.

I also don't think the benefits of me holding a licence accrue to non license holders. 

Identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss (right?) and I'll be missed.

----------


## Beavis

> I used to work for passports, which is fully cost recovered, so I have a different perspective from most. 
> In passports, adult applicants subsidise most of the other classes of holder. There is no government subsidy of passports.
> E.g. refugee travel documents cost over $1000 to process but the price is limited to the cheapest product,  so refugees pay the child's fee. A child's passport costs the same to produce as an adult passport but people object to paying the same amount as for an adult given the shorter validity. 
> The result? Adult passport applicants subsidise all other types of travel documents. They are also the bulk of applications.
> I don't think the Police are doing that here.  Like in passports,  most FAL holders are class A. The numbers in the consultation document look like there is no cross subsidization of other license classes involved. So A holders pay the cost of A licenses.  E holders pay the full cost.  
> 
> I'm up for paying the full cost of my FAL PROVIDED the service is as efficient as possible. I'm not up for subsidising the E cat or the C cat applicants because the other categories are over and above the main needs of most holders.
> 
> I also don't think the benefits of me holding a licence accrue to non license holders. 
> ...


E license doesn't exist anymore.

Historically, there has been one charge for endorsement application or renewal, even with multiple endorsements, as the security is the same, and the vetting is all done at the same time. Charging per endorsement is vindictive. We shouldn't have to subsidize a process that they have made hard for themselves.

----------


## Rushy

What is this E cat you speak of?  That was severely shit canned after the 2019 incident involving that Aussie idiot exposed the monumental Police fuck up.  We are all still paying for that little fiasco. And they are still as equally inept in their management of the licensing process.

----------


## Ben Waimata

> I used to work for passports, which is fully cost recovered, so I have a different perspective from most. 
> In passports, adult applicants subsidise most of the other classes of holder. There is no government subsidy of passports.
> E.g. refugee travel documents cost over $1000 to process but the price is limited to the cheapest product,  so refugees pay the child's fee. A child's passport costs the same to produce as an adult passport but people object to paying the same amount as for an adult given the shorter validity. 
> The result? Adult passport applicants subsidise all other types of travel documents. They are also the bulk of applications.
> I don't think the Police are doing that here.  Like in passports,  most FAL holders are class A. The numbers in the consultation document look like there is no cross subsidization of other license classes involved. So A holders pay the cost of A licenses.  E holders pay the full cost.  
> 
> I'm up for paying the full cost of my FAL PROVIDED the service is as efficient as possible. I'm not up for subsidising the E cat or the C cat applicants because the other categories are over and above the main needs of most holders.
> 
> I also don't think the benefits of me holding a licence accrue to non license holders. 
> ...


Good luck getting E Cat people to pay.

----------


## BR46

Made my submission today - along the lines of the NZ Police are not user pays and its their job to oversee firearms licences that they're already paid for through our tax so fees should be at a minimum to encourage compliance. 

I'm also getting my wife to do a submission and encourage everyone to do the same - get your wife, kids (of age), whoever you can to submit.

----------


## Ingrid 51

> Made my submission today - along the lines of the NZ Police are not user pays and its their job to oversee firearms licences that they're already paid for through our tax so fees should be at a minimum to encourage compliance. 
> 
> I'm also getting my wife to do a submission and encourage everyone to do the same - get your wife, kids (of age), whoever you can to submit.


Good on you. I’m still fuming and have contacted several of my fellow club members urging them to make submissions. Also sent an Email to Nicole McKee.

----------


## Bol Tackshin

I think cost recovery by police should be expanded across the board. I pay tax that funds their arrest activities,  investigations,  prosecutions,  independent police conduct cases, yet I make use of none of those services - not even once. How is it fair that I must bear the costs of my firearm licence alone? 

Can you imagine the outcry if people had to pay police 25% of the cost of their arrest,  incarceration and subsequent enforcement action through the courts?

----------


## Eat Meater

> I think cost recovery by police should be expanded across the board. I pay tax that funds their arrest activities,  investigations,  prosecutions,  independent police conduct cases, yet I make use of none of those services - not even once. How is it fair that I must bear the costs of my firearm licence alone? 
> 
> Can you imagine the outcry if people had to pay police 25% of the cost of their arrest,  incarceration and subsequent enforcement action through the courts?


They used to do that for the ancient fire service. Said service would then commit arson and demand payment before putting out the fire. 

The police are taxpayer funded because society benefits from less crime etc. The case for user pays firearms licensing is that its benefits are realised almost only by the holder of the licence,  not the general public, despite the spurious assertions by some in this thread. 
The solution to lower costs is efficiency,  not something Police are known for. Also economies of scale i.e. more licence holders.  

Identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss (right?) and I'll be missed.

----------


## Rushy

> The police are taxpayer funded because society benefits from less crime etc.


Remind us all how that has been working out for society?

----------


## Bol Tackshin

I disagree that only I benefit from my licence. Society benefits from licences, because we are vetted to make sure that we are fit and proper... There are only 2 alternatives - everyone may own firearms,  or nobody may own firearms. Vetting people is mainly for public safety,  rather than individual safety. If that was the case,  we would need licences for chainsaws and ladders.

----------


## gonetropo

just did a submission, had to bit my tongue at times. this is total U.N guided bulldust

----------


## Bol Tackshin

Yep, agree.  I also thought the government's books were healthier than expected!   :ORLY:  
Tui,  anyone?

----------


## vulcannz

Submitted, also included that increased fees would discriminate against Maori. I don't know if that's true, but I have observed "discriminates against Maori" sends the shits up politicians.

----------


## gundoc

The Police force is fully funded by the NZ taxpayers, whether they are picking their nose, consuming donuts, or actually working. How they arrive at their cost figures is a subject that is worthy of an Official Information request. I suspect they are dividing the annual cost of the Police by the total cumulative annual man hours and setting an hourly rate which they are then applying to the average hours of processing an application. Whilst I do not normally object to the 'user pays' principle, what we need to determine is exactly who is the user? The many changes to Arms Act have been touted as 'public safety', more control by Police to solve crimes, etc. All that firearms owners want is to continue lawfully owning and using the firearms they have had for many years, nothing new, and nothing different. Therefore, I contend that users of the new system are the Police themselves and the non-firearm owning NZ public. We just wish to continue pursuing our legal rights (and I stress 'rights' as opposed to current official statements regarding 'privilege'!).

----------


## Bol Tackshin

If it is to be user pays,  then let's have it across the board for all their activities... not just firearm licensing. 

As a group, we are more law abiding than the police themselves!

----------


## small_caliber

Has anyone else noticed the below in 6.1.1

Regulatory activities 
 receive application, assess
 check secure storage arrangements
 review theatrical armourer provisions/services and processes
 propose conditions where necessary
 approve or decline application
 attend site following report of loss, theft, or burglary

Isn't that last one part of their job or are they going to charge everyone for this service when they report a burglary/loss/theft


I also love this bit in Appendix 4

Cost effectiveness is a trade-off  full cost recovery is most likely to encourage unlawful use, but subsidies will encourage excess 
demand. Some activities are more at risk of the effect of full cost recovery either directly or consequently. In other case, it is difficult 
or may not be possible to be unlawful and full costs recovery is likely to be the most favourable option.

So shaft the person who already has to comply.........that is an insight into what is going to happen when all firearms are registered.

----------


## vulcannz

There is some very helpful info from those antigun chicks down south here: https://www.otago.ac.nz/wellington/otago711631.pdf

If we do a bit of analysis, in the 2016/2017 FY firearms regulation revenue was $5.407 million, Police expenditure for firearms regulation was $11.876 million. So the revenue collected directly accounted for 45.53% of their costs. That leaves a ~$6.5 million shortfall. Or, around $50 million dollars worth of firearms related sales in GST.

----------


## Slug

Email from Nicole, just in

This is a long email, but there is a lot to tell you and to get through.
New Zealand Police have released their Arms Regulations: Review of fees 2022 consultation document indicating a 10 week submission period. The fee proposals for consideration in this document will affect every firearm owner in the country. This is not just about licencing as New Zealand Police are looking to introduce new fees where fees have never been charged before.
The Labour and NZ First Government introduced rushed legislation in 2019 and 2020 to virtue signal to New Zealand and the world that they can make our country safe again after the New Zealand Police failed to do so. Now, licenced firearm owners will be made to literally pay the price once again for their incompetence. ACT was the only party to vote against those legislative changes, requesting all other political parties indulge in proper consultation with the community and requesting the Government stop their knee jerk reaction to our nation’s tragedy and take a more constructive approach to community safety and firearms licencing issues. 
While fees for firearms licencing have not changed for some years, we agree it is timely to consider raising the cost of licencing, however the proposed increases and additions are in ACT’s opinion, outrageous. Proposals include a 400 to 500 per cent increase and for some, it will be on an annual basis.
Keeping costs affordable provides incentive for people to stay within the system, keep their firearms secured properly and be accountable. Being within the system means you receive essential firearms safety education, training, security is checked and you have been vetted as a fit and proper person.
Increasing licencing fees in the name of cost-recovery to this extent, where there is no benefit to the end user or wallet owner, will no doubt see many consider whether remaining compliant is an affordable option for them.
New regulations on clubs and ranges have also seen an introduction of fees that will filter back to club members on top of the increases they look set to face next year.
First we had a “buy-back”, now Labour want a “take-back” as the Government seeks to recall the confiscation money they paid out in 2019 because they have an ineffectual firearms registry to pay for.
The proposed costs on dealers that will be payable annually will have to fall back on the licenced owner by way of increased prices, meaning you are going to be hit at least twice. If you are a gunsmith, a curator, an endorsement holder or a club member then you are up for more and more costs being placed upon you. All of this during a cost of living crisis and as we head towards a recession brought about by out of control spending from this Labour Government.
Dealers play a key part in the safety of our communities and firearm owners. Many educate users at their businesses, give fantastic advice, share their knowledge and inform Police of unsavoury characters that they may meet. High fees like proposed will penalise them for being the eyes and ears of the community and may push some out of business. It could result in a decrease in local knowledge and an increase in unsafe practices.
We encourage you to submit on these outrageous proposals and ask that you encourage every firearm owner you know to do the same. It is not a waste of time, it will be beneficial for any new Government that wishes to change the administration process in the future to rely on.
Below is a summary of the important proposed changes and the page numbers they relate to in the discussion document for quick reference. In some instances there are different scales of proposed fees but I refer to the most outrageous ones.
Summary of Proposals:
Standard licence (pages 16-19):
•	Currently a first time licence application, which lasts five years, and a pre-expiry renewal on a licence are priced at $126.50
•	A subsequent application following expiry or revocation is $241.50
Proposal:
•	25% recovery excluding safety training course - $208.55 for a year and $242.50 for a 10 year
•	50% recovery $417.10 for 5 year and $485.00 for 10 year
•	75% recovery $625.60 for 5 year and $727.50 for 10 year
•	add safety training course costs onto this and it increases
•	Option to add fee reduction for early subsequent application to reduce fees to $655 if fee at 75% of cost (as opposed to $727.50) or $436.50 if fee at 50% of cost (as opposed to $485.00) but this is only for 6 months but no more than 12 months before the current licence expires
Dealer’s Licence - non-museum curator (pages 21-27)
•	Currently a dealer’s licence is $204 for 12 months
•	Dealer employee licences are $204 and last a year on the provision the dealer’s licence remains valid
Proposal:
•	$2,330 - $2,570 a year under full cost recovery regardless of renewal status
•	Proposed reduction in fees for those reapplying without significant change in their applications would be $1,760 – $1,940 at full cost recovery
•	Option to size up fees based on size and scale of dealer’s business. It would cost $1,000 - $1,100 a year and an average additional fee for work required based on the scale of the business, between $190 – $210 per employee. Max fee would be capped at an eight employee business and would be capped at $2,510 – $2,710 annually
Dealer’s Licence - museum director curator (page 28)
•	Currently an endorsement for a museum director/curator is $204 and lasts 10 years
Proposal:
•	Either a no fee option
•	Or a licence fee set the same as other dealers (as detailed in pages 21-27)
Visitor’s licence (page 30)
•	Currently set at $25 for 12 months
Proposal:
•	An increase to cost of between $420 - $470.
Dealer employee endorsements - including armorers (Page 33)
•	Currently dealer employee licences are $204 and last a year on the provision that the dealer’s licence remains valid
Proposal:
•	First applications would be $250 - $270 at full cost recovery
•	Second applications or subsequent applications would be $110 - 130 for one or more endorsements. Even though the endorsement is assigned to their 5 or 10 year licence
Endorsements (page 35)
•	Currently endorsements for pistol target shooting, bona fide collectors, beirloom/memento, museum director/curator, and broadcaster/theatrical are priced at $204 and last 10 years
Proposal:
•	An averaging cost across all endorsements at cost recovery would be $1,370 - $1,510
•	Alternatively, they would be separated out: pistol $1,350 - $1,490, pest control $930 - $1,020, memento/heirloom $930-$1,020, bona fide collector fixed fee of $1,230 - $1,360 plus $10 - $20 per item, theatrical endorsements fixed of $1,230 - $1,360 plus $10 - $20 per item
•	An additional fee if another application for an endorsement is made at the same time but not concurrent with current firearms licence $590-$650 or, the same fee as listed prior per endorsement added on
Permit to possess (page 43)
•	Currently there is no fee for this
Proposal:
•	Fee for each permit at full cost $40
Consent for additional site (theatrical armourer) (page 45)
•	Currently there is no fee for this
Proposal:
•	$2,140 - $2,360 full cost recovery
Consent for additional site (gun show or auction) (pages 45-47)
•	Currently consent for a gun show is $50 for 5 days
Proposal:
•	$1,020 - $1,120 application fee plus police staff member attendance often mandatorily required at a rate of $1,120 - $1,240 per staff member, per day
Notification and approval of ammunition seller (pages 48-49)
•	Currently there is no fee for this
Proposal:
•	$560 - $620 set fee tied to firearms licence expiry
Import permit for firearms, parts, magazines, restricted airguns and weapons (pages 51-53)
•	Currently there is no fee for this
Proposal:
•	$540 - $590
Import Permit for ammo (pages 53-54)
•	Currently there is no fee for this
Proposal:
•	$540 - $590
Fee for sample import permit and assessment (pages 54-55)
•	Currently there is no fee for this
Proposal:
•	Full cost recovery $1,230 - $1,360
Permission to carry (pages 57-58)
•	Currently there is no fee for this
Proposal:
•	$1,020 - $1,100 plus $560 - $620 per Police staff member required to attend
Fee for modification/assembly of a firearm (pages 59-60)
•	Currently there is no fee for this
Proposal:
•	$1,230 - $1,360 full cost recovery for a Police armourer assessment
You will note that there are a lot of costs that will go on to dealers and dealers will need to recover these costs from you for their businesses to survive. When completing your submission keep in mind the flow down effect of these changes to your pocket even if you do not believe them to have an immediate effect on you personally, because they will eventually.
It’s time we get back to really protecting our communities from firearm misuse and that means relieving New Zealand Police of their administrative duty that Labour and NZ First placed upon them. ACT will achieve this by re-introducing a new firearms law, starting from scratch, that puts our communities, not the pockets of Government at the heart of good firearms legislation. We will begin by removing the administration of arms control from New Zealand Police leaving them to deal with their core business of enforcement.
We implore you to encourage all firearm owners that you know to submit on these ridiculously expensive proposals, and to support ACT to support you to help build safer communities, together.
Yours sincerely,

Nicole McKee ACT Party Spokesperson for Firearms Reform

----------


## Micky Duck

a long survey to reply to but well worth taking the time to do so.

----------


## GDMP

> They used to do that for the ancient fire service. Said service would then commit arson and demand payment before putting out the fire. 
> 
> The police are taxpayer funded because society benefits from less crime etc. The case for user pays firearms licensing is that its benefits are realised almost only by the holder of the licence,  not the general public, despite the spurious assertions by some in this thread. 
> The solution to lower costs is efficiency,  not something Police are known for. Also economies of scale i.e. more licence holders.  
> 
> Identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss (right?) and I'll be missed.


The police are tax-payer funded, because they are Govt employees, and work on behalf of the State.And it is the State that has imposed the current licensing regime on shooters,without much input from those affected by it.

----------


## No.3

> They used to do that for the ancient fire service. Said service would then commit arson and demand payment before putting out the fire. 
> 
> The police are taxpayer funded because society benefits from less crime etc. The case for user pays firearms licensing is that its benefits are realised almost only by the holder of the licence,  not the general public, despite the spurious assertions by some in this thread. 
> The solution to lower costs is efficiency,  not something Police are known for. Also economies of scale i.e. more licence holders.  
> 
> Identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss (right?) and I'll be missed.


Your viewpoint is fundamentally flawed - if we were to end firearms licensing tomorrow and go to a full 'good person will do good' model what do you think will happen to public safety and firearms use by criminals?  The case might be made that the benefits of ownership are only realised by the holder of the license not the general public, but that is a fundamentally flawed case.  Public safety is public safety.  

The analogy is ensuring that all vehicle owners are correctly licensed prior to owning their vehicle(s) and that when not in use their vehicles must be securely parked in an approved security system even when they are away from home and that their vehicles are only sold to approved people, repaired by approved people and registered and licensed correctly using the correct fuel.  Think about this for a minute prior to answering, as that is what the firearms regime demands now prior to these new changes coming into place.  

What you suggest - that it is only me that benefits from me holding a licence - is manifestly incorrect due to the volunteer work I do which directly increases safety as well as providing a form of public service at no cost to the Govt or public (pest and feral animal control).  Also, consider that every firearm held lawfully and correctly by a compliant fit and proper licensed owner is unavailable to criminals - all at the cost of that owner.

----------


## mikee

The reality is that the NZ Police and Govt Bureaucrats have decided that it is easier to "FEE" us out of our recreational hobbies rather than actually doing anything remotely useful.

With out wanting to stray into Politics we are in this current position largely due to the fact the "appropriate athorities" issued a licence and now all of us who have the same licence are being fiscally punished (in many cases multiple times) by those who monumentally cocked it up badly in the first place.
Any fees should be as low as humanly possible or free in some cases as they are currently to encourage compliance. 
After all the FAL holders are a large community of generally law abiding and "fit and proper" people vetted by NZ Police
  @jakewire you can please delete this post if you deem it has breached the rules re Politics in any way

----------


## csmiffy

Can we not plat their game and publicize this?
Make it very well know how much coin this will cost and how unrealistic it is?
If normal can see how it relates to normal things like car licenses etc maybe it might help?
They are sneaking these things against us because it suits them
Maybe it should be.mor public
Yeah forgot how the media is beholden to them.and are just govt  lacked
Bugger

----------


## shift14

> I used to work for passports, which is fully cost recovered, so I have a different perspective from most. 
> In passports, adult applicants subsidise most of the other classes of holder. There is no government subsidy of passports.
> E.g. refugee travel documents cost over $1000 to process but the price is limited to the cheapest product,  so refugees pay the child's fee. A child's passport costs the same to produce as an adult passport but people object to paying the same amount as for an adult given the shorter validity. 
> The result? Adult passport applicants subsidise all other types of travel documents. They are also the bulk of applications.
> I don't think the Police are doing that here.  Like in passports,  most FAL holders are class A. The numbers in the consultation document look like there is no cross subsidization of other license classes involved. So A holders pay the cost of A licenses.  E holders pay the full cost.  
> 
> I'm up for paying the full cost of my FAL PROVIDED the service is as efficient as possible. I'm not up for subsidising the E cat or the C cat applicants because the other categories are over and above the main needs of most holders.
> 
> I also don't think the benefits of me holding a licence accrue to non license holders. 
> ...


Last time I renewed my passport it took 7 days..not 11 months and 17 days. Just saying

B

----------


## Chilli_Dog

Have they provided any cost break down of the proposed fees? It looks like they are charging consultants rates to process a renewal

----------


## 300CALMAN

> They used to do that for the ancient fire service. Said service would then commit arson and demand payment before putting out the fire. 
> 
> The police are taxpayer funded because society benefits from less crime etc. The case for user pays firearms licensing is that its benefits are realised almost only by the holder of the licence,  not the general public, despite the spurious assertions by some in this thread. 
> The solution to lower costs is efficiency,  not something Police are known for. Also economies of scale i.e. more licence holders.  
> 
> Identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss (right?) and I'll be missed.


OK so I shoot hundreds of possums, dozens of rabbits etc a year. You can pay for that pest control now or i will have my license fee back. Spurious argument?

----------


## Ben Waimata

> OK so I shoot hundreds of possums, dozens of rabbits etc a year. You can pay for that pest control now or i will have my license fee back. Spurious argument?


No, perfect argument, and the one I will use in my submission. I am confident NZ is already heading towards needing to spend billions of dollars in a few more years of 'catch up' pest control following the semi auto ban, if they reduce legal shooters now it will just get a lot worse. We are an asset to the nations ecology, biodiversity and economy, and we do a lot of essential pest control at zero taxpayer cost. All taxpayers will be paying a LOT more if they stop us doing this work now.

----------


## 308

> No, perfect argument, and the one I will use in my submission. I am confident NZ is already heading towards needing to spend billions of dollars in a few more years of 'catch up' pest control following the semi auto ban, if they reduce legal shooters now it will just get a lot worse. We are an asset to the nations ecology, biodiversity and economy, and we do a lot of essential pest control at zero taxpayer cost. All taxpayers will be paying a LOT more if they stop us doing this work now.


This

Less shooters, more pests. more green rain

Also more illegal guns so more firearms incidents for police

It's so obvious that the blue gang have pushed FAL holders away and these are the consequences and yet they are doubling down on their initial poor response with the confiscations which, duh, led to more firearms incidents for police and  more pests spreading during the lockdown

They want us outside the tent pissing in which is the wrong way to do it


And for any A-cat license holders saying "oh well, those B-cat and C-cat and Dealer folks can look after themselves" - just remember who you didn't support when your local gunshop closes due to higher imposed costs and you have to drive 3 hours to get powder from the main centres

They are after all of us and they are using the divide-and-conquer method to do it

----------


## GDMP

> No, perfect argument, and the one I will use in my submission. I am confident NZ is already heading towards needing to spend billions of dollars in a few more years of 'catch up' pest control following the semi auto ban, if they reduce legal shooters now it will just get a lot worse. We are an asset to the nations ecology, biodiversity and economy, and we do a lot of essential pest control at zero taxpayer cost. All taxpayers will be paying a LOT more if they stop us doing this work now.


We service and repair quite a few firearms on behalf of Doc.....was told about 6 weeks back that (in the Sth island anyway) they are not doing the amount of pest control that they really need to as the funding has dried up....basically the money has run out for such activities.Even though it's an essential one....

----------


## RUMPY

Pest shooting by DOC may have reduced, be interesting to see if they are also reducing the amount of aerial poison application also.

----------


## NZ32

Put my submission in, going to have a lot of intended and unintended consequences.

-High B cat costs are going to reduce pistol club members.Our pistol range is used by the cops so we should double the police range fees so we can reduce the annual sub costs for our members. Would offset some of the costs of this fee price hike.
On top of this reduce membership will only result in ranges closing and less access for the police to train on them....Hate to think of the coats if they had to set up their own ranges. 

-The dealer fees proposed and going to push out the small shops and individual dealers. I know one that won't renew at these prices. Will end up with a bigger Gun city/H&F monopoly than there already is, along with higher prices. 

-The pest control fees are going to push people out of that industry too, already enough gone with the P cat issues. Those. that remain will only have higher costs to DOC and other agencies. High fees will screw more than just licence holders over. 

Tring to get people around work to submit, even though I don't think they will listen. Vote Act and hope they hold the balance of power with National so they can reverse all this Bull S**T

----------


## Bol Tackshin

Taxpayers will end up paying for Police ranges if clubs close their doors, and I doubt they will share with us the way we have shared with them!

----------


## BSA

> Taxpayers will end up paying for Police ranges if clubs close their doors, and I doubt they will share with us the way we have shared with them!


So be it but by the time Land is purchased, Resource Consents etc issued that is years in the making and NZ Police have just increased their Firearms Training regime. They will have such reduced access to Ranges their costs will sky-rocket and training reduced. Quid-Pro-Quo. Firearms Owners/Clubs/Organisations etc simply have to stop playing nicely with the NZ Police. They are gas-lighting us to an extraordinary degree, nay they are laughing at us.

----------


## Ben Waimata

> Vote Act and hope they hold the balance of power with National so they can reverse all this Bull S**T


Until I see what the ACT firearm policy actually says I will suspend expectation. Last election both ACT and National went into electioneering mode speaking about returning E cat under stricter conditions. What will their policies be this time? We need to be careful that the policies might only be just slightly better than what we have now, rather than any kind of fix of the stuff ups from 2019.

----------


## RUMPY

No party will reverse anything that the general public doesn't see as better for public safety. Had a cousin from Auckland visit last weekend and when talking about hunting we got onto the benefits of pest control etc done by hunters and then onto firearms and law changes. My cousins response was " no one needs any of those semi automatic assault rifles ". Honestly most of the public have no idea what was taken away.

----------


## Bol Tackshin

Politics warning fellas!

----------


## Steve123

Submitted pointed out the international and permit to carry would adversely affect interclub competition and ecxessive fees will effectively shut out young people , low socio economic and superannuatents. Excessive dealers licence costs will shut out new businesses and raise prices further shutting people out of sports shooting. 
It's almost like they dont want to encourage the safe, sporting use of firearms.

----------


## 308

> No party will reverse anything that the general public doesn't see as better for public safety. Had a cousin from Auckland visit last weekend and when talking about hunting we got onto the benefits of pest control etc done by hunters and then onto firearms and law changes. My cousins response was " no one needs any of those semi automatic assault rifles ". Honestly most of the public have no idea what was taken away.


I know that anecdotes aren't evidence but I have had similar experiences talking to non-shooters on this issue - they have no idea and don't seem to care

I think that the best chance of slowing/reversing this bullshit is getting others to think about what the likely consequences down the track will be for them in terms of biodiversity with less pest control and anti-competitiveness in the retail space for gunshops and how that goes against what Labour are trying to do in terms of competition amongst retailers - gunshop or supermarket - same principle

----------


## Danger Mouse

> Put my submission in, going to have a lot of intended and unintended consequences.
> 
> -High B cat costs are going to reduce pistol club members.Our pistol range is used by the cops so we should double the police range fees so we can reduce the annual sub costs for our members. Would offset some of the costs of this fee price hike.
> On top of this reduce membership will only result in ranges closing and less access for the police to train on them....Hate to think of the coats if they had to set up their own ranges. 
> 
> -The dealer fees proposed and going to push out the small shops and individual dealers. I know one that won't renew at these prices. Will end up with a bigger Gun city/H&F monopoly than there already is, along with higher prices. 
> 
> -The pest control fees are going to push people out of that industry too, already enough gone with the P cat issues. Those. that remain will only have higher costs to DOC and other agencies. High fees will screw more than just licence holders over. 
> 
> Tring to get people around work to submit, even though I don't think they will listen. Vote Act and hope they hold the balance of power with National so they can reverse all this Bull S**T


Any club still permitting police shoots needs a fucking slap

----------


## mikee

> ..................................................  .............................................
> It's almost like they dont want to encourage the safe, sporting use of firearms.


Bingo there you go, nailed it.

----------


## Rushy

> My cousins response was " no one needs any of those semi automatic assault rifles ".


I beg to differ with your cousin RUMPY.  The quality of my three gun and multi gun sporting pursuits has been much diminished since the loss of my former E category rifle and shot gun.  I suspect that many former inter club, regional and national competitors (and no doubt yourself)  feel similarly.  As an aside, I also used to account for a decent number of goats annually with my AR15 and my tally since the great gun grab is significantly lesser.

----------


## RUMPY

I made it quite clear that semis have a relevant place in NZ for pest control and competitions. I even mentioned 3 gun even though I have never done it and also didn't personally lose anything in the confiscation.

----------


## Rushy

> I made it quite clear that semis have a relevant place in NZ for pest control and competitions. I even mentioned 3 gun even though I have never done it and also didn't personally lose anything in the confiscation.


Good on ya RUMPY.

----------


## flock

Done, asked for a job doing the admin, charging lawyer fees $500 an hours would do me. Pie in the sky prices.

----------


## small_caliber

> Until I see what the ACT firearm policy actually says I will suspend expectation. Last election both ACT and National went into electioneering mode speaking about returning E cat under stricter conditions. What will their policies be this time? We need to be careful that the policies might only be just slightly better than what we have now, rather than any kind of fix of the stuff ups from 2019.


So you would rather see the current regime returned for another 3 years?  :36 1 5:

----------


## small_caliber

> Submitted pointed out the international and permit to carry would adversely affect interclub competition and ecxessive fees will effectively shut out young people , low socio economic and superannuatents. Excessive dealers licence costs will shut out new businesses and raise prices further shutting people out of sports shooting. 
> It's almost like they dont want to encourage the safe, sporting use of firearms.


They do want to promote that and say that is the end game, well that is what they say because it sounds good and it is what we also want, but the end game is to reduce the number of licensed owners and one of the ways of doing that is make them pay $$$
A cat will end up with a subsidised fee and B, C, Dealer & P that are already in the system and can't operate illegally will pay what they propose.

Read this again.
I also love this bit in Appendix 4

Cost effectiveness is a trade-off  full cost recovery is most likely to encourage unlawful use, but subsidies will encourage excess
demand. Some activities are more at risk of the effect of full cost recovery either directly or consequently. In other case, it is difficult
or may not be possible to be unlawful and full costs recovery is likely to be the most favourable option

In other words subsidise those that may operate illegally until they are in a position where they can't and then we can charge them whatever we want to reduce their numbers.

----------


## Steve123

> They do want to promote that and say that is the end game, well that is what they say because it sounds good and it is what we also want, but the end game is to reduce the number of licensed owners and one of the ways of doing that is make them pay $$$
> A cat will end up with a subsidised fee and B, C, Dealer & P that are already in the system and can't operate illegally will pay what they propose.
> 
> Read this again.
> I also love this bit in Appendix 4
> 
> Cost effectiveness is a trade-off  full cost recovery is most likely to encourage unlawful use, but subsidies will encourage excess
> demand. Some activities are more at risk of the effect of full cost recovery either directly or consequently. In other case, it is difficult
> or may not be possible to be unlawful and full costs recovery is likely to be the most favourable option
> ...


11 more months and hopefully things will go back to normal

----------


## Ben Waimata

> So you would rather see the current regime returned for another 3 years?


Straw man arguments really are a waste of time.

----------


## GDMP

> Done, asked for a job doing the admin, charging lawyer fees $500 an hours would do me. Pie in the sky prices.


looking at the proposed fees.....one has to wonder how they arrived at them.It cannot possibly cost as much to provide some of these services, as you say the charge out rate would have to be similar to a high price lawyer.

----------


## small_caliber

> Straw man arguments really are a waste of time.


So if National and Act haven't got a better firearms policy than the current regime you would vote for the current regime, that is what your statement indicates to me.

Is that really your position??

----------


## Ben Waimata

> So if National and Act haven't got a better firearms policy than the current regime you would vote for the current regime, that is what your statement indicates to me.
> 
> Is that really your position??



Ok mate. I did not say I love Jacinda, she can fuck right off and it will not be enough for me. I did not say I like Labour firearms laws, they can stick them where the sun don't shine and then keep on shoving and it will not be far enough up there. What I said was National had proposals last election that were a feeble effort to bring back some small degree of firearm rights and ACT was a bit better, but with the passage of time it seems they are more content with the way things are and I will not be happy with their proposals until I've actually seen them, my fear is their laws will be better than Labours but still not as good even as their proposals of last election. We need to keep the pressure on these two parties.

I said your position was a straw man because you tried to suggest I like Labour firearms laws, with absolutely no justification. Thinking ACT and National need to prove their position does not mean Labour is better, it means Labour firearms laws are total mindboggling  bullshit load of crap and the worry is A and N might be only a little bit better due to entirely understandable political reasons.

----------


## GDMP

We should have a better idea when an alternative act is put out for discussion ,it was supposed to be the end of this year but so far I have not seen any mention of it.

----------


## Ben Waimata

> We should have a better idea when an alternative act is put out for discussion ,it was supposed to be the end of this year but so far I have not seen any mention of it.


Yeah, I talked to the ACT people at Sika Show but did not come away confident they were aiming to do anything more than ease some of the current restrictions. Obviously they could promise the world but can only deliver what is politically acceptable to coalition partners, which is why we need National to get on board too.  No registry, less anti-shooter antagonism and E cat back in some form should be our bottom lines.

----------


## GDMP

Canadian shooters are currently going through a similar experience to us, however I just checked the current cost of obtaining a PAL (Canadian Firearm license) which is administered by the RCMP,and the fees (for a 5 year license) are $62 for a regular license that basically covers all rifles and shotguns, and $83 for a license that covers restricted or prohibited firearms.If you are a first time applicant you must also take a mandated firearms course, which may cost about the same as the actual license.....but if they can deliver licensing for those costs then there is obviously something way off with the proposed costs mentioned in this country.

----------


## gsp follower

population size is a factor gdmp and licence holder numbers in canadia would be pretty high compared to ours id imagine to. 
thats the story argue amongst ourselves and do half thier job for them.
the 25 % option for normal firearms licences for 10 years doesnt seem to excessive and i didnt know import permits were free.
 that surprised me.
yes some of the other prices are outrageous and usuress but theyre supposed to be
 to make the 25% option seem more palatable.
dont freak out and dont give the buggers the satisfaction of you doing so.

----------


## vulcannz

> the 25 % option for normal firearms licences for 10 years doesnt seem to excessive


25% of what? That is the real question, once you agree to a "25% of..." figure they have you by the balls, as opposed to "I support $120". With 25% of something, they can make that something whatever they like and fiddle the numbers.

----------


## Peteforskeet

Any fee on import permits unless it's a very small fee is going to kill anybody from useing that service shurley. 
If you want to import something th save a $100 and the fee is $300???

----------


## Sasquatch

> Pest shooting by DOC may have reduced, be interesting to see if they are also reducing the amount of aerial poison application also.


1080 is heavily subsidised by 'Monsanto' who is now owned by 'Bayer.'

Main shareholders of Bayer is Blackrock  & Vanguard...

So no, I highly doubt they'll reduce spraying...

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> Any fee on import permits unless it's a very small fee is going to kill anybody from useing that service shurley. 
> If you want to import something th save a $100 and the fee is $300???


 In Nicole's summary the proposed import permit fee is $540-$590 not a bad increase from nothing  :XD:

----------


## jakewire

I've just made a submission
I encourage everyone to do so
It is tedious and biasly  engineered,  they don't give an option of disagreeing to there proposals on most
please write your disagreement if any  in the comments boxes following each question

Lets no make this thread an anti government thing
Lets have it a purely factual discussion on something that effects all of us as hunters and shooters.

----------


## BSA

> In Nicole's summary the proposed import permit fee is $540-$590 not a bad increase from nothing


Powder, Primers, Projectiles just increased in price by another xxx%age.

----------


## Beavis

Yup, and one of the biggest impacts we could face would be boutique and smaller firearm businesses winding up. I spoke with one such dealer the other day that is over it and is exiting the business. He fielded some phone calls from others who indicated that the increase in fees will see them doing the same. The last thing we want as shooters as the big green and the big blue being our only options.

----------


## Bol Tackshin

> In Nicole's summary the proposed import permit fee is $540-$590 not a bad increase from nothing


What is the hourly rate on that? How much work is actually involved in looking at an order,  and approving it? It is clear beyond doubt that they are aiming to kill all forms of shooting, by strangling the supply and shutting down retail.

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> What is the hourly rate on that? How much work is actually involved in looking at an order,  and approving it? It is clear beyond doubt that they are aiming to kill all forms of shooting, by strangling the supply and shutting down retail.


If its a decent size firearms order the that proposition isn't too bad spread over 100 plus items 

Now we need a import permit for all firearms parts (even scope & mounts for a fair while until they changed their minds) not just serialised or restricted like the good old days

Going to be tough adding $500 to the cost of a barrel, bottom metal or trigger spring etc

----------


## gsp follower

> 25% of what? That is the real question, once you agree to a "25% of..." figure they have you by the balls, as opposed to "I support $120". With 25% of something, they can make that something whatever they like and fiddle the numbers.


the 208 fee for normal 10 year licences seemed the best of a bad bunch.
the markup from imported stuf from say h&f is 40% probably more so yes a excessive fee would defeat the purpose.
the company making and running the 1080 biz is owned as a govt entity by the minister of finance

----------


## small_caliber

> 25% of what? That is the real question, once you agree to a "25% of..." figure they have you by the balls, as opposed to "I support $120". With 25% of something, they can make that something whatever they like and fiddle the numbers.


But once they have your firearms registered every user will be in the same boat as B license owners and 100% will be the fee

----------


## cb14

Submission on the proposed fees done.  

The proposed import fee increase means when I return from the USA after hunting with my own rifle (that I took with me) I have to cough up $540-$590!!

----------


## no1_49er

While you are going through the various proposals that plod wants to impose on us, consider this.

Consent for additional site (gun show or auction) (pages 45-47)
•	Currently consent for a gun show is $50 for 5 days 
Proposal:
•	$1,020 - $1,120 application fee *plus* police staff member attendance often mandatorily required at a rate of $1,120 - $1,240 per staff member, per day

Now, here's the rub. Those 'Police Staff Members' *are already being paid*.
Are we now to believe that in the cost recover model, that 'police staff' are being paid (up to) $1,240 per day? I.e., $6,200 per ordinary 40 hour week. Where is the justification in this, or any of their outrageous proposals, none of which we asked for. Nor for that matter has the Parliament, or the remaining good citizens of the country.
Just where will this "cost recovery" model end. Think about it, seriously!

I suspect that some of you will want to re-think some of your submissions and factor in a bit of realistic math to the proposal/s.

----------


## Northkiwi

Interesting they seem very keen on stressing that inflation is a big factor that the Govt needs to recover as a matter of principle.  On that basis I'm looking forward to them adjusting ACC sums they pay to accident victims up by inflation, as they were last adjusted in 1974 or something?  Or is it only Govt income that must be adjusted by inflation, not so much the govt expense side?

Also seems dodgy that a grossly inefficient system is designed by bureaucrats, and then the cost of it becomes someone elses problem to pay for.  That is the nature of bureaucracy I guess.

Overall I think it is gross inefficiency dressed up as necessity for safety, when in fact the new system won't be any safer than the old it will just be way more expensive.  The old system fell over because it was poorly resourced and implemented, not because it was a bad system.

----------


## Friwi

I have not checked the last one but found it interesting if true.

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> Attachment 212173
> Attachment 212174
> Attachment 212175
> 
> I have not checked the last one but found it interesting if true.


You are quite correct Sir, I just ran it into Google



Couldn't make this stuff up......

----------


## Rushy

> You are quite correct Sir, I just ran it into Google
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't make this stuff up......


Aptly named given that they want to charge exorbitant fees for doing fuck all.  Soon Police will be as profitable as the ANZ, BNZ, Westpac et al.

----------


## Northkiwi

I wonder what the "true" cost is for some other types of Govt licenses and approvals.  Driving license for example, what about hazardous materials, or Class 4 etc?  It is clear from looking at how local and central Govt approach those things how it works.  They have license to recover their costs, so they have zero interest in efficiency, or for that matter volume, because it's all the same to the bureaucrat.  They genuinely have no interest at all in improving processes, or outcomes.  Why would they?  More volume means more work, so they don't want that.  Just cost-recovery at an hourly rate that enables them to do SFA.

----------


## Ingrid 51

> While you are going through the various proposals that plod wants to impose on us, consider this.
> 
> Consent for additional site (gun show or auction) (pages 45-47)
> 	Currently consent for a gun show is $50 for 5 days 
> Proposal:
> 	$1,020 - $1,120 application fee *plus* police staff member attendance often mandatorily required at a rate of $1,120 - $1,240 per staff member, per day
> 
> Now, here's the rub. Those 'Police Staff Members' *are already being paid*.
> Are we now to believe that in the cost recover model, that 'police staff' are being paid (up to) $1,240 per day? I.e., $6,200 per ordinary 40 hour week. Where is the justification in this, or any of their outrageous proposals, none of which we asked for. Nor for that matter has the Parliament, or the remaining good citizens of the country.
> ...


Exactly! I included the already being paid part in my submission and asked whether citizens would also be charged by cops to attend an accident.

----------


## kotuku

> Exactly! I included the ‘already being paid’ part in my submission and asked whether citizens would also be charged by cops to attend an accident.


Yep i hammered em merci lessly for what may in fact be viewed as blatant pricegouging, and likewise the cop thing -no doubt sebastian /monique /it /her/ him or whatever collating th ese responses will  need extensive counselling for hurt feelings at a lot of commonsense responses!

----------


## Micky Duck

I suggested the police should set up a stall..and pay for it the same as everyone else and do some licencing work there and have a display of so called "naughty guns" in different configurations to EDUCATE people..... when asked about fees I stated I could see no justification for police to need to oversee /supervise people they have already deemed fit n proper to do a task/job    also asked why when doing a dealer to dealer a fee was charged/would be charged as police arent needed to do it,as it is the dealer at both ends is more than capable to look at a licence before accepting or handing over a firearm....

----------


## jakewire

> I wonder what the "true" cost is for some other types of Govt licenses and approvals.  Driving license for example, what about hazardous materials, or Class 4 etc?  It is clear from looking at how local and central Govt approach those things how it works.  They have license to recover their costs, so they have zero interest in efficiency, or for that matter volume, because it's all the same to the bureaucrat.  They genuinely have no interest at all in improving processes, or outcomes.  Why would they?  More volume means more work, so they don't want that.  Just cost-recovery at an hourly rate that enables them to do SFA.


Yip
I put in one of the comments boxes that a licence and then endorsements should be exactly the same cost as the Driving licence and  subsequent endorsements.
 I would argue, why not. Why does it cost extra for the paperwork on a firearms endorsement.

----------


## PeteD

I hope everyone commenting here is also providing feedback to the Police and possibly your local MP.
If it's listened to or not is debatable but we must not let this go through without a fight. 
This will effect all shooter's and has the potential to end firearms ownership for many.

----------


## Rushy

> Yip
> I put in one of the comments boxes that a licence and then endorsements should be exactly the same cost as the Driving licence and  subsequent endorsements.
>  I would argue, why not. Why does it cost extra for the paperwork on a firearms endorsement.


I got a Dangerous Goods endorsement on my drivers licence recently. That cost the princely sum of $44.00 and I had the new license in my hands in seven days from application.  Affordable and efficient.

----------


## norsk

Look.

Any day now one of those " bloody good Cops" you hear about will stand up and say they are sick of seeing honest members of their own community penalised for persuing their legitimat recreational interests. Then all the other bloody good cops with join in and say that deflecting blame from March 15rh onto firearms owners was unjust and that criminal misuse of firearms goes along with spiraling gang activity who have had their ranks bolstered from recent 501 deportees.

Then if senior Police and Politicians wont listen then all the bloody good cops will just leave and get jobs with just as much time off and benefits that being a cop provides.

----------


## Danger Mouse

> Look.
> 
> Any day now one of those " bloody good Cops" you hear about will stand up and say they are sick of seeing honest members of their own community penalised for persuing their legitimat recreational interests. Then all the other bloody good cops with join in and say that deflecting blame from March 15rh onto firearms owners was unjust and that criminal misuse of firearms goes along with spiraling gang activity who have had their ranks bolstered from recent 501 deportees.
> 
> Then if senior Police and Politicians wont listen then all the bloody good cops will just leave and get jobs with just as much time off and benefits that being a cop provides.


Who said that? The tooth fairy?

----------


## Woody

Cuddles?   :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Steve123

> Look.
> 
> Any day now one of those " bloody good Cops" you hear about will stand up and say they are sick of seeing honest members of their own community penalised for persuing their legitimat recreational interests. Then all the other bloody good cops with join in and say that deflecting blame from March 15rh onto firearms owners was unjust and that criminal misuse of firearms goes along with spiraling gang activity who have had their ranks bolstered from recent 501 deportees.
> 
> Then if senior Police and Politicians wont listen then all the bloody good cops will just leave and get jobs with just as much time off and benefits that being a cop provides.


So you write the Tui adds?
Can we go back to the  " made by gorgeous women" ads please.

----------


## gsp follower

offiice of WTF
 in six months a exspecive name change will come out cos they,ve offended somebodits sencibilities

----------


## norsk

> So you write the Tui adds?
> Can we go back to the  " made by gorgeous women" ads please.


Well.

Integrity and Honesty must surely be corner stones of the New Zealand Police force? If the bloody good Cops find themselves working for an organisation that lacks both Integrity and Honesty then  won't they themselves feel compelled to change it or leave it?

Similarly to any other employee?

----------


## tac a1

> Well.
> 
> Integrity and Honesty must surely be corner stones of the New Zealand Police force? If the bloody good Cops find themselves working for an organisation that lacks both Integrity and Honesty then  won't they themselves feel compelled to change it or leave it?
> 
> Similarly to any other employee?


The problem is Norsk that if you stand up for what you believe in and make some noise, they just bury you. You end up being officer in charge of cleaning supplies cupboard at Ruatoria Police Station and that's it for you.

What you need to understand is that in that job you do what you are told, when you are told, how you are told. you are not allowed to think for yourself anymore.

That is why the majority of cops these days are young and inexperienced. Thats because all the older experienced ones told them to get stuffed and left.

----------


## small_caliber

> The problem is Norsk that if you stand up for what you believe in and make some noise, they just bury you. You end up being officer in charge of cleaning supplies cupboard at Ruatoria Police Station and that's it for you.
> 
> What you need to understand is that in that job you do what you are told, when you are told, how you are told. you are not allowed to think for yourself anymore.
> 
> That is why the majority of cops these days are young and inexperienced. Thats because all the older experienced ones told them to get stuffed and left.


That's why police are told in training that the public shouldn't own firearms, only the police and army should have firearms, also the police think all firearms owners are performing illegal acts......that last bit came from a police person in the firearms unit, and is why the police will want to remove the 7 days notice to inspect when firearms laws are reviewed in a couple of years time

----------


## Rushy

> That is why the majority of cops these days are young and inexperienced. Thats because all the older experienced ones told them to get stuffed and left.


Giving credence to what Norse hypothesised.

----------


## Rushy

> That's why police are told in training that the public shouldn't own firearms, only the police and army should have firearms, also the police think all firearms owners are performing illegal acts......that last bit came from a police person in the firearms unit, and is why the police will want to remove the 7 days notice to inspect when firearms laws are reviewed in a couple of years time


If this is what is actually happening then there is much ignorance to be outed from Police ranks.

----------


## Ingrid 51

> The problem is Norsk that if you stand up for what you believe in and make some noise, they just bury you. You end up being officer in charge of cleaning supplies cupboard at Ruatoria Police Station and that's it for you.
> 
> What you need to understand is that in that job you do what you are told, when you are told, how you are told. you are not allowed to think for yourself anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> That is why the majority of cops these days are young and inexperienced. Thats because all the older experienced ones told them to get stuffed and left.


100%. I was ‘in’ during the early 70’s and noticed archaic practices. After making a written submission in the hope for streamlining I was told “we’ve been doing it this way since the armed constabulary days; shut up”. I left.

----------


## SkiHunt

While completing the online consultation and writing in nearly every box that I have already paid for this service through my taxes, I suddenly had the thought perhaps some of the GST collected on Firearms, ammunition and accessories could be used to fund this new mega bureaucracy machine that appears to employ half the country at the prices they want to charge.

----------


## gsp follower

the last cop i remember doing the right thing was the aa thomas planted catridge thing.
i maybe wrong and there been others i just cant remember them

----------


## vulcannz

> While completing the online consultation and writing in nearly every box that I have already paid for this service through my taxes, I suddenly had the thought perhaps some of the GST collected on Firearms, ammunition and accessories could be used to fund this new mega bureaucracy machine that appears to employ half the country at the prices they want to charge.


Somewhere else (maybe this thread) I found some info on costs, and it would take about ~$50 million in sales of firearms/ammo to generate enough GST to cover the shortfall. Which I'm fairly sure is done.

----------


## Finnwolf

> the last cop i remember doing the right thing was the aa thomas planted catridge thing.
> i maybe wrong and there been others i just cant remember them


Funnily the last cops I remember doing the right thing were the pair that apprehended the nutter that was stabbing people in the Dunedin supermarket.
But then Im a glass is half full kinda guy.

----------


## Micky Duck

the cop who pulled over twit speeding through "my town" on Sunday gets the tick of approval from me....

----------


## norsk

> The problem is Norsk that if you stand up for what you believe in and make some noise, they just bury you. You end up being officer in charge of cleaning supplies cupboard at Ruatoria Police Station and that's it for you.
> 
> What you need to understand is that in that job you do what you are told, when you are told, how you are told. you are not allowed to think for yourself anymore.
> 
> That is why the majority of cops these days are young and inexperienced. Thats because all the older experienced ones told them to get stuffed and left.


I can see that.

Standing up for the truth is what the Police should be all about.

----------


## iSi

Thanks for the heads-up. Gave them some ranty feedback

----------


## Micky Duck

> Well.
> 
> Integrity and Honesty must surely be corner stones of the New Zealand Police force? If the bloody good Cops find themselves working for an organisation that lacks both Integrity and Honesty then  won't they themselves feel compelled to change it or leave it?
> 
> Similarly to any other employee?


there have been many that have left..some really good young fellas with hearts of gold..it worn them down so they got out.
the fiasco going on in Canada...and the horrible events today in Australia will both have ramifications for us.

----------


## Steven708

Made my submission. I was surprised at the questions on dealers and how they are charged. Ask the dealers what they feel comfortable with. 
I did suggest that under a user pays model people arrested for firearms offences should be billed not the law abiding.

----------


## 308

Done mine
Pointed out that these exorbitant dealers fees will drive out the small guys and leave us with a duopoly which, in supermarkets, is exactly the problem that this govt is trying to avoid

Under these license fee proposals, my costs of license  has gone up 20 times what it is now per year

As another poster pointed out upthread, I said that this is a police statutory duty and is akin to charging to attend a burglary or car crash


I get tired of these constant attacks on our sport but I'll be fucked if I'm going to roll over for this pack of eedjits who call themselves a government

----------


## BSA

> Done mine
> Pointed out that these exorbitant dealers fees will drive out the small guys and leave us with a duopoly which, in supermarkets, is exactly the problem that this govt is trying to avoid
> 
> Under these license fee proposals, my costs of license  has gone up 20 times what it is now per year
> 
> As another poster pointed out upthread, I said that this is a police statutory duty and is akin to charging to attend a burglary or car crash
> 
> 
> I get tired of these constant attacks on our sport but I'll be fucked if I'm going to roll over for this pack of eedjits who call themselves a government


That's the problem. These "eedjits" have delegated all regulatory powers to the Police (read Police National HQ) who then get it passed by Order In Council. They have a free rein and they know it. This is nothing more than a box ticking exercise and the only way LFOs will get any sort of a fair go is if ALL Licenced Firearms Owners collectively work together and let them know they will disengage from the process completely. Will it happen, No, for the simple reason as a collective Licenced Firearms Owners are their own worst enemies and the Police know this.

----------


## vulcannz

> As another poster pointed out upthread, I said that this is a police statutory duty and is akin to charging to attend a burglary or car crash


That is an interesting point, is there any other licensing regime or service police run that is users pays - or could potentially become user pays? For example could they apply this model to driver licensing?

----------


## Tommy

Don't worry, it's all going in the bin before it takes effect, hopefully alongside that weasel Coster

----------


## gsp follower

> Funnily the last cops I remember doing the right thing were the pair that apprehended the nutter that was stabbing people in the Dunedin supermarket.
> But then Im a glass is half full kinda guy.


im talking about standing up to thier own when theyre in the wrong as opposed to doing the  job theyre paid to do.
yres its a shit jpb with its unique and terrible difficulties but they didnt join the salvation army

----------


## 308

The frustrating thing is how they are going in the wrong direction

They are trying to starve us out but actually they are driving people underground, which is exactly where the crims are

Make it harder to get a license? people just won't bother with licenses


They just don't understand basic human nature

----------


## hebe

I submitted. But that survey is well and truly set up to encourage a canned answer in my view.

----------


## OGM

I submitted in support of a fee increase and also in support of a time payment option.

A fee increase is inevitable. No way is the $126 (and change) application fee I paid sustainable. 

If they had a yearly fee, of say $100, over the 10-year validity period that would add up to $1,000 and the system will be fully user-funded. This is the way I think they should go. If nothing else, this is the least-worst option.

This talk of firearm's licensing being paid for out of taxes will ensure its not a high priority for Police. And so what if the government creams a bit off the top? Our interests have more power politically if we are viewed as a revenue source rather then an expense. When it comes to expenses being tough on crime is a bigger vote winner. Politicians are under a lot of pressure on this front at the moment so their Police budget priority will be around gangs, drugs, youth crime, etc. Not firearm owners.

A comparison is - the government creams money from vehicle owners through fuel taxes... and notice how new roads are being built? Yeah, the left say a lot about public transport and stuff but I don't see private vehicles disappearing any time soon. There is just too much money in it for them.

These 2 videos are the best contemporary explanation I have seen on how politics work:

----------


## Kscott

Cost increase via CPI.

----------


## RUMPY

I really like this spreadsheet and the number at the bottom compared to what is proposed.

----------


## Ross Nolan

> I submitted in support of a fee increase and also in support of a time payment option.
> 
> A fee increase is inevitable. No way is the $126 (and change) application fee I paid sustainable. 
> 
> If they had a yearly fee, of say $100, over the 10-year validity period that would add up to $1,000 and the system will be fully user-funded. This is the way I think they should go. If nothing else, this is the least-worst option.
> 
> This talk of firearm's licensing being paid for out of taxes will ensure its not a high priority for Police. And so what if the government creams a bit off the top? Our interests have more power politically if we are viewed as a revenue source rather then an expense. When it comes to expenses being tough on crime is a bigger vote winner. Politicians are under a lot of pressure on this front at the moment so their Police budget priority will be around gangs, drugs, youth crime, etc. Not firearm owners.
> 
> A comparison is - the government creams money from vehicle owners through fuel taxes... and notice how new roads are being built? Yeah, the left say a lot about public transport and stuff but I don't see private vehicles disappearing any time soon. There is just too much money in it for them.
> ...


Do you ask for your tummy to be tabbed when you roll over like that?
JFC dude, have a tiny bit of spine.

----------


## 308

Christ OGM, do you have a coat with a different colour on the inside?

You haven't even got your license yet and you have discovered how crap the calling of witnesses to referee your license is already

Dude, it's turtles all the way down, don't you get it?

----------


## OGM

> You haven't even got your license yet and you have discovered how crap the calling of witnesses to referee your license is already


Tut tut. Let's see what I actually said:




> My (current) experience of the FAL application process suggests a drinking buddy with an FAL is considered a better referee then someone who actually has something invested in my trustworthiness and sensibilities. Doesn't make sense to me TBH.


https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....4/#post1395322

It just doesn't quite meet your spin, lol.

If the AO wants to go spend their time and visit someone else, fine by me. I already anticipated that possibility. It's not "crap" - its just how these things work. They don't always make sense.

On that topic my FAL application is making headway. Got some movement today.

I voted for 50% user pays which I understand would place an FAL around $400-500. I suggest anyone who thinks its not going to this region soon is highly optimistic. That's like $50 a year. Its still a bargain.

----------


## 308

If you seriously think that we as a group are of some "value" to police then I really don't think I can change your mind at all

I completely disagree with your perspective and will leave it at that

----------


## Rushy

> I completely disagree with your perspective and will leave it at that


On ya mate, very restrained.  I’m still biting my tongue.

----------


## Danger Mouse

> Tut tut. Let's see what I actually said:
> 
> 
> https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....4/#post1395322
> 
> It just doesn't quite meet your spin, lol.
> 
> If the AO wants to go spend their time and visit someone else, fine by me. I already anticipated that possibility. It's not "crap" - its just how these things work. They don't always make sense.
> 
> ...


Haha, you're funny.

Police will view that sort of result as, ok they don't mind paying a bunch more, that means we can crank up the price to the highest option and their won't be any adverse reaction.

Cost Recovery isn't the police's motivation behind this.

----------


## Tommy

Holy fuck, the naivety meter just bent the needle

----------


## Finnwolf

> Tut tut. Let's see what I actually said:
> 
> 
> https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....4/#post1395322
> 
> It just doesn't quite meet your spin, lol.
> 
> If the AO wants to go spend their time and visit someone else, fine by me. I already anticipated that possibility. It's not "crap" - its just how these things work. They don't always make sense.
> 
> ...


‘Bargain’?
For a pair of pensioners we won’t find it a 'bargain’.
- it’s not value for money in my books.

----------


## GDMP

No bargains there.....just another cost added to another perfectly normal activity enjoyed by thousands.

----------


## OGM

> Bargain?
> For a pair of pensioners we wont find it a 'bargain.
> - its not value for money in my books.


Wow. Super indexed to 66% net national average wage and al the benefits of a Super Gold card.

No contributions required either. I know what you are going to say and that's you have paid taxes yada yada... and even if true, that money was spent. Its the present bunch of taxpayers (incl myself) who are paying for your super.

Shall we compare it with the super (if you can call it that) accorded to my in laws in their Asian country?

Even at 50% it would still be subsidised to the tune of 10's of millions of dollars a year by everyone else.

I see no cause for complaint.

----------


## Micky Duck

> Wow. Super indexed to 66% net national average wage and al the benefits of a Super Gold card.. I know what you are going to say and that's you have paid taxes yada yada... and even if true, that money was spent. Its the present bunch of taxpayers (incl myself) who are paying for your super.
> 
> .


right ho....finnwolf is to polite of gentleman to say it...and others are also being restrained
Im old and grumpy so here it is.

you are coming across as a self entitled brat.
have some respect
have some respect for your elders,they WERE PROMISED the pension,they paid tax thier entire working life ON THE EXPECTATION the pension would be there...kiwisaver etc wasnt a thing.
the money has been spent you say......well I say its been spent on you you self entitled twat..... the infrastructure you enjoy was bought and paid for by taxes paid by those elders you are insulting.
have some respect.
as a younf family man with tight budget I had choice of yearly NZDA subscription or duck shooting licence and ammunition..there was no way I could do both.... on a pension many will face much more serious choice than that.... new washing machine or renew firearms licence etc etc.
AND you self entitled twat....most of us over 50 were issued by the government A LIFETIME LICENCE..... so dont come at me with your user pays crap..we paid and we recieved and the government renegged on the deal.
have some respect.

----------


## Nickoli

> right ho....finnwolf is to polite of gentleman to say it...and others are also being restrained
> Im old and grumpy so here it is.
> 
> you are coming across as a self entitled brat.
> have some respect
> have some respect for your elders,they WERE PROMISED the pension,they paid tax thier entire working life ON THE EXPECTATION the pension would be there...kiwisaver etc wasnt a thing.
> the money has been spent you say......well I say its been spent on you you self entitled twat..... the infrastructure you enjoy was bought and paid for by taxes paid by those elders you are insulting.
> have some respect.
> as a younf family man with tight budget I had choice of yearly NZDA subscription or duck shooting licence and ammunition..there was no way I could do both.... on a pension many will face much more serious choice than that.... new washing machine or renew firearms licence etc etc.
> ...


I suspect we have a troll in our midst @Micky Duck - been a member since August 2022, working through getting a license, and is looking to ruffle feathers (pun definitely intended).

----------


## GDMP

Yes.....the 'lifetime' firearm license issued back in 82.....but cancelled about 9 years later.Just like the 'lifetime' drivers license.......also cancelled a short time later.

----------


## OGM

Wow, calm down. Its just a discussion forum. Nutting off is just going to be counter productive and gain no support whatsoever from the vast majority of firearms users.

----------


## Rushy

> Nutting off is just going to be counter productive and gain no support whatsoever from the vast majority of firearms users.


Ha ha ha ha wotchu smokin?

----------


## Nickoli

> Ha ha ha ha wotchu smokin?


....I still think he's a troll.

----------


## Micky Duck

> Wow, calm down. Its just a discussion forum. Nutting off is just going to be counter productive and gain no support whatsoever from the vast majority of firearms users.


nutting off???? you are DEFINATELY thinking like a precious little millennial now... thats called home truths,delivery was done calmly..... nutting off??? fuck me you havent seen anything till youve been dressed down by a Timaru watersider or some salty old soldier or mental health worker......
if you dont like the heat get out of the fire.
do you honestly believe "the vast majority of firearm users" will be more receptive to your idea we should all pay lots of our hard earned cash as you suggest???? get a life...but you will have to grow up first,leave school and get a job to start paying the taxes you seem so dismissive about.

----------


## Nickoli

> Wow, calm down. Its just a discussion forum. Nutting off is just going to be counter productive and gain no support whatsoever from the vast majority of firearms users.


....with more respect than most would provide (given your responses here); you cannot speak for the "vast majority of firearms users."

Let me help you out here - you may want to join SSANZ as a result because they are advocating for the "vast majority of firearms users" you seem to think you represent - below is a media release suggesting a level of bad-faith in the existing Police approach:

*Police Consultation on Firearm Fees Is A Sham
December 21, 2022 @ : hr
In August 2021 the Office of the Auditor general issued a guide for "The setting and administration of fees and levies for
cost recovery with four basic principles:
1. Equity
2. Efficiency
3. Justifiability
4. Transparency"
The guide further states that the principle of transparency requires that:
"Fees and levy payers need to have enough information to understand and assess whether the:
• basis or method for setting fees or levy is appropriate;
• fees or levy are fairly costed: and
• revenue generated is correctly accounted for and used appropriately”
In their consultation document Review of Fees 2022 police have provided no information whatsoever as to how their full
cost recovery fees were derived.
As Neville Dodd, President of the Sporting Shooters Association of New Zealand says, "There is not even the
basic information, such as the hourly charge out rate for staff engaged in providing licences and permits, how much time
each process takes and what additional overheads such as rent and vehicle use are applied. Without this information how
can anyone assess whether these proposed fees are fairly costed and comply with the Auditor General’s guidelines.”
We also note that with police acting as a monopoly in providing these so called “services” there is no incentive for them to
strive for efficiency.
"The Review of Fees document provides readers with Police's opinion on what they would like full cost recovery to be for a
range of firearms licensing and regulatory processes and the option to choose from a number of percentage partial recovery
for each. This is clearly designed to lead submitters to give the outcomes that police seek. This bias together with the lack
of transparency in setting the fees make the whole consultation process a “sham", says Dodd.
END
*
Before you start flinging your chamber pot contents on those gathered below your ivory tower, consider: 
*Who the beneficiaries are of the proposed changes (I'll help you out here - it's not FAL holders)
* What effect the changes overall have on compliance (and whether those outside the law were ever going to comply anyway)...
* Whether there is a cooling effect on people applying for licenses and overall compliance going forward (different to the above in that the above addresses existing FAL holders)
* Read the media release from SSANZ again - what are the ACTUAL costs? Have the Police complied with ANY of the Auditor Generals' recommendations? 

Now; take a deep breath, and appreciate that "the vast majority of firearms users" that you claim to be a part of may have different opinions to you. 

For what it's worth.....I still think you are a troll.  :XD:

----------


## OGM

With a current license fee of a whole $12.60 a year and still a small few want to complain. Even if they increase it four-fold it will still be a mere $50 per year which is most affordable for even someone on minimum wage. Geez, look at what that firearms bling costs... lol.

A bit on "common sense" would lead to the conclusion there is no way in hell $126 for 10 years covers the cost. It would be wiser accepting an increase is inevitable rather then asking too many questions which they don't already know the answer to, and for which the answer will likely be not be helpful.

You should also consider the irony of quoting a source who is clearly outspoken while simultaneously complaining about others saying their thing.

----------


## Micky Duck

but you miss the point AGAIN...... its not a lotto ticket,its not paying for a service each year...the cost would be about right if it was $12.50 = half an hour for an office wallah to push a few buttons.
its not even a licence fee like buying a fishing licence...... and I was given a lifetime one but it ran out apparently,yet Im still alive.....ironic much.
you have no idea how tight some household budgets are if you can say a mere $50   
thats the groceries for some families on minimum wage..... if you dont believe me ask around....
as I said earlier,choices will have to be made and something will have to be sacrificed to find that extra money.
you werent born with silverspoon in your mouth perchance????

----------


## Micky Duck

of the bling factor comes into it...you should have to pay $12,000 per year to drive a car perhaps???? because some boy racer likes to have a 12 coat paint scheme and exhause so big mechanic can insert head up tail pipe to tune motor....
meanwhile the solo mum with morris minor/mazda 323 worth 2k at most,will now have to drive with no licence .
yip head up tailpipe is definately happening here....

----------


## Rushy

> With a current license fee of a whole $12.60 a year and still a small few want to complain.


The obvious flaw in your argument being that the fee is paid in one lump sum and is not amortised over the life of the license like the cost of some asset.

----------


## OGM

I have had a read of that SSANZ website and their spokesman seems to fall into the same trap as some others here - Blame the Police and the Government

Well, guess what? The government always has an answer for too many complaints and that's more regulation.

You might not like everything I say and that's fine. It gives the forum some life. But its also not the newbies and quiet majority who are poking the bear.

----------


## no1_49er

Why do OGM and others attempt to justify an egregious increase in fee/s by attempting to amortise the expenditure as being on cost-per-annum, rather than the actual one-off cost.
We DO NOT renew our licence each year so to conflate the argument as being "only $12.60 per year" is a nonsense.
The $126 is one-off review of the "fit and proper" status of the applicant. IF, AND ONLY IF, the parliament decrees that a licence must be reviewed/renewed annually, then that $126 fee is to cover that one review.

----------


## Rushy

> But its also not the newbies and quiet majority who are poking the bear.


Acknowledging the fact that you are a newbie, I would make you aware that we who poke the bear do so because 51 people died and 250,000 New Zealanders had their way of life severely curtailed because of one mistake: Police failed to follow existing licensing laws.

----------


## OGM

> Why do OGM and others attempt to justify an egregious increase in fee/s by attempting to amortise the expenditure as being on cost-per-annum, rather than the actual one-off cost.


Because the "one off" cost every 10 years is almost certainly a lot closer to the fully funded numbers the Police were suggesting (circa $700?). I don't want to hand over $700 any more then you do but this idea the fee should stay somewhere around $126, or $126+CPI or any low ball amount... ain't a starter in my mind.

I selected for a 50% user pays model which is estimated to put the fee somewhere around $400-500. I also selected yes to a time payment option. 

Now if they charged it on a yearly basis and stuck with the 10 year renewal period that's $50 a year... $70 or $80 tops. I don't see any argument this is not affordable.

----------


## gonetropo

because its a right not a privilege !

----------


## OGM

> I would make you aware that we who poke the bear do so because 51 people died and 250,000 New Zealanders had their way of life severely curtailed because of one mistake: Police failed to follow existing licensing laws.


I don't agree with some of the stuff which came out of that but I get why they did it. As for complaining about the Police... well, you get your wish. Its now a lot more work to get and keep an FAL.

Also in addition to the 51 people is also the flow on effects (which are considerable) and the continuing threat against some of our minority communities. So lets not underestimate the motivation the government rightly had.

----------


## Micky Duck

so see this then...$126 covers neatly police time for approx 3 hours assuming police actually DO 3 hours work per application...if that 3 hours is spent FAIR ENOUGH....IF 6 hours is spent OK then make the licence $250   and somehow the extra $$$$ will be found in budget BUT if you cannot justify the $$$$ charged for a service by the hours spent to provide that service you are price gouging...pure and simple 
Ive given you the argument of affordability at least twice now...if as you seem to be saying finding $800 is easy to do.... perhaps you should help the less fortunate with budgeting.
you dont seen to have any idea how tight some families budgets actually are....
we spent over $400 on groceries for the last fortnight......that accounts for a big hunk of fortnightly wage....luckily I dont live in Auckland and pay $900 per week in rent.

----------


## Micky Duck

> . As for complaining about the Police... well, you get your wish. Its now a lot more work to get and keep an FAL.


close but no cigar,the complaints are valid.....the system got funds siphoned off and the manpower was drained away till it wouldnt work properly and corners were cut.
IF the procedures were followed through correctly as per what was supposed to be happening...all of this would be irrelevant.
can you show WHERE all this so called (your words not mine) WORK is being done????? if so fair enough at a fair and reasonable hourly rate for persons doing task at hand...BUT as others have pointed out..... the police are already paid to do the daily tasks of police work so its double dipping..... you dont pay to have police doing traffic stops or attend a burglery,its part of thier job....

----------


## OGM

> so see this then...$126 covers neatly police time for approx 3 hours assuming police actually DO 3 hours work per application...


Speaking as someone who is going through the process right now it would still be a bargain at the price range I previously suggested.

In regards to your situation which may be simpler (renewal?) - unless its at least $100 per hour its reasonable to assume its subsidised.

----------


## Rushy

> I don't agree with some of the stuff which came out of that but I get why they did it. As for complaining about the Police... well, you get your wish. Its now a lot more work to get and keep an FAL.
> 
> Also in addition to the 51 people is also the flow on effects (which are considerable) and the continuing threat against some of our minority communities. So lets not underestimate the motivation the government rightly had.


Surely you jest!  If there is a continuing threat against some of our minority communities then I would strongly assert that it is not in the slightest bit posed by licensed firearms owners but far more likely posed by those in society that do not hold a firearms license and are in possession of firearms they should not have.  Frankly from what I have seen of firearms related incidents in society recently, I am forming the belief that there are quite likely more people in possession of firearms without a license than those of us that have made the effort to abide by the law.  

The focus of legislative changes to legal firearms ownership over the last few years is somewhat akin to placing the blame on firemen for all of the.house fires and other fires that arsonists cause.

----------


## Micky Duck

> Speaking as someone who is going through the process right now it would still be a bargain at the price range I previously suggested.
> 
> In regards to your situation which may be simpler (renewal?) - unless its at least $100 per hour its reasonable to assume its subsidised.


oh goodie.....my police friends will now be recieving $100 per hour salery will they??? $100 per hour x 50 hours per week thats what 5pluss 3 zeros $5000 per week
x52 weeks of the year =$260,000   well I guess you have single handedly stopped the rush of police leaving the force..... best you get onto educatio nand healthcare next..... then roading and infrastructure after that..we wont need to pay taxes anymore as you have singlehandedly whiped out the need for them.  your a genius.

----------


## Micky Duck

> Speaking as someone who is going through the process right now it would still be a bargain at the price range I previously suggested.
> 
> In regards to your situation which may be simpler (renewal?) - unless its at least $100 per hour its reasonable to assume its subsidised.


OK THEN...lets fantasise for a miute that the poor Mr/Mrs plod is actually going to recieve $100 per hour and I still only pay $126 for licence renewal.... that allows 60 minutes give or take to look up my police file,ask the police vetter who conducted interview 1/2hr at minimum wage=$13 what they reckon,rubber stamp application and place in folder for office girl/guy slightly above minimum wage 15minutes @$30=$7.50 to process =====make plastic card to send out.
you see how silly that looks???? 
lets be slightly more realistic
copper who does rubber stamping $50 so he/she has lets say hour and quarter of time on this....
person doing interviews hour and half at $40 =$60...nah make it 2 hours =$80  
and suddenly you have an almost reasonable fee
BUT YOU HAVE TO PAY THAT IN WAGES..... the copper is ALREADY paid wages/salery out of taxes so any charge out of their time is double dipping,I already pay tax to pay salery/wages.
so if the $$$ arent going to wages...where the hell are they going????
if school kids can produce fake licence on printer...... surely a real one isnt that hard or expensive to do???
no harder than car licence,the two licences are nearly the same...

----------


## gonetropo

> so see this then...$126 covers neatly police time for approx 3 hours assuming police actually DO 3 hours work per application...if that 3 hours is spent FAIR ENOUGH....IF 6 hours is spent OK then make the licence $250   and somehow the extra $$$$ will be found in budget BUT if you cannot justify the $$$$ charged for a service by the hours spent to provide that service you are price gouging...pure and simple 
> Ive given you the argument of affordability at least twice now...if as you seem to be saying finding $800 is easy to do.... perhaps you should help the less fortunate with budgeting.
> you dont seen to have any idea how tight some families budgets actually are....
> we spent over $400 on groceries for the last fortnight......that accounts for a big hunk of fortnightly wage....luckily I dont live in Auckland and pay $900 per week in rent.


hell! i just did 380 at the butchers alone, another 500 at new world and thats 2 of us!

----------


## OGM

> Surely you jest!  If there is a continuing threat against some of our minority communities then I would strongly assert that it is not in the slightest bit posed by licensed firearms owners but far more likely posed by those in society that do not hold a firearms license and are in possession of firearms they should not have.


That's right. A few bad eggs screwing it up for everyone else. 100% agreed.

There are people out there who hold objectionable ideas (and could have the potential to act on them) and this has nothing to do with the vast majority who just want to shoot a target or deal with pests or grab a meal.

----------


## Kscott

> Now if they charged it on a yearly basis and stuck with the 10 year renewal period that's $50 a year... $70 or $80 tops. I don't see any argument this is not affordable.


You're naively expecting the Government to not change the rules in the next 10 years.

----------


## ROKTOY

And yet I can renew my 10yr drivers licence for $43.90.
I use my MV most days and it has more potential to harm others in my books.
How the hell does that stack up hours wise on paperwork/etc for the Police office workers, compared to renewing my FAL??

----------


## csmiffy

I call it bollocks. It is a cleverly stupid cash grab with the added bonus of driving people from the sport.
This is like the initial firearms changes after the mosque tragedy.
Most non shooting kiwis thought jolly good all those level AKs and AR15s will be goneski. Not realizing there was a metric shit ton of other things and firearms affected. @OGM you are being a little short sighted. This isnt just about the license. Yes I will concede if they raised it to 500 and i can pay it off isnt too bad, but they, as shown, have pulled numbers with no justification out of their ass as well as proposing draconian costs for import permits etc.
Dont ever think this is done with anything other than malice.
They are just trying to piss in our pockets and tell us its raining

----------


## small_caliber

> Tut tut. Let's see what I actually said:
> 
> 
> https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....4/#post1395322
> 
> It just doesn't quite meet your spin, lol.
> 
> If the AO wants to go spend their time and visit someone else, fine by me. I already anticipated that possibility. It's not "crap" - its just how these things work. They don't always make sense.
> 
> ...


Licensed firearms owners are part of the problem when it comes to submissions, apathy for one and the failure to stand together is another.

The Police have put out their wish list in every single consultation document, every single document has aimed for the sky and they will settle for what they really wanted or hopefully there won't be any opposition so the police will get their wishes with no or very minimal opposition.
It's not about asking for something reasonable, it's a bargaining tactic ask for more than you want and settle for what you actually want or more.

You are just supporting the pie in the sky that they want.

All the fees should be free, unless the Police can operate efficiently and in a timely manner and *justify* their costs.

----------


## OGM

> Most non shooting kiwis thought jolly good all those level AKs and AR15s will be goneski. Not realizing there was a metric shit ton of other things and firearms affected.


Put them on a merchant ship and send them to North Africa. See how long they last. Nice thought :-)

----------


## OGM

> Licensed firearms owners are part of the problem when it comes to submissions, apathy for one and the failure to stand together is another.
> [...]
> All the fees should be free, unless the Police can operate efficiently and in a timely manner and *justify* their costs.


I put in my submission. Of course they were aiming high. Anyone who reads through it can see a mile off.

But there is something I just can't fathom, let alone support - and that's your claim it should be free. If you want to incentivise people and organisations then better be prepared to offer something. Your offer of zero is absurd. 

Driver licenses are cheaper because they are crowd pleasers. They also facilitate a lot of trade and therefore tax money for the government. The whole thing is also highly scalable. take a quick eyesight test, pay your fee, and you are good for another 10 years. They sure don't send someone out to ask your family about why you want a car, whether you will be well behaved with a car and whether you have had any speeding tickets in the past 5 years...

----------


## Danger Mouse

Yeah ok I'm done with you, you're boring now. A well spoken troll is still stroll. Welcome to my ignore list

----------


## Cyclops

> I put in my submission. Of course they were aiming high. Anyone who reads through it can see a mile off.
> 
> But there is something I just can't fathom, let alone support - and that's your claim it should be free. If you want to incentivise people and organisations then better be prepared to offer something. Your offer of zero is absurd. 
> 
> Driver licenses are cheaper because they are crowd pleasers. They also facilitate a lot of trade and therefore tax money for the government. The whole thing is also highly scalable. take a quick eyesight test, pay your fee, and you are good for another 10 years. They sure don't send someone out to ask your family about why you want a car, whether you will be well behaved with a car and whether you have had any speeding tickets in the past 5 years...


There is considerable community benefit in having licensed well regulated firearms ownership.
That considerable community benefit means there should be considerable subsidy of the firearms licensing system to encourage participation. 

If driver licensing was based on risk of community harm from driving the license fee would be thousands of dollars. 
*A driver license fee is low to encourage people to get licensed and become part of the system - as firearms licenses should be. 
*
The level of firearms license fee you support will encourage people to be unlicensed with unregistered firearms. 
*How will that improve public (and police) safety?*


There are many, many people killed each year from poor driving than poor firearms use. 

The two weeks around the mosque massacre saw more people killed on the roads than were killed in the massacre -* but not a thing was done about drivers, driver licensing or access to vehicles. Does anyone really need a vehicle that will do over 120 kmh?*

----------


## Cyclops

> And yet I can renew my 10yr drivers licence for $43.90.
> I use my MV most days and it has more potential to harm others in my books.
> How the hell does that stack up hours wise on paperwork/etc for the Police office workers, compared to renewing my FAL??


My son obtained his learners driver license and his firearms license on his 16th birthday. 

I described both as licenses to kill, noting that he was more likely to kill with his drivers license than his firearms license.

----------


## 308

> Yeah ok I'm done with you, you're boring now. A well spoken troll is still stroll. Welcome to my ignore list


Yes a point I reached a few pages back
Some people (and this is a general point) seem to think that a rational discussion involves them not conceding on any points of logic and just restating/rehashing their points and seem to think that they have "won the argument" as a sort of last man standing thing

I have got a lot out of this thread from other people adding points that were helpful for me to add in my submission ie food licensing, car licensing examples and for this I thank the constructive contributors

----------


## Ross Nolan

User pays is often a good principle. In this case the user of the license is the Police - or, if you are going in the public safety direction, it is the public. 

If the police want a plethora of regulation and investigation, they can pay for it. Pretty much everything unlawful that can be done with a firearm that concerns people other than the owner is already covered by other legislation - that the police would be tasked with enforcing as the natural core of their reason for existence. Murder, assault, armed robbery, threatening behaviour etc. etc. is all taken care of elsewhere, so the question becomes "why are there people pushing for additional regulation around a subject that would have been fine *if the Police had done their job correctly in the first place?*" 

I object to paying more because the Police tasked with firearms licensing were incompetent in the case of an Australian terrorist.

----------


## BSA

*I have got a lot out of this thread from other people adding points that were helpful for me to add in my submission ie food licensing, car licensing examples and for this I thank the constructive contributors*

True and I will also await both the Colfo & NZDA submissions. Remembering not all are up for a std A Cat licence. I will have 2 endorsements to pay for on top of the Licence Fee itself so am looking to cover all bases. The end result could very well be the NZ Police' worst nightmare, disengagement from the whole process on a massive scale. You would see sensible proposals from them then quick smart. That is LaFOs ace in the hole. Ignore them.

----------


## OGM

> The end result could very well be the NZ Police' worst nightmare, disengagement from the whole process on a massive scale. You would see sensible proposals from them then quick smart. That is LaFOs ace in the hole. Ignore them.


The New Zealand public doesn't do "civil disobedience" activism on a massive scale unless its about something which affects a massive number of people, with the mandates being a recent example.

But I will pose a question. I am a cat-A holder with a few rifles for hunting and plinking. Explain to me why I should involve myself with this.

----------


## omark

> *I have got a lot out of this thread from other people adding points that were helpful for me to add in my submission ie food licensing, car licensing examples and for this I thank the constructive contributors*
> 
> True and I will also await both the Colfo & NZDA submissions. Remembering not all are up for a std A Cat licence. I will have 2 endorsements to pay for on top of the Licence Fee itself so am looking to cover all bases. The end result could very well be the NZ Police' worst nightmare, disengagement from the whole process on a massive scale. You would see sensible proposals from them then quick smart. That is LaFOs ace in the hole. Ignore them.


That’s a very valid point. The same can be said for the range and club licensing process.

----------


## BSA

*Explain to me why I should involve myself with this*.

Read Appendix 4. Once they are done with endorsements A Cat is next. That is why. They are coming for all of them, this is just another step in the process.

----------


## small_caliber

> The New Zealand public doesn't do "civil disobedience" activism on a massive scale unless its about something which affects a massive number of people, with the mandates being a recent example.
> 
> But I will pose a question. I am a cat-A holder with a few rifles for hunting and plinking. Explain to me why I should involve myself with this.


Not sure how old you are but you come across as a self entitled brat and one that seems to think a firearms license is like an app on your phone, "Oh I want that pay for it" I'm picking if you are in your 20/30's that by the time you are 60 you won't be able to do what you do now with firearms, either it will be prohibitively expensive that you won't be able to afford it or there won't be public ownership of firearms...........and this would be attributed to your stance now.

Are you a police employee or a troll? You haven't bought any valid points to this discussion to justify your position or arguments.

The reason the fees should be free is because the Police have given no justification for the current fee or the proposed fee, and a service that you are paying for should be provided in a timely manner. which it isn't.

12 months + to get your firearms license renewed or get a firearms license, dealers who haven't had their renewal processed before they have to apply for their next yearly renewal, 3 months to get an import permit for a A cat rifle, that should take 5 minutes, check if the applicant has a firearms license, check the items being imported issue the import permit......not 3 months.
The Police seem to have created the backlog and extended timeframes to try and justify the increases they are proposing.

What are the police doing now to vet and renew a firearms license or issue a new firearms license that they didn't do before? Everything they are doing now they should have been doing before....but weren't.

The police are REQUIRED to provide the workings for the fees they are proposing to charge, their time shouldn't be taken into account because I pay taxes, as all working New Zealanders do, to employ them, which means we all pay for their time for public safety.

----------


## OGM

> Not sure how old you are but you come across as a self entitled brat and one that seems to think a firearms license is like an app on your phone, "Oh I want that pay for it" I'm picking if you are in your 20/30's


Talking to people like that will just ensure "the firearms lobby" come across as a bunch of nutters and lose any public support left.




> Are you a police employee or a troll? You haven't bought any valid points to this discussion to justify your position or arguments.
> 
> The reason the fees should be free is because the Police have given no justification for the current fee or the proposed fee, and a service that you are paying for should be provided in a timely manner. which it isn't.


Tut tut. See above comment.

I'm at the 3 month mark with my new license application and its making good progress. From what I hearing the time frames are trending down. Sure, I would like it all done is 6 weeks and I am willing to pay more for that but such is life. For the $126 I paid I see it as a bargain.

The government have wasted, opps I mean spent, a lot of money on lolly scramble, opps I mean important program, and for all the obvious reasons inflation is way too high. Add in the fees were last set years ago... an increase is inevitable.

----------


## csmiffy

@OGM the difference is we didnt come across at all. We as a rule either did nothing or chose to defer doing major events (not counting a few protests outside confiscation venues).
I can guarantee you the second one was just that reason, not to come across as a rabid minority.
And yet whether I liked it or not the rally outside govt got a lot of publicity. Some good, some bad, but it showed how useless the bunch of muppets in control of the beehive and the police actually are. They seem to want a nanny control state but don't have the outright balls to finish it off.
Now the rules can be amended at will by the nimbys regardless of proper thought or outcome.

----------


## Eat Meater

> ....with more respect than most would provide (given your responses here); you cannot speak for the "vast majority of firearms users."
> 
> Let me help you out here - you may want to join SSANZ as a result because they are advocating for the "vast majority of firearms users" you seem to think you represent - below is a media release suggesting a level of bad-faith in the existing Police approach:
> 
> *Police Consultation on Firearm Fees Is A Sham
> December 21, 2022 @ : hr
> In August 2021 the Office of the Auditor general issued a guide for "The setting and administration of fees and levies for
> cost recovery with four basic principles:
> 1. Equity
> ...


This is ammunition for of the regs get passed after our feedback.  Make a complaint to the Regulations Review Committee issuing this and you may see movement. 

Identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss (right?) and I'll be missed.

----------


## small_caliber

> Talking to people like that will just ensure "the firearms lobby" come across as a bunch of nutters and lose any public support left.
> 
> 
> 
> Tut tut. See above comment.
> 
> I'm at the 3 month mark with my new license application and its making good progress. From what I hearing the time frames are trending down. Sure, I would like it all done is 6 weeks and I am willing to pay more for that but such is life. For the $126 I paid I see it as a bargain.
> 
> The government have wasted, opps I mean spent, a lot of money on lolly scramble, opps I mean important program, and for all the obvious reasons inflation is way too high. Add in the fees were last set years ago... an increase is inevitable.


I am not part of any firearms lobby group, I'm a licensed firearms owner that works and pays tax and your comment is offensive.......which puts you more into the troll group. People use that term to deflect and belittle the comments or arguments, and it's usually the anti gun lobby group that does that, are you part of the anti gun lobby group?

What you put above is no justification for the increase, it doesn't even justify the current fee, so justify WHY it should increase. Cost out the time, materials, etc and justify why we should pay for the current fee let alone any increase since you support an increase.

BTW go back a number of posts and someone highlighted that in 15/16 firearms owners were contributing 45% toward the cost of firearms license administration, the supporting evidence came from Police and was published by the anti gun lobby, yet the police say that licensed firearms owners are only contributing 15% now. This highlights the police are less efficient now than they were in 15/16. Loss of efficiency isn't a justified reason for an increase.

What is your name and who services your car, obviously you aren't paying enough for that service either.

----------


## Ben Waimata

> BTW go back a number of posts and someone highlighted that in 15/16 firearms owners were contributing 45% toward the cost of firearms license administration, the supporting evidence came from Police and was published by the anti gun lobby, yet the police say that licensed firearms owners are only contributing 15% now. This highlights the police are less efficient now than they were in 15/16..


That does not surprise me at all, the poor old AO people need to do a vast amount more work thanks to Govt policy than they did before, as well as take some heat from pissed-off firearms users. At least the arms guys I deal with are firmly on my side, I assume it is the same for most of the rest of you. Blaming the police hierarchy is partly fair, but remember they need all the funding they can get to fight real crime so will want to get as much money as possible for wasted time doing pointless paperwork. Most of the blame needs to sit firmly with the Govt for their short-sighted legislative changes.

----------


## Beavis

It's part of a multi faceted attempt to reshape firearm ownership and use in New Zealand. Police stated previously that up until 2019 they felt they took a light handed approach to firearms use in New Zealand. They have indicated that they want to have a much more hands on approach to it going forward. Hence the regulations around shooting clubs and ranges, the much broader license application and renewal process, the (re)establishment of a firearm register, the requirement for import permits and mail order forms for all gun parts etc.

The new proposed fees structure is simply another tool to help mold the direction they want things to go. Charging $1500 for a B endorsement will put many people off of getting or renewing theirs. Charging much the same adds another barrier to people getting their C endorsement and collecting restricted weapons. 

$600 for an import permit will put off individual importers (as opposed to businesses), from applying for permits to bring in small consignments. Businesses will simply pass the cost onto us. Now that every arms item requires an import permit, if you need to order a part to fix a gun, it might simply not be worth it.

$1000 for a reenactor to take a pistol or machine gun to an event will see people simply not bother doing it. Goodbye all the blank firing demos.

I wonder what fees they might have instore for us once the register gets up and going? I did hear a rumor that the cost to register will be low to encourage buy-in in the early stages. Then the price would be ramped up to encourage people not to sit on too many guns.

----------


## GDMP

Its really just history repeating itself.....must have been pretty much the same experience for firearm users back in 1920,when out of the blue the Govt of the day massively clamped down on legitimate ownership.....permits,registration etc where before it had been quite easy going.Especially in regards to handguns that were up until that time readily available.Its a pity that there was not more opposition at the time, we may not have ended up with the stringent restrictions on pistol use that we have had in this country ever since.

----------


## vulcannz

> BTW go back a number of posts and someone highlighted that in 15/16 firearms owners were contributing 45% toward the cost of firearms license administration, the supporting evidence came from Police and was published by the anti gun lobby, yet the police say that licensed firearms owners are only contributing 15% now. This highlights the police are less efficient now than they were in 15/16. Loss of efficiency isn't a justified reason for an increase.


Actually in the 18/19 FY it was 48%. And I worked out it would take ~$55 million in firearms related sales to make up the remaining cost in GST (which I am certain firearms related sales exceeds).

----------


## small_caliber

> That does not surprise me at all, the poor old AO people need to do a vast amount more work thanks to Govt policy than they did before, as well as take some heat from pissed-off firearms users. At least the arms guys I deal with are firmly on my side, I assume it is the same for most of the rest of you. Blaming the police hierarchy is partly fair, but remember they need all the funding they can get to fight real crime so will want to get as much money as possible for wasted time doing pointless paperwork. Most of the blame needs to sit firmly with the Govt for their short-sighted legislative changes.


Actually, what has changed for A cat license holders, dealers, B cat and C cat license holders, the applicant still has to be vetted, and prior to the most recent law changes the license holder had to be vetted.........so for firearms licenses and renewals what has changed?
Please explain what has changed.

Clubs and ranges is a separate issue, the firearms authority is a separate entity, so we are led to believe, so requires funding from the Govt, the Police are not the firearms authority and require their own funding.
Yes the firearms authority should be funded directly by the govt and not through the police, that way funds can't be syphoned off to other areas which they have done for years, if it is funded through the Police funds will be syphoned off to other areas as they have done in the past.

----------


## OGM

> I wonder what fees they might have instore for us once the register gets up and going? I did hear a rumor that the cost to register will be low to encourage buy-in in the early stages. Then the price would be ramped up to encourage people not to sit on too many guns.


At a guess I would say the average firearms user holds A cat and 1 - 3 rifles/shotguns. I live in a rural area and I know informally there are a lot of firearms around here but I don't know of anyone who holds an arsenal.

As long as they don't upset farmers and hunters too much then that's the majority covered. This is where I think it will be pitched at.

----------


## Russian 22.

> right ho....finnwolf is to polite of gentleman to say it...and others are also being restrained
> Im old and grumpy so here it is.
> 
> you are coming across as a self entitled brat.
> have some respect
> have some respect for your elders,they WERE PROMISED the pension,they paid tax thier entire working life ON THE EXPECTATION the pension would be there...kiwisaver etc wasnt a thing.
> the money has been spent you say......well I say its been spent on you you self entitled twat..... the infrastructure you enjoy was bought and paid for by taxes paid by those elders you are insulting.
> have some respect.
> as a younf family man with tight budget I had choice of yearly NZDA subscription or duck shooting licence and ammunition..there was no way I could do both.... on a pension many will face much more serious choice than that.... new washing machine or renew firearms licence etc etc.
> ...


whilst he is naive. he is not wrong. Superannuation is funded by future generations. the contributions to the super fund were paid by current working people.

The ratio of retirees to working people has been getting worse. in the 30's it was something like 1:12, the 80's it was 1:8 and now it is more like 1:4. 

it costs us 120m a day. it is not sustainable.

anyway, young people shouldn't have to pay for their elder's lack of financial planning.

----------


## OGM

> whilst he is naive. he is not wrong. Superannuation is funded by future generations. the contributions to the super fund were paid by current working people.
> 
> The ratio of retirees to working people has been getting worse. in the 30's it was something like 1:12, the 80's it was 1:8 and now it is more like 1:4.


I live in a rural area and notice our local demographics. I also have a Mother in that age group and she is well looked after, as are her friends. I'm also a bit older then some here seem to think lol and I don't expect super to be a great as it is now when I get to that age.




> anyway, young people shouldn't have to pay for their elder's lack of financial planning.


They were told this and that by successive governments and neither of the major parties will dare say otherwise lest they get a reaction like @Micky Duck but I think it will go crunch at some stage.

----------


## 300CALMAN

> At a guess I would say the average firearms user holds A cat and 1 - 3 rifles/shotguns. I live in a rural area and I know informally there are a lot of firearms around here but I don't know of anyone who holds an arsenal.
> 
> As long as they don't upset farmers and hunters too much then that's the majority covered. This is where I think it will be pitched at.


What's an Arsenal? They (the government) have already upset most of this demographic with plenty of other things so this will just be seen as an extension of politics.

----------


## Peteforskeet

> whilst he is naive. he is not wrong. Superannuation is funded by future generations. the contributions to the super fund were paid by current working people.
> 
> The ratio of retirees to working people has been getting worse. in the 30's it was something like 1:12, the 80's it was 1:8 and now it is more like 1:4. 
> 
> it costs us 120m a day. it is not sustainable.
> 
> anyway, young people shouldn't have to pay for their elder's lack of financial planning.


It's not the fault of the retires  lack of financial  planning  but the various governments lack of financial planning?
We have a census  every few yrs so the government  knows the shape of the nz population,
So they can PLAN there spending, on schools, hospitals etc and government  super?

----------


## Steve123

> What's an Arsenal? They (the government) have already upset most of this demographic with plenty of other things so this will just be seen as an extension of politics.


I think an arsenal is something like what the police or defense force have.
So most of us are probably ok.

----------


## Eat Meater

> whilst he is naive. he is not wrong. Superannuation is funded by future generations. the contributions to the super fund were paid by current working people.
> 
> The ratio of retirees to working people has been getting worse. in the 30's it was something like 1:12, the 80's it was 1:8 and now it is more like 1:4. 
> 
> it costs us 120m a day. it is not sustainable.
> 
> anyway, young people shouldn't have to pay for their elder's lack of financial planning.


There's naivety all around, or perhaps wilful blindness.  People don't trust politicians (especially on this forum) - they're always the least trusted profession in surveys,  yet some people trust current politicians to keep long gone politicians' promises about the pensions. 

Identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss (right?) and I'll be missed.

----------


## 308

Before we get off ito the weeds (too late) let's keep in mind that this proposal is as dumb as a paper bag  in that it says that re-enactors are to be priced out of their hobbies, people importing parts or bringing their own damn guns back into the country after travelling are to pay around $600 each time and that, even if you were to say that fees should increase, jumping them over 20 times is inequitable

Yet again this govt have pandered to an agenda which is hostile to our sport and we ALL will pay more if we do nothing

I applaud those like HG Man who have the time and patience to speak to their submission
I have submitted my displeasure through official channels and will vote against this govt come election time and urge all FAL owners to do the same

----------


## Beavis

> At a guess I would say the average firearms user holds A cat and 1 - 3 rifles/shotguns. I live in a rural area and I know informally there are a lot of firearms around here but I don't know of anyone who holds an arsenal.
> 
> As long as they don't upset farmers and hunters too much then that's the majority covered. This is where I think it will be pitched at.


Half the FAL holders I know fall into the 1 or 2 guns for guns for hunting category, the other half own north of 20, some well north.

You would probably be surprised what some farmers have tucked away.

----------


## Russian 22.

> It's not the fault of the retires  lack of financial  planning  but the various governments lack of financial planning?
> We have a census  every few yrs so the government  knows the shape of the nz population,
> So they can PLAN there spending, on schools, hospitals etc and government  super?


both can be bad financial planners. Accountability is like kryptonite. If voters wanted more long term solutions and voted accordingly govt and parties would follow suit.

----------


## 308

> Half the FAL holders I know fall into the 1 or 2 guns for guns for hunting category, the other half own north of 20, some well north.
> 
> You would probably be surprised what some farmers have tucked away.


I visited a great little gunshop in Te Awamutu a few weeks back (Dave Gibson's, worth a visit) and he was telling me about a local farmer who he stored some firearms for while the guy was overseas - he expected the usual maybe 4 and the guy had about 30
I know people with over 100 and I bet plenty on this forum would be in that category too but the best security is keeping one's mouth shut

----------


## Steve123

> I visited a great little gunshop in Te Awamutu a few weeks back (Dave Gibson's, worth a visit) and he was telling me about a local farmer who he stored some firearms for while the guy was overseas - he expected the usual maybe 4 and the guy had about 30
> I know people with over 100 and I bet plenty on this forum would be in that category too but the best security is keeping one's mouth shut


Yeah, but there a collection not an arsenal. An Arsenal would need to be like a platoon sized number of identical rifles, a few machine guns etc. Hell, be like the government and add some warships into the mix.
Any cunt who refers to a "collection" as an "arsenal" really needs to look up the definition of the word. What our reporters call an arsenal is fuck all, if you lived in the States people would be setting up funding pages so you could get more.

----------


## small_caliber

> whilst he is naive. he is not wrong. Superannuation is funded by future generations. the contributions to the super fund were paid by current working people.
> 
> The ratio of retirees to working people has been getting worse. in the 30's it was something like 1:12, the 80's it was 1:8 and now it is more like 1:4. 
> 
> it costs us 120m a day. it is not sustainable.
> 
> anyway, young people shouldn't have to pay for their elder's lack of financial planning.


I'm old enough to remember when you filed your tax return your contributions to a super scheme were claimable and all super schemes were also funded by the employer, this was the incentive to save for your retirement. 
It wasn't long after I started work before your contributions were taxed and then new employees that enrolled in the scheme didn't get the employer contribution.
The employer I worked for at the time was slowly being forced to restructure due to changes and I left their employment, I was refunded my share and the employers share of contributions and promptly paid it on my mortgage that was at 20%.
A few years latter things had changed and (4 and a bit years) the place laid most of the employees off and I was told they got their contribution which was taxed and the company contribution was lost none of the employees got that and some of them had been in the scheme20+ years.

From then until Kiwisaver the governments of the time actively discouraged private superannuation policies with their tax policies.

In reality the government has created the current situation with superannuation, perhaps someone older than me will recall if there was a NZ government fund for super that was spent by the government, but I seem to vaguely recall older employees going on about this when I first started work.

The governments over the last 30+ years have known this, it is not the fault of the people it is the fault of the government for discouraging people from saving for their retirement.

If people haven't got money at the end of the week to buy groceries, how are they going to come up with money to fund their retirement, I had more surplus funds when I was 25 from a weeks pay than I do now, and back then my mortgage was 20%, there weren't many families that I knew where the mother worked if they had kids back then either.

----------


## 308

> Yeah, but there a collection not an arsenal. An Arsenal would need to be like a platoon sized number of identical rifles, a few machine guns etc. Hell, be like the government and add some warships into the mix.
> Any cunt who refers to a "collection" as an "arsenal" really needs to look up the definition of the word. What our reporters call an arsenal is fuck all, if you lived in the States people would be setting up funding pages so you could get more.


Point taken - most people think that an Arsenal is some sort of football club

When certain media get involved all firearms are "high powered" unless a 22, more than 1 firearm is a cache, 3 or more is an arsenal all pistols are Glocks and OMG  DONT YOU KNOW THE SKY IS ON FIRE!!!??!!!


fucking muppets

----------


## OGM

> When *certain media* get involved all firearms are "high powered" unless a 22, more than 1 firearm is a cache, 3 or more is an arsenal all pistols are Glocks and OMG  DONT YOU KNOW THE SKY IS ON FIRE!!!??!!!


(emphasis added)

Last time I looked they were all singing the same song.

This country has no large independent media.

----------


## gsp follower

it doesnt matter what the cost is if the authority doesnt do its job in the first place .
the cops didnt do thiers on the auzzie c..t and no hike of licence fees can cover that up
 excuse it or pass the blame on to us cos some bullshit buck passing that we didnt pay enough 
.it wouldnt matter how much more we payed incompetence laziness and general malais would still be in the process.
6 days firearms training and a once in a blue moon refresher dont make for confident or sypathetic firearms users in the police force 
they want only the crims and them to have guns then the field in betweens clear

----------


## XR500

> If people haven't got money at the end of the week to buy groceries, how are they going to come up with money to fund their retirement, I had more surplus funds when I was 25 from a weeks pay than I do now, and back then my mortgage was 20%, there weren't many families that I knew where the mother worked if they had kids back then either.


THIS  :36 1 11:

----------


## XR500

> This country has no large independent media.


The correct terminology is " State sponsored propaganda entity" :Cool:

----------


## OGM

> The correct terminology is " State sponsored propaganda entity"


As so clearly shown in the past couple of years its sadly very literal.

----------


## Danger Mouse

> What's an Arsenal? They (the government) have already upset most of this demographic with plenty of other things so this will just be seen as an extension of politics.


An arsenal is dramatic manipulative wording in a negative context for a small collection or larger.

----------


## OGM

> An arsenal is dramatic manipulative wording in a negative context for a small collection or larger.


But there are reportedly folks out there who have large "collections" which any normal person would think of as an "arsenal".

Obviously I am amenable and interested in firearms but this doesn't mean I am going to support something I think is swimming against the current. And for various reasons I think this does represent a genuine higher risk scenario. I can't see any reason why said folks should not be subject to extra scrutiny. Either that or we all get lumped in the same boat and suddenly an FAL becomes really hard to get.

Right now someone can get an A-cat and buy 2 firearms for hunting (which is probably all they need) or 50 for a small army and as long as they can legally store them, I don't see anything in law to stop them. But the person with 50 is a far greater target and also - like it or not - raises questions as to "why" they want so many...

----------


## Rushy

I struggle to understand how owning multiple firearms represents any greater risk than owning a single firearm.  I have just short of two and a half dozen firearms and can justify each and every one of them against my sporting interests in hunting, long range shooting, varminting, pest control, clay bird shooting, cowboy action shooting, service pistol shooting, speed steel competitions, three gun and multi gun completions and just having a plinking session with friends.  But moreover I have a friend that is a real enthusiast who has in excess of a hundred firearms and actively uses them all  across his shooting sport interests.  I do not consider either of us to be any greater risk to anyone than the dude down the road that has a single firearm for controlling rabbits and possums.

----------


## BSA

I have multiple firearms because I can, neither need nor justification comes into it. I have them because I want them. The End.

----------


## Rushy

> I have multiple firearms because I can, neither need nor justification comes into it. I have them because I want them. The End.


Bloody good on ya!  All the reason you need.

----------


## GDMP

I would have thought holders of larger collections would be more likely to be 'fit and proper' as they are obviously enthusiasts and clearly have a dedicated interest in firearms.BTW the trolling in this thread is pretty blatant I must say.....

----------


## 300CALMAN

> But there are reportedly folks out there who have large "collections" which any normal person would think of as an "arsenal".
> 
> Obviously I am amenable and interested in firearms but this doesn't mean I am going to support something I think is swimming against the current. And for various reasons I think this does represent a genuine higher risk scenario. I can't see any reason why said folks should not be subject to extra scrutiny. Either that or we all get lumped in the same boat and suddenly an FAL becomes really hard to get.
> 
> Right now someone can get an A-cat and buy 2 firearms for hunting (which is probably all they need) or 50 for a small army and as long as they can legally store them, I don't see anything in law to stop them. But the person with 50 is a far greater target and also - like it or not - raises questions as to "why" they want so many...


Who gets to decide what appropriate justification is and who gets to own multiple firearms? I am sure you and people who think like you would like to make those decisions. This goes along with others of this ilk who would like to make life decisions for other people "for their own good".  On a related theme, apparently internet trolling is strongly associated with narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, direct sadism and vicarious sadism.

----------


## Micky Duck

> whilst he is naive. he is not wrong. Superannuation is funded by future generations. the contributions to the super fund were paid by current working people.
> 
> The ratio of retirees to working people has been getting worse. in the 30's it was something like 1:12, the 80's it was 1:8 and now it is more like 1:4. 
> 
> it costs us 120m a day. it is not sustainable.
> 
> anyway, young people shouldn't have to pay for their elder's lack of financial planning.


so you would prefer a "Logans run" type senario??????
its the oldies fault for living so long really?????
and for 3rd time..its not a lack of finacial planning...THEY HAD PLANNED..they paid taxes with expectation that pension would be there... they had therefore planned on it being there...it was expected to be there so no need to do anything else...
and a fella who lost his savings in messy divorce in his 40s50s is screwed..bugger all time left to make another nestegg.

----------


## Micky Duck

> Right now someone can get an A-cat and buy 2 firearms for hunting (which is probably all they need) ..


you live in a city so you dont need 2 cars..... a pushbike is more than enough for you.... and catch the bus...or we will tax you into povety/submission
you dont need a dog AND a cat..one or the other.... 
only allowed 2 children too....oops population is decrasing so thou must have 9  or we will tax you into submission..hop to it bonky bonky time.
all they need..meat n 3 vege so all you vegans and vegetablearians are stuffed...meat n three or we will tax you into sunmission
you only need water to drink NO MORE COFFEE...
you only need 3 golf clubs and half an hour to play 16 holes...any more and we will tax you into submission


my point is that NEED is relative.
and in case of firearms...what we want/need/have are relative to our own wants..and if we are behaving ourselves what business is it of anyone else?????

----------


## Micky Duck

in todays so called liberal society you can CHOOSE to be any all all of 26 genders and thats OK.... so why do you believe its not OK for me to choose to use a different gun for each day of the week????

----------


## OGM

> you live in a city so you dont need 2 cars..... a pushbike is more than enough for you.... and catch the bus...or we will tax you into povety/submission
> you dont need a dog AND a cat..one or the other.... 
> only allowed 2 children too....oops population is decrasing so thou must have 9  or we will tax you into submission..hop to it bonky bonky time.
> all they need..meat n 3 vege so all you vegans and vegetablearians are stuffed...meat n three or we will tax you into sunmission
> you only need water to drink NO MORE COFFEE...
> you only need 3 golf clubs and half an hour to play 16 holes...any more and we will tax you into submission


I don't know whether to say "don't give them ideas" or "that's exactly what they think".

But some of that stuff is happening naturally anyway.

----------


## Beavis

It's not rocket science. Some license holders have just what they perceive they need for a given activity. Other license holders have more than just a practical interest in firearms and they naturally accumulate.

----------


## OGM

In regards to the nasty comments here - this is the sort of publicity you will attract:

*Radical gun lobby gets opponent*
_Sticking your head above the parapet is dangerous when it comes to the gun debate. Laura Walters reports on a new gun control group determined to advocate for the other side.

Analysis: For the first time in more than 20 years, a gun control interest group has been set up in an effort to be a voice in opposition to the dominant pro-gun lobby.

New Zealand has long had a small, but vocal, pro-gun lobby, seen by many as responsible for stifling gun law changes for decades._
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/radical-g...-gets-opponent

It will be a hard time trying to convince anyone of your cause with name calling... Even worse combined with guns the majority will support stronger measures - for obvious reasons.

The only way forward is measured discourse which focuses on a positive message like hunting and target shooting being a wholesale family activity.

----------


## Eat Meater

> I would have thought holders of larger collections would be more likely to be 'fit and proper' as they are obviously enthusiasts and clearly have a dedicated interest in firearms.BTW the trolling in this thread is pretty blatant I must say.....


As long as they can store them safely people should be able to have as many as they want.  I have better uses for my money personally,  but that's my money. 
The only problem i see in collectors or 'arsenal' holders is if someone gets wind of the collection and breaches their security.  Then there's 50 guns in the hands of the hands versus the 1 they'd get from me.  But that's a chicken egg situation there

Identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss (right?) and I'll be missed.

----------


## 300CALMAN

> In regards to the nasty comments here - this is the sort of publicity you will attract:
> 
> *Radical gun lobby gets opponent*
> _Sticking your head above the parapet is dangerous when it comes to the gun debate. Laura Walters reports on a new gun control group determined to advocate for the other side.
> 
> Analysis: For the first time in more than 20 years, a gun control interest group has been set up in an effort to be a voice in opposition to the dominant pro-gun lobby.
> 
> New Zealand has long had a small, but vocal, pro-gun lobby, seen by many as responsible for stifling gun law changes for decades._
> https://www.newsroom.co.nz/radical-g...-gets-opponent
> ...


Yeah Nah, hasn't worked so far... Such positive messages simply don't see the light of day.

----------


## small_caliber

> But there are reportedly folks out there who have large "collections" which any normal person would think of as an "arsenal".
> 
> Obviously I am amenable and interested in firearms but this doesn't mean I am going to support something I think is swimming against the current. And for various reasons I think this does represent a genuine higher risk scenario. I can't see any reason why said folks should not be subject to extra scrutiny. Either that or we all get lumped in the same boat and suddenly an FAL becomes really hard to get.
> 
> Right now someone can get an A-cat and buy 2 firearms for hunting (which is probably all they need) or 50 for a small army and as long as they can legally store them, I don't see anything in law to stop them. But the person with 50 is a far greater target and also - like it or not - raises questions as to "why" they want so many...


The above is a common police view and as stated in appendix 4 they want less firearms owners and firearms owners to own less firearms.

I'm betting the person with a large number of firearms, whatever number that is, has better security than you do with your one or two firearms, so how are they a greater risk/target?
Why should anyone have to justify why they have firearms, your license allows you to own firearms so as long as you can store them correctly what does it matter?

You aren't limited on how many motor vehicles you can own, even when you haven't got a license you can buy a motor vehicle, which I personally think is wrong, this is like allowing non licensed people to buy firearms, yet motor vehicles kill more people in NZ than firearms do.

----------


## small_caliber

> In regards to the nasty comments here - this is the sort of publicity you will attract:
> 
> *Radical gun lobby gets opponent*
> _Sticking your head above the parapet is dangerous when it comes to the gun debate. Laura Walters reports on a new gun control group determined to advocate for the other side.
> 
> Analysis: For the first time in more than 20 years, a gun control interest group has been set up in an effort to be a voice in opposition to the dominant pro-gun lobby.
> 
> New Zealand has long had a small, but vocal, pro-gun lobby, seen by many as responsible for stifling gun law changes for decades._
> https://www.newsroom.co.nz/radical-g...-gets-opponent
> ...


You are referring to the Anti Gun Lobby Group NZ Gun Control, Hera Cook and her followers which was set up in 2019, post the massacre in ChCh.

Who is the Gun Lobby group you are referring to? the anti gun lobby group and the press keep referring to this imaginary group but I keep wondering who they are talking about they never name them, they just use that term to oppose any pro gun firearm comment, just like you are.

----------


## OGM

> Who is the Gun Lobby group you are referring to? the anti gun lobby group and the press keep referring to this imaginary group but I keep wondering who they are talking about they never name them, they just use that term to oppose any pro gun firearm comment, just like you are.


Diddums. It was obviously a quote from the Newshub article which was linked in the post, not a statement of fact.

----------


## Finnwolf

> in todays so called liberal society you can CHOOSE to be any all all of 26 genders and thats OK.... so why do you believe its not OK for me to choose to use a different gun for each day of the week????



Haha, 26 genders you say? Each one would need their own gun - so that means 26 guns!
Seems fair :Yaeh Am Not Durnk: 

Merry Christmas MD!

----------


## 308

PUBLIC HEALTH WARNING

A troll will never state what they stand for, they will only bat away points that are possibly peripheral and ignore pertinent points


People, please keep in mind from this point forward that you are not having a rational conversation like you would amongst normal people, you are just feeding the troll

You might as well ask Bunji for evidence




Also for the technically minded amongst us, what are the chances that this is the controlled use of a GPT chat bot? More than zero?

If you have no fucking idea what I am on about and are curious, 

https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-i...-need-to-know/

If y'all want to keep going, have at it, i ain't yo momma but like ya momma told ya, it'll end in tears..

----------


## Finnwolf

> You are referring to the Anti Gun Lobby Group NZ Gun Control, Hera Cook and her followers which was set up in 2019, post the massacre in ChCh.
> 
> Who is the Gun Lobby group you are referring to? the anti gun lobby group and the press keep referring to this imaginary group but I keep wondering who they are talking about they never name them, they just use that term to oppose any pro gun firearm comment, just like you are.


The Gun Lobby is as real as a unicorn - and we as gun owners know that - but the general media aren’t aware of and/or prefer sensational publicity to sell their distorted ‘information’.

----------


## Rushy

> in todays so called liberal society you can CHOOSE to be any all all of 26 genders and thats OK.... so why do you believe its not OK for me to choose to use a different gun for each day of the week????


Point of order Mr Duck, point of order.  I submit that there are only two genders and that all of the others are sexual inclinations and or sexual preferences.

----------


## Steve123

> PUBLIC HEALTH WARNING
> 
> A troll will never state what they stand for, they will only bat away points that are possibly peripheral and ignore pertinent points
> 
> 
> People, please keep in mind from this point forward that you are not having a rational conversation like you would amongst normal people, you are just feeding the troll
> 
> You might as well ask Bunji for evidence
> 
> ...


OGM got to the ignore list in record time.

----------


## Ben Waimata

> You are referring to the Anti Gun Lobby Group NZ Gun Control, Hera Cook and her followers which was set up in 2019, post the massacre in ChCh.
> 
> Who is the Gun Lobby group you are referring to? the anti gun lobby group and the press keep referring to this imaginary group but I keep wondering who they are talking about they never name them, they just use that term to oppose any pro gun firearm comment, just like you are.


PM Ardern defined the gun lobby for us in 2019 with her order in council, and her stated intention to not discuss firearms legislation issues with any firearms users as she grouped us all in as a single terrorist entity intent on destruction and murder. The 'Gun Lobby' is the 250,000 of us with FALs who just go about our daily lives. 
So much of the current mess in firearms legislation (and almost every other contentious matter today such as race relations, health, housing, employment, climate change, farming) would have been much better addressed by actually adequately discussing issues with effected parties rather than simply pushing ideological agendas. The country did seem to like it though and gave Labour an overwhelming majority to do whatever they wanted.

----------


## GDMP

The public are  not liking it so much now though....but the damage has been done.

----------


## Danger Mouse

> I have multiple firearms because I can, neither need nor justification comes into it. I have them because I want them. The End.


Requiring to justify need for lawful ownership of anything is the behavior of a tyrant

----------


## Danger Mouse

> OGM got to the ignore list in record time.


Yeah, why haven't you all done it? I did ages ago

----------


## Finnwolf

> OGM got to the ignore list in record time.


I didn’t - know your enemy!

----------


## OGM

> PM Ardern defined the gun lobby for us in 2019 with her order in council, and her stated intention to not discuss firearms legislation issues with any firearms users as she grouped us all in as a single terrorist entity intent on destruction and murder.


Far more likely she just didn't want to deal with the vitriol from the few who seemingly either have no idea how they come across or they want to crash and burn the cause.

Firearms owners especially need to maintain an image of being good character and law abiding folks.




> So much of the current mess in firearms legislation (and almost every other contentious matter today such as race relations, health, housing, employment, climate change, farming) would have been much better addressed by actually adequately discussing issues with effected parties


In my experience it is possible to reach MP's even those who have refused to speak to the crowd. Being polite, measured, focused on key issues and patient goes a long way.

Most people get this and if nothing else - they have tried their best - but unfortunately "radicals" usually end up undermining activism.

This strategy goes contrary to what I believe should be the right and fair way, but it might be better to be represented by organisation(s) and professionals. This is an insight into how large companies do it:

*What Amazon wanted from New Zealand's prime minister*
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political...prime-minister

----------


## 300CALMAN

> Far more likely she just didn't want to deal with the vitriol from the few who seemingly either have no idea how they come across or they want to crash and burn the cause.
> 
> Firearms owners especially need to maintain an image of being good character and law abiding folks.


You really have no idea do you?

----------


## gsp follower

> But there are reportedly folks out there who have large "collections" which any normal person would think of as an "arsenal".
> 
> Obviously I am amenable and interested in firearms but this doesn't mean I am going to support something I think is swimming against the current. And for various reasons I think this does represent a genuine higher risk scenario. I can't see any reason why said folks should not be subject to extra scrutiny. Either that or we all get lumped in the same boat and suddenly an FAL becomes really hard to get.
> 
> Right now someone can get an A-cat and buy 2 firearms for hunting (which is probably all they need) or 50 for a small army and as long as they can legally store them, I don't see anything in law to stop them. But the person with 50 is a far greater target and also - like it or not - raises questions as to "why" they want so many...


thats if you buy into the ''language is the key'' arguement
 words can used to demonise or praise almost any endeavor. 
collection if your a good boy or arsenal if your a baddun
whats the difference if your a'' fit and proper person'' if you have 20 shotguns cos you love them 
the styling the engraving the different gauges 
who but the paranoid and anti,s would sAY  its a arsenal.




> Firearms owners especially need to maintain an image of being good character and law abiding folks.


its not a image its a fuckin fact for 99%of us 
how do the principlies of innocent till proven guilty not apply to us but they did to the police vetters

----------


## Ben Waimata

> Far more likely she just didn't want to deal with the vitriol from the few who seemingly either have no idea how they come across or they want to crash and burn the cause.


Remember the context though, in the days following the CHCH shooting there was general shock and horror at what had occurred. Ardern used this time to cause further division and polarisation by implying we were all the same as Tarrant. Those of us who had E cat were specifically to be targeted because our class of firearm alone was to be banned (or so she said) implying we had the likelihood of going and shooting up mosques. The fact that E cat shooters represented zero serious firearms offences was ignored, or the fact that were just as horrified about what had happened as anyone else. This polarisation of public opinion for political benefit has been a theme of Arderns PM style ever since. Any vitriol (as you put it) would be entirely self-induced due to her arbitrary decision to ban semi autos without any consideration of further implications, not because firearms users were a bunch of pissed off angry psychopaths before the CHCH horror. 






> In my experience it is possible to reach MP's even those who have refused to speak to the crowd. Being polite, measured, focused on key issues and patient goes a long way.
> 
> Most people get this and if nothing else - they have tried their best - but unfortunately "radicals" usually end up undermining activism.
> 
> https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political...minister<br />


Yes, I had a talk with Nash a few months after the 2019 law change and he was very sympathetic to my pest control situation following the ban on E cat, and he made some slightly helpful comments about setting up a pest control business to continue to use semi autos. He also appeared to understand my position that even if I did get a P endorsement it was ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff, and that it would be far better to have adequate pest control in an entire district than one person trying to do it all on one farm. However the Govt had committed to banning semi autos and that was that, but I did feel he was not fully happy about towing the party line. 

I disagree completely about firearms radicals, NZ shooters are not American 2A lovers,  and any radicalism (if there was any, I didn't see any) was a response to arbitrary banning, not a part of who we are.

----------


## csmiffy

@Ben Waimata there are a couple of points to consider. Firstly we have a leader who not only has ambitions for the UN, is being actively mentored by someone who almost made it to the top.
Also afore mentioned leader also did some major tut-tutting and posturing over several US mass shootings in the states after the same cries of doing something didn't have anything happen, reinforced with some comments hinting that we wouldn't do the same here.
Well she got the chance and ran with it and is continually milking that for what it is worth across several policies.
The worst bit is how the rozzers have been left to manage this (poorly) with some detached but tacit approval of the govt.

----------


## OGM

Has anyone else noticed the media is doing a lot of rewriting their own history lately to try and cover their tracks and paint themselves as virtuous?

*Are nudges sinister psychological tricks or are they useless?*
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/lifes...y-useless.html

Under any other circumstances this behavior would correctly be called-out as manipulative, controlling and incur the condemnation of the #metoo movement. Whether or not these methods gain traction, or the public in general realises the game, remains to be seen.

Whatever the case, appeals to long winded arguments most people don't understand, or don't care for (think US style gun rights) is like pissing in the wind.

Far better to go with the flow and use simple statements and images to portray key points which show the positive side.
- Firearms are for the environment
- Firearms are for sport
- Firearms are for family
- Firearms are part of the outdoors lifestyle
- Firearms bring jobs and tourism
- Use of firearms is social
- Pillars of the community are associated with any of the above
- A diverse range of folks use firearms

We all know this but doesn't mean its second nature to everyone else. Positive statements which are inline with New Zealand values are a lot harder to argue with. This message will also bring much needed balance to the debate.

----------


## gsp follower

> Has anyone else noticed the media is doing a lot of rewriting their own history lately to try and cover their tracks and paint themselves as virtuous?
> 
> *Are nudges sinister psychological tricks or are they useless?*
> https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/lifes...y-useless.html
> 
> Under any other circumstances this behavior would correctly be called-out as manipulative, controlling and incur the condemnation of the #metoo movement. Whether or not these methods gain traction, or the public in general realises the game, remains to be seen.
> 
> Whatever the case, appeals to long winded arguments most people don't understand, or don't care for (think US style gun rights) is like pissing in the wind.
> 
> ...


a positive action is worth ten statements

----------


## Percy Jones

> I have had a read of that SSANZ website and their spokesman seems to fall into the same trap as some others here - Blame the Police and the Government
> 
> Well, guess what? The government always has an answer for too many complaints and that's more regulation.
> 
> You might not like everything I say and that's fine. It gives the forum some life. But its also not the newbies and quiet majority who are poking the bear.


Sporting shooters are partly correct. Blame the govt, they are the ones doing this. Grant Robertson advised months back he was going for full cost recovery, and here we are. These figures were all worked out over 6 months ago, as that when they were first presented to FCAF members. The 711 million to fund the register etc for the next 5 or so years has to be recouped somehow.

----------


## OGM

> The 711 million to fund the register etc for the next 5 or so years has to be recouped somehow.


$711,000,000...? That's just taking the piss. The rule of thumb with IT projects is to take what you think it will cost and add another zero on the end. But knowing the current government would not surprise me one bit someone got trigger happy with their numbers.

----------


## gsp follower

labours not gonna survive the election unless they pull thier heads out thier arses.
 that goes for acknoledging the the poice,s inability to run  the firearms side of things 
which is what this authority is.
a side show to look like they,ve distanced it from trhe police who made the mistakes.
 but put the cost on us for rely merely existing as a 99%law abiding sport 
but fortunatly cooler heads will prevail and the 25% option will be grudgingly agreed to cos its a election year and the top figures were ludicrous 
.i hope if the torys and act get in your prepared for thier special brand of speaking with forked tongues and when it comes to our side of the deal. 
lots of  politicians hate private gun ownership tho its never happened here
 its thier own ass,s they worry about gettin shot off not anyone elses

----------


## tiroahunta

> Who gets to decide what appropriate justification is and who gets to own multiple firearms? I am sure you and people who think like you would like to make those decisions. This goes along with others of this ilk who would like to make life decisions for other people "for their own good".  On a related theme, apparently internet trolling is strongly associated with narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, direct sadism and vicarious sadism.


Referring to the trolling descriptions....just doing their job.....agent provocateur-ish.....

Sent from my SM-A135F using Tapatalk

----------


## 300CALMAN

> Referring to the trolling descriptions....just doing their job.....agent provocateur-ish.....
> 
> Sent from my SM-A135F using Tapatalk


Yeah that could be the case if it's "that type of troll" Who knows?

----------


## Ranger 888

> Aptly named given that they want to charge exorbitant fees for doing fuck all.  Soon Police will be as profitable as the ANZ, BNZ, Westpac et al.


Great! then like the banks mentioned, Australia can own them!

----------


## Ranger 888

> That's why police are told in training that the public shouldn't own firearms, only the police and army should have firearms, also the police think all firearms owners are performing illegal acts......that last bit came from a police person in the firearms unit, and is why the police will want to remove the 7 days notice to inspect when firearms laws are reviewed in a couple of years time


I have mentioned before on this Forum that in 1985, when I was doing Firearms Safety instruction for the NZ Mountain Safety Council, a cop told me that Police "felt there were far too many firearms in NZ, and they would do what they could to reduce that number".

----------


## Ranger 888

> Half the FAL holders I know fall into the 1 or 2 guns for guns for hunting category, the other half own north of 20, some well north.
> 
> You would probably be surprised what some farmers have tucked away.


And serious collectors.

----------


## Ranger 888

> Point of order Mr Duck, point of order.  I submit that there are only two genders and that all of the others are sexual inclinations and or sexual preferences.


Rushy, a very wise old friend told me that there are in fact, 3 sexes: the male sex, the female sex, and insects. Sorted!

----------


## Preacher

It is quite simply a money grab from people that are already paying to use.  They have us by the nuts (bits?) and the real problem is the crims doing drive-by don't give a flying f@ about the law.

Heaven help us when the proposed register gets leaked as it is 100% going to.

We are witnesses to the end of private firearms ownership beginning

----------


## Percy Jones

> I have mentioned before on this Forum that in 1985, when I was doing Firearms Safety instruction for the NZ Mountain Safety Council, a cop told me that Police "felt there were far too many firearms in NZ, and they would do what they could to reduce that number".


50K they would like to see dissapear aparently.

----------


## 308

> It is quite simply a money grab from people that are already paying to use.  They have us by the nuts (bits?) and the real problem is the crims doing drive-by don't give a flying f@ about the law.
> 
> Heaven help us when the proposed register gets leaked as it is 100% going to.
> 
> We are witnesses to the end of private firearms ownership beginning


Not on my watch

----------


## Preacher

Amene

----------


## Woody

Mere coincidence? I doubt it. Smip the first 5minutes then listen.
https://youtu.be/5JBq919BQDE

----------


## Percy Jones

> $711,000,000...? That's just taking the piss. The rule of thumb with IT projects is to take what you think it will cost and add another zero on the end. But knowing the current government would not surprise me one bit someone got trigger happy with their numbers.


It covers the whole firearms setup, staff, the new building etc over the next 5 years.

----------


## Joe_90

Fuck me, the way the online version was written is crap. Now I'm just fucked off.

----------


## No.3

Yeah. Quite a few parts just don't make sense.

----------


## Finnwolf

> It covers the whole firearms setup, staff, the new building etc over the next 5 years.



And they want ‘user pays’??? Gtfooh!

----------


## 10-Ring

I've never understood why owning multiple firearms is a concern to some anti firearm types. How many firearms can a person fire at the one time? One in each hand maybe if they want to emulate some Hollywood Rambo type hero. Doesn't make rational sense.

----------


## pennyless

Hi 10-Ring . Some Possible reasons
1/ Increases Social Acceptance as an everyday item.
2/ Possible source of stolen firearms , now more likely due to failures in Police IT security & break down of Civil Society.
3/ They find them personally adhorent & threatening. So no one else should have them. 
4/ They find them proffessionaly adhorent & threatening. Implieing they recognise (even subconcisely) they are (generally) acting without public remit.

I would note that early firearms legislation here was sparked by govt concern over widespread Maori possesion. And further stoked by fear of events in Russia & the spread of the "Red Wave". Bugger all about "Public Safety"

----------


## No.3

> Hi 10-Ring . Some Possible reasons
> 1/ Increases Social Acceptance as an everyday item.
> 2/ Possible source of stolen firearms , now more likely due to failures in Police IT security & break down of Civil Society.
> 3/ They find them personally adhorent & threatening. So no one else should have them. 
> 4/ They find them proffessionaly adhorent & threatening. Implieing they recognise (even subconcisely) they are (generally) acting without public remit.
> 
> I would note that early firearms legislation here was sparked by govt concern over widespread Maori possesion. And further stoked by fear of events in Russia & the spread of the "Red Wave". Bugger all about "Public Safety"


Obvious problems with those:

1, Increased social acceptance - decreasing social acceptance increases the value of firearms to criminals as tools of trade and 'instruments of terror' that when waved about coerce compliance from the victims.
2, This is the 'own goal' failures that are the no1 argument against the 'proposed way forwards' and why with every step at 'improving' admin of the regime it appears that the only result is increased violence...
3, Go talk to a headshrinker as firearms still kill less people in NZ than crap policy decisions, poor management of health and mental welfare systems and road maintenance.
4, That's probably the only one that stacks up - when a muzzle is pointed at you or your mate it would tend to change the outlook on life but against that, one issue with using Police to manage a public entity is that Police's doctrine is to react.  This is the failure inherent in the system, a reactionary doctrine which results in the viewpoint that 'every person is a potential criminal - just one that hasn't come onto the radar yet' is not conducive to good, holistic, wide ranging policy advice that encompasses every aspect of the regime that firearms admin affects.  We are starting to see the flow-on downstream effects with the recent courts directive on DOC to start dealing with the McKenzie Basin pest issues (that used to be largely tackled at little cost to DOC).

----------


## PestNightshooter

"We are starting to see the flow-on downstream effects with the recent courts directive on DOC to start dealing with the McKenzie Basin pest issues (that used to be largely tackled at little cost to DOC)."
Can you provide further info/link to what court directive you are referencing?
Thanks.

----------

