# Hunting > Firearm Safety >  Firearms Storage Inspection ....

## kiwi39

So we moved house a couple of months ago, and notified the Police as you're supposed to. 

Letter arrives shortly thereafter saying they're going to reinspect my firearms storage. 

When the officer gets here and inspects, she tells me that the storage has to have three seperate lockable storage spaces. 
1) For the Arms
2) for the ammunition
3) for the bolts. 

I had her up on this - asking if this is something that has changed, as my safe passed inspection the first time. 

She says no, its always been like this ... 

The joke is , she give me a copy of the arms code .. NO REQUIREMENT in there .. only that arms are stored seperately to the bolt + Ammo 

Opinions ? 
1) How do you store yours ? 
2) Whats the word of law ?

This whole arms act being open to interpretation is just a complete joke. 

... Tim.

----------


## JoshC

She's wrong. Go above her.

----------


## Gibo

> She's wrong. Go above her.


Or behind her and change her mind!!

----------


## Beavis

This shit is really getting silly

----------


## kiwi39

I hasten to add : She didn't insist .... although who knows what she's going to write on her report ... 

T.

----------


## sakokid

i have no lockable compartments in my gun safe. just a six mil steel door with heavy duty locks. i keep the amo at a different location. what more do they want. i am moving house soon as well. i not getting another safe just to make them happy thats for sure, cant afford it

----------


## Beavis

Must be something in the water in Taupo. I have never had any dramas with security inspections, people asking for serial numbers etc

----------


## kiwi39

Yeah, I've heard from a Mate that the AO up there is a good bloke.

----------


## ebf

Yup Tim, that's definitely not the correct interpretation.

Becoming a bit of a bugbear for me. I would like to see some clear answers, and a lot more consistency as far as how AOs are interpreting things.

----------


## snap & flap

lol i moved a year and a half ago rung Mr Plod the day i moved he said will see you next week 3 months later rang him again yip ill be round soon and still no sign of him i give up ive done my bit

----------


## JoshC

I notified three times. 3 1/2 years later I get a call for inspection. So no worries I say, come out. They did, ticked it off, now I'm moving to a new place. Haha. Wonder I'd they'll take another 3-4 years. Thankfully the guys that did mine were cops who enjoyed hunting so were  more than happy with my set up and for a yarn as well. Good guys.

----------


## Dougie

My AO (Wellington, same guy inspected my old place in Hataitai and new one in Jville) was fine with a cord/packlock jobbie for rifle only. Not interested in a safe or lock box for bolt or ammo. Didn't even ask where/how I store them.

----------


## RimfireNZ

I was at my folks place when they turned up for my brothers inspection. 

The guy tried to tell him a 6mm safe was needed and when I stepped in and said "sorry where are you getting that number from? Because its not in the arms code" he looked at me then carried on. The safe got passed as it should have.

I don't understand the benefit to them to try to make rules like that up. Do they do it on purpose or are they so lazy they don't bother to learn the rules that we are supposed to?

----------


## SiB

for legislation go to:New Zealand Legislation 

for NZ case law go to  NZLII Document Collections

Remember that it's the Case Law that is important - this is where Judges have created precedent, and a specific interpretation, or meaning to a section of law has been reached.

In other words, whilst it's brilliant that we're all dashing off to 'learn' our copy of the Act, it's that background understanding of relevant case law (in particular the arguments both FOR and AGAINST) that we need to be mindful of. 

A trap for young players is to read a section of an Act and apply 'your' interpretation, or meaning to that section. Case Law can be quite different - it can be fascinating - or scary depending on your case.

That's the whole point of a trail process - it allows the arguments for meaning and interpretation to be heard, and the Judge eventually decides who'se argument was strongest. 

Sorry if that sounds patronising guys - I've faced-off far too often to Law Students who think they know it all, and in reality only know the bones of an Act with no Case Law background.

What confuses the whole thing for non-legals is strict, or absolute-liability offences. For example speeding. Either you're doing 11kph over the limit, or you're not. Guilty. Even an ignorance defence might not stack up.

Firearms law is a a wonderful mixture - and because we're accustomed to often having the 'law' presented to us by a Police Officer, they are quite naturally inclined to present it as a strict liabilty offence. That's why you guys are correct in saying but, but, but.

but - the argument will be likely won only if presented as a true Case-Law based argument, as opposed to an opinion, or interpretation based argument.

The Judge has the last word! We have to think the way he/she might think!

----------


## steven

FFS this is getting anal.  Cat A is purely about stopping casual access and theft.  The gun can be stored complete as long as the ammo is seperate or the gun is disabled with a trigger lock ($25) or similar.  So also you could also store the bolt and mag seperately and have the remains of the gun and ammo together as long as the gun really is disabled, ie you cant just lock the mag elsewhere and the gun is still capable of single shot.  

"Ammunition must be stored separately or the firearm 	
made incapable of firing.
	 	 If possible, remove the bolt and magazine and lock away 	
		 separately from the firearm."

Arms Code (Firearms) | New Zealand Police

rule 6, page 11~12

The bad thing is same page (11) says its up to the AO, but she has to be reasonable.

Personally I'd tell her you dont agree show her the above code page(s) and ask her to supply her thoughts in writing to you rejecting your setup and that you want to take the issue to her commissioned officer to discuss further.

----------


## kiwi39

> They assume that no one knows the law. But I'm reading the arms act right now. In the age of the internet you can have a pdf copy in about twenty seconds. So now we all know the law and they do not.


True, Tussock. And in Addition to that they assume that their word will be taken as law !!! 

I've downloaded both the 1983 arms act and the 1992 "Arms Regulations" and plan to read them both and know my rights !!  

They're actually in reasonably plain english and reasonably readable. 

What I have yet to stumble across is any legal standing around the "Arms Code" . It would appear on that basis that its nothing other than the Cops interpretation of the Act and Regulations such as they are ... 

As regards my original rant, the Arms Regulations deal with storage in section 19 as follows : 

"
the holder, where he or she has both a firearm and ammunition
for it in his or her possession, either
(i) shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the ammunition
is not stored in such a way that a person
who obtains access to the firearm also obtains access
to the ammunition; or
(ii) shall ensure that, where the ammunition is stored
with the firearm, the firearm is not capable of
being discharged:
"

Tim

----------


## steven

> The Judge has the last word! We have to think the way he/she might think!


And the pistol grip saga shws they over-step, Cat E seems the AO can make up the rules....cat A is meant to be minimal.

regards

----------


## Petros_mk

I just got a lockable gun safe...with a separate compartment for Ammo. with a separate key but its within the same cabinet.
The funny thing is that the guy who checked it out for my interview, just came in didn't even open to see inside. Just knocked on it with his knuckles and that was it. he walked out.
Even funnier thing was:
1) have you ever thought about taking your own or someones life ? And then he himself answers the questions "of course you will say no", without even letting me respond.
Halerious stuff.

----------


## Savage1

Yes but if people keep pushing their luck and ignoring the Arms Code, eg not storing bolt seperatly because they're to lazy, the Police may decide that they're not "fit and proper" and revoke your licence under sec 27 of the Arms Act. Then you wouldn't even be able to possess an air rifle.

If you follow the Arms Code then they could never argue that you aren't "fit and proper", if you ignore it because it isn't law then you may be giving them grounds to revoke your licence. Some small minor things just aren't worth the hassle.

----------


## kiwi39

> Yes but if people keep pushing their luck and ignoring the Arms Code, eg not storing bolt seperatly because they're to lazy, the Police may decide that they're not "fit and proper" and revoke your licence under sec 27 of the Arms Act. Then you wouldn't even be able to possess an air rifle.
> 
> If you follow the Arms Code then they could never argue that you aren't "fit and proper", if you ignore it because it isn't law then you may be giving them grounds to revoke your licence. Some small minor things just aren't worth the hassle.


The argument was that the bolt had to be seperate from the firearm AND seperated from the ammunition ... 3 seperate places 

Are you saying that the Arms code says that that (3 seperate locations)  should be the case ? 

I was given "the latest" version of the arms code last night and I cant see that in there. 



Tim

----------


## Toby

> Yes but if people keep pushing their luck and ignoring the Arms Code, eg not storing bolt seperatly because they're to lazy, the Police may decide that they're not "fit and proper" and revoke your licence under sec 27 of the Arms Act. Then you wouldn't even be able to possess an air rifle.
> 
> If you follow the Arms Code then they could never argue that you aren't "fit and proper", if you ignore it because it isn't law then you may be giving them grounds to revoke your licence. Some small minor things just aren't worth the hassle.


They can't argue you're not fit and proper because you don't follow some guidelines that you don't have to.

----------


## ebf

> They can't argue you're not fit and proper because you don't follow some guidelines that you don't have to.


well Toby, they can.

whether it stands up in court if you decide to appeal and it gets in front of a judge is another story.

----------


## Toby

A bit of a bullshit argument then

----------


## Savage1

> The argument was that the bolt had to be seperate from the firearm AND seperated from the ammunition ... 3 seperate places 
> 
> Are you saying that the Arms code says that that (3 seperate locations)  should be the case ? 
> 
> I was given "the latest" version of the arms code last night and I cant see that in there. 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim


I was speaking in a broader sense where people keep saying "but the arms code isn't law". I think that if you follow the arms code and use common sense then you should be fine.

----------


## Savage1

> They can't argue you're not fit and proper because you don't follow some guidelines that you don't have to.


eg, There is nothing in law that says you can't walk through town holding a loaded and actioned rifle in your hands in plain sight if you are on your way to go shoot tin cans at a mates place, but it isn't something a fit and proper person would do. A fit and proper person would at least have it unloaded and in a bag.

----------


## Toby

> eg, There is nothing in law that says you can't walk through town holding a loaded and actioned rifle in your hands in plain sight if you are on your way to go shoot tin cans at a mates place, but it isn't something a fit and proper person would do. A fit and proper person would at least have it unloaded and in a bag.


Yeah I get what you mean, I guess it depends on the situation.

----------


## ebf

> I was speaking in a broader sense where people keep saying "but the arms code isn't law". I think that if you follow the arms code and use common sense then you should be fine.


Savage1, I'm one of those. And I will keep repeating it.  :Have A Nice Day: 

The police merely enforce the law, they do not make it. Most of the time, there is no problem. You would however be naive in the extreme to think that police forces around the world do not use some of their powers for their own benefit or for other motives.

I like to keep an open mind. For the most part, I think the arms code is perfectly fine. There are some small parts that I think are just plain stupid, out-dated or illogical - and should be changed. 

As we have seen quite clearly in this and other discussions, the issue is further compounded by varying interpretations of the same arms code document by different AOs.

Bottom line is that I would rather be an informed citizen, well aware of my rights, and not rely on the police or someone else to tell me what my rights are...

----------


## steven

> Yes but if people keep pushing their luck and ignoring the Arms Code, eg not storing bolt seperatly because they're to lazy, the Police may decide that they're not "fit and proper" and revoke your licence under sec 27 of the Arms Act. Then you wouldn't even be able to possess an air rifle.
> 
> If you follow the Arms Code then they could never argue that you aren't "fit and proper", if you ignore it because it isn't law then you may be giving them grounds to revoke your licence. Some small minor things just aren't worth the hassle.


You dont need anything bar being 18+ for an air rifle, so unless a judge specifically says no the police cant stop you owning one....or point me where it says otherwise please.

----------


## Savage1

> Savage1, I'm one of those. And I will keep repeating it. 
> 
> The police merely enforce the law, they do not make it. Most of the time, there is no problem. You would however be naive in the extreme to think that police forces around the world do not use some of their powers for their own benefit or for other motives.
> 
> I like to keep an open mind. For the most part, I think the arms code is perfectly fine. There are some small parts that I think are just plain stupid, out-dated or illogical - and should be changed. 
> 
> As we have seen quite clearly in this and other discussions, the issue is further compounded by varying interpretations of the same arms code document by different AOs.
> 
> Bottom line is that I would rather be an informed citizen, well aware of my rights, and not rely on the police or someone else to tell me what my rights are...


What would Polices "own benefit" be? Enforcing the law and protecting the citizens I would presume, I'm unaware of anything else they would have to gain, they aren't a business, there are no profits. 

The Polices job is not only to enforce the Arms Act etc but they are also the licencing agency who decides whether or not a person is fit and proper enough to hold a licence, so what they say goes, it is written in the Arms Act.

Argueing that you don't have to do what is recommended in the Arms Code as it isn't law with the AO probably wouldn't be in your best interest.

I pretty much agree with your post though.

----------


## SiB

Tussock I agree on the case law issue - and being a test case is not my idea of a family picnic either.

The theme I think we're all agreed on is that there does appear to be a measure of variance in interpretation by some FAL holders, as well as AO's.

The fact that we're talking - and maintaining this as a dialogue (multilogue?), as opposed to argument means I have some optimism at the outcome. 

Other threaders are correct also in bringing us back to the simple A-cat focus. The broader discussions allow us to have informed opinions, and give us an understanding of the other dynamics that cause those variances in interpretation, but we all appear to be agreed on the key principle of safety.
Si

----------


## Savage1

> You dont need anything bar being 18+ for an air rifle, so unless a judge specifically says no the police cant stop you owning one....or point me where it says otherwise please.


Sorry, I was thinking of licences revoked because of a protection order being put in place.

----------


## steven

> eg, There is nothing in law that says you can't walk through town holding a loaded and actioned rifle in your hands in plain sight if you are on your way to go shoot tin cans at a mates place, but it isn't something a fit and proper person would do. A fit and proper person would at least have it unloaded and in a bag.


The Q is what is considered a reasonable action.  Funnily enough I had just this discusion last night, its almost like smokers who are now considered unclean and need to hide away in a quite out of sight corner.

For instance,

When you look at the guy who shot the Austrian/Hungrian aire that resulted in WW1, he apparently undertook pistol practice with others in a public park and that was a non-event or a normal thing to do circa 100 years ago.  Theses days some ppl think guns are wrong no matter what and if they see them they will fill their underpants and ring the police.  Or that 100 years ago a target shooting event was considered a great social event to be attended.

Or the recent condemnation by some of someone humanely killing a cat or dog to eat, or selling thier pelt yet no one bats an eye over a pig, chicken or cow (well ok except vegans)   and wearing leather shoes is perfectly normal.

doh....

So my point is we are starting to talk about social norms and not (necessarily) law.  Now sure if I walk down the street with a loaded gun over my shoulder its going to end badly for me but is that really my fault or the fault of the ppl who see me and need an underwear change?

----------


## Savage1

> The Q is what is considered a reasonable action.  Funnily enough I had just this discusion last night, its almost like smokers who are now considered unclean and need to hide away in a quite out of sight corner.
> 
> For instance,
> 
> When you look at the guy who shot the Austrian/Hungrian aire that resulted in WW1, he apparently undertook pistol practice with others in a public park and that was a non-event or a normal thing to do circa 100 years ago.  Theses days some ppl think guns are wrong no matter what and if they see them they will fill their underpants and ring the police.  Or that 100 years ago a target shooting event was considered a great social event to be attended.
> 
> Or the recent condemnation by some of someone humanely killing a cat or dog to eat, or selling thier pelt yet no one bats an eye over a pig, chicken or cow (well ok except vegans)   and wearing leather shoes is perfectly normal.
> 
> doh....
> ...


Nope it would be your fault as you could reasonably see the consequences of your actions but decided to carry on anyway. I understand what you're saying and agree in part with it but society has changed and we must adapt with it, irrational or not. Actually you could probably call that example disorderly behaviour or breach of the peace.

On a lighter note, I've walked across that bridge where Franz Ferdinand was shot. One hell of an eye opener walking through that city with a local.

----------


## steven

> Nope it would be your fault as you could reasonably see the consequences of your actions but decided to carry on anyway. I understand what you're saying and agree in part with it but society has changed and we must adapt with it, irrational or not. Actually you could probably call that example disorderly behaviour or breach of the peace.


Breach of the peace? disorderly behavior ? I think you are stretching it way over the top. I agree society has indeed changed and therefore what was normal and everyday actions 100 years ago is now not consider so in some places.  Maybe its that some of us are so disconnected from our surroundings that the struggle to survive has become moot.  I mean if I walked down a native ppls vilage main drag carrying a gun over my shoulder, would anyone bat an eylid?  I suggest not. Most are probably going to be carrying and posses their own weapons with great need and pride.  In the US ppl can legally carry concealed weapons, have guns racked in 4wd trucks even 5 or so and no one bats an eye lid.  So is NZ and a few other places being overly sensitive? I just wonder.

----------


## kiwi39

Where it starts and finishes for me is that I just need simple clarity in my life. 

It's not about trying to push boundaries, for me. 

I just want a simple set of rules to follow, so they don't take my toys away... And so I don't hurt anyone.

That's not too much to ask, really, and that of a public servant, who's salary we all pay.


Tim

----------


## ebf

> What would Polices "own benefit" be? Enforcing the law and protecting the citizens I would presume, I'm unaware of anything else they would have to gain, they aren't a business, there are no profits.


Power - it can be personal vindictiveness, organizational, or societal control. Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for individuals wearing the uniform, but just like any other organization, the Police itself is not perfect and does not always act for the public good.




> The fact that we're talking - and maintaining this as a dialogue (multilogue?), as opposed to argument means I have some optimism at the outcome.


 :Thumbsup:

----------


## Survy

Tim

I wouldn't worry about it unless they come back with a failed inspection, which in return challenge it.
Your frustration along with others is understandable especially when all you have done is changed locations.

Keep us posted on outcome.

----------


## kiwi39

So I've done the obvious and approached the AO in question with a very simple question.

I didn't quote the arms act, but I did say that what the inspecting officer was saying seemed at odds to what the arms code required .

Yes, I know the AC is not the law, but I'm looking for a statement of position - both over the storage and the validity of using the AC

Not expecting a fast response 


Tim

----------


## LyonRuge

I think you'll find the law says that if you endanger frighten or annoy any person, you will be deemed to be breaking the law. Ie, you can legally pot a cat with a 22 in your backyard, if you don't endanger, frighten or annoy anyone else, so it would depend on the circumstances, I wouldn't be walking through town with a loaded firearm, I think you'd have some pretty serious explaining to do.
...this is in response to the poster who claimed he could legally walk down town with a loaded gun..

----------


## Savage1

> I think you'll find the law says that if you endanger frighten or annoy any person, you will be deemed to be breaking the law. Ie, you can legally pot a cat with a 22 in your backyard, if you don't endanger, frighten or annoy anyone else, so it would depend on the circumstances, I wouldn't be walking through town with a loaded firearm, I think you'd have some pretty serious explaining to do.
> ...this is in response to the poster who claimed he could legally walk down town with a loaded gun..


I think you'll find that if you read the law, that only applies to discharging a firearm.

----------


## Haydendev

this is from the POL67/K(S) Police security report form.
no mention of bolt at all, only that ammunition must be stored separately.

----------


## Ryan

There really is no need for the full stop separation between the letters to write an acronym...  :Oh Noes:  /going off at a tangent

----------


## striker

> this is from the POL67/K(S) Police security report form.
> no mention of bolt at all, only that ammunition must be stored separately.


 do you happen to have any online links or more photos of the storage inspection booklet?

----------


## Haydendev

i can take photos of the rest of it and post it up if u like




> do you happen to have any online links or more photos of the storage inspection booklet?

----------


## SiB

Well I confess all this discussion prompted me to 'tidy up' my previous everything-in-the-same-locked-cupboard system; I can now truthfully say my bolts and ammo are stored (and locked) separately to my rifles/shotties. I'm feeling almost virtuous.

----------


## Haydendev

here is all 15 pages

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nkv8ujsc2g3gka0/3f8Ixy4k5h

----------


## steven

> I think you'll find the law says that if you endanger frighten or annoy any person, you will be deemed to be breaking the law. Ie, you can legally pot a cat with a 22 in your backyard, if you don't endanger, frighten or annoy anyone else, so it would depend on the circumstances, I wouldn't be walking through town with a loaded firearm, I think you'd have some pretty serious explaining to do.
> ...this is in response to the poster who claimed he could legally walk down town with a loaded gun..


I must have missed the loaded part.  Clearly walking anywhere with a loaded firearm you do not immediatly intend to destroy something with is extremely unsafe and foolish and deserves a wrist slap.  If its in a public place thats probable very reasonable cause to suspend/remove the FAL.  Carrying an unloaded and disabled gun in a safe manner should not cause undue alarm / stress to anyone else whos of sound and reasonable mind in IMHO.  On the other hand its like fear of the boggey man, you just cant convinced the wilfully ignorant of anything to the contary they have made their mind up over.  So how do we protect ourselves from the weirdos? we have to hide ourselves in quiet corners?  I guess we do...is that for the best? not sure.  

So if I have my gun hidden in a large black hard case while moving in public, thats OK? inside a soft carrycase that roughly the shape of a gun, thats OK? Hidden in my car boot thats OK? yet on my shoulder with the bolt and mag clearly removed thats not OK?  bit of a splitting hair case IMHO. When we see the army with their LAVs with 37mm? canons on top, thats OK? so the uniform signals we are safe? 

Now I dont want to frigthen or upset anyone, but what some ppl consider reasonable and waht others consider reasonable seems rather subjective.

Which reminds me I need to talk to tranzmetro and ferry on what they require..........

----------


## Eion

> I must have missed the loaded part.  Clearly walking anywhere with a loaded firearm you do not immediatly intend to destroy something with is extremely unsafe and foolish and deserves a wrist slap.  If its in a public place thats probable very reasonable cause to suspend/remove the FAL.  Carrying an unloaded and disabled gun in a safe manner should not cause undue alarm / stress to anyone else whos of sound and reasonable mind in IMHO.  On the other hand its like fear of the boggey man, you just cant convinced the wilfully ignorant of anything to the contary they have made their mind up over.  So how do we protect ourselves from the weirdos? we have to hide ourselves in quiet corners?  I guess we do...is that for the best? not sure.  
> 
> So if I have my gun hidden in a large black hard case while moving in public, thats OK? inside a soft carrycase that roughly the shape of a gun, thats OK? Hidden in my car boot thats OK? yet on my shoulder with the bolt and mag clearly removed thats not OK?  bit of a splitting hair case IMHO. When we see the army with their LAVs with 37mm? canons on top, thats OK? so the uniform signals we are safe? 
> 
> Now I dont want to frigthen or upset anyone, but what some ppl consider reasonable and waht others consider reasonable seems rather subjective.
> 
> Which reminds me I need to talk to tranzmetro and ferry on what they require..........


People accept what they know and fear what they don't, it's as simple as that. 

I'm just about to shift houses I hope that I don't have to go through all this rubbish.

----------


## striker

> here is all 15 pages
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nkv8ujsc2g3gka0/3f8Ixy4k5h


Brilliant cheers for that

----------


## Maca49

> Well I confess all this discussion prompted me to 'tidy up' my previous everything-in-the-same-locked-cupboard system; I can now truthfully say my bolts and ammo are stored (and locked) separately to my rifles/shotties. I'm feeling almost virtuous.


Well if he calls on me I'll send him to you!lol

----------


## kiwi39

I  received a response to my email from the :
"Advisor: Firearms Licensing" attached to the Office of the Commissioner at National Police HQ 

Sounds like the right guy to talk to. 

He advised that Reg. 19 has not changed and that if my security complies to Reg. 19 then it should be accepted. 

He's seems a reasonable and approachable guy, and responds well to a straight, succinct question. 

regards 


Tim

----------


## Survy

> I  received a response to my email from the :
> "Advisor: Firearms Licensing" attached to the Office of the Commissioner at National Police HQ 
> 
> Sounds like the right guy to talk to. 
> 
> He advised that Reg. 19 has not changed and that if my security complies to Reg. 19 then it should be accepted. 
> 
> He's seems a reasonable and approachable guy, and responds well to a straight, succinct question. 
> 
> ...


Good to hear Tim.

----------


## Hunt4life

I don't understand why some ppl posting are so combative toward either/both police AO's and society who are fearful of guns.
Eg. A 50yo city dweller who's never been exposed to firearms, but watches the tv news, wouldn't be able to tell if any gun was loaded or not. But she'd most likely be shocked, alarmed & fearful if she saw a bloke walking down the road with a rifle in his hands or even on his shoulder. She may even contact the police immediately. Why would we persecute her for reacting that way? I suggest only guys 'wanting' to shock and cause fear would carry an uncovered firearm in a public place. 

Regarding police and weapon storage: I think the guts of the original post by Tim and the outcome he eventually was able to share is positive (albeit predictable). However, some ppl seem determined to argue for their right to store firearms in an easily accessible and shootable state! Why?! What's not to understand about your/our obligation to society to at least provide as much deterrent and hindrance to any firearm thief or child (!) who happens upon our hunting gear? Owning and using firearms is a privilege I'm proud of in NZ and I wish our gun laws and licensing controls were a lot more strict than they currently are. 

Don't even get me started on Tactical weapons and semi-auto centre fire rifles! 

My guns are stored in a locked cabinet with bolts and ammo stored in a different part of the house (not under lock and key) but hidden. If anyone stole my cabinet, good luck getting replacement bolts without big questions being raised.

----------


## Beavis

What about semi auto rimfire rifles?

----------


## lloydcj

> So we moved house a couple of months ago, and notified the Police as you're supposed to. 
> 
> Letter arrives shortly thereafter saying they're going to reinspect my firearms storage. 
> 
> When the officer gets here and inspects, she tells me that the storage has to have three seperate lockable storage spaces. 
> 1) For the Arms
> 2) for the ammunition
> 3) for the bolts. 
> 
> ...


Get a holder that fits to the side of your bed, in the states the public are buying 2 , one for each side of the bed, so mum and dad both have a shotgun available for home defence, wonder if they store ammo separately? crazy anyway
I have a small safe inside my gun safe for bolt and bullets, is this okay?

----------


## veitnamcam

It was when i got my safe

Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2

----------


## Wirehunt

> eg, There is nothing in law that says you can't walk through town holding a loaded and actioned rifle in your hands in plain sight if you are on your way to go shoot tin cans at a mates place, but it isn't something a fit and proper person would do. A fit and proper person would at least have it unloaded and in a bag.


Yes there is.  Carry on reading.
However, you can carry an unloaded gun.

----------


## Hunt4life

It's simple for me really gimp... No-one needs them.  I do understand the desire to shoot them for fun (& have done so myself while touring Vietnam and Cambodia... AK47s are awesome fun!). But no 'individual' should have any right to keep them at home in NZ. I think a few select contract helicopter culling operators should be able to argue their case for ownership, but I still maintain... No one NEEDS them, and only military forces should (IMO) have access to them. 
As for rimfire SAs Beavis... Again, unnecessary for 'hunting' and in practise, they teach bad habits anyway. This isn't about me and the moral high ground, but I started out with a BSA single shot opn sighted .22. Every shot counted and I learned real quick that if I couldn't achieve a one shot kill (head), don't take the shot. So when it came time to get a more sporty rifle with a magazine, I bought a ten shot bolt action and learned to work the bolt quickly when needed for multiple animals. One day I took all five hares in a family bunch before the last made it to the safety of the scrub. So, as said above, if you're any good at shooting, you don't need a semi auto (shotguns for game birds excluded)


Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Ryan

There are a lot of things people don't "need". Fast food, cars capable of over 300km/h etc etc.

----------


## Spudattack

Its a bit of a slippery slope this one and probably the wrong thread for it, yes I understand your reasoning that nobody NEEDS one, but why should that mean that they should not be allowed to own one if they want to?
I personally am not a fan of semi auto or military rifles and do not own one nor do I have any desire to purely as they are not of interest to me, even for gamebird shooting I use a side by side and an under/over, but each to his own, why should my personal preference restrict others owning something that they are interested in?
Its a bit like saying we should govern all motor vehicles to 100km/h because that is as fast as they need to go. So what then if I want to take my superbike to a track and do 300km/h? Because its not everyone's idea of fun should we all be controlled by this?

----------


## Savage1

> Yes there is.  Carry on reading.
> However, you can carry an unloaded gun.


Really? Where? I have never seen it but then I probably haven't looked in the right places.

----------


## steven

> So, as said above, if you're any good at shooting, you don't need a semi auto (shotguns for game birds excluded)


I need my one it keeps me sane!....errr......ummm.

Seriously, things like WSRA (service rifle shooting) is a sport...rugby is a sport and it has injurys, sky diving is lethal if it goes wrong.

So if we want to do "needs" then anything that involves risk of injury for no monetary gain should be banned.

Are semi's worse than bolts? I wonder since 1881 (or so) how many ppl bolt guns havd killed  v semis?  

Also most ppl dont need to hunt, meat is provided on a plastic tray in many shops....of course then you dont need to eat meat.

How far do you want to take it? really you have taken a stance that has no negative impact on you, and bugger everyone else, thanks for that.

The problem really is the nut cases, we have a good system that seems to minimalise the possibility of the nutjobs getting guns. If its possible I'd like to see that system improved as incidents are going to hurt gun users, I just dont see anything effective proposed.

----------


## Spudattack

I believe the biggest risk to public safety is secure storage rather than certain types of firearms, I am not worried about a fit and proper individual owning and using any type of firearm, I am more concerned with criminal types stealing those said firearms and then them being used for criminal acts.

For this reason I endeavor to make my firearm storage as secure as reasonably possible.

----------


## Beavis

I love how these people say "nobody needs them". You don't need your guns either buddy.

----------


## Hunt4life

I understand and even appreciate most of your comments. But, as Spud says, too many nut jobs and the criminal fraternity who strongly desire this type of weapon and if the crims can get them, the police and the rest of us have a bigger problem than if they only had access to a slower-to-repeat firearm.
I really don't have a "bugger everyone else" mentality... More a sometimes we have to make sacrifices for the greater good belief. 
I feel you're trying to make an extremist point by suggesting playing rugby or skydiving, and the risks of injury involved, can actually be drawn as a parallel for the risks of a sociopath being in possession of a rapid fire large calibre weapon. 
I concede perhaps competitive sport shooting should allow for this type of weapon... But are pistol shooters permitted to keep their pistol at home? Or only on club premises in a sealed concrete and steel room? Get my drift? No-one should have these weapons at home, in a basic gun safe 


Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Hunt4life

Oh, good argument Beavis (sigh). So another extremist view is that I should hunt deer with a knife, bow or sticks and stones?
"Need" refers to type of weapon required to carry out a clean kill at distance and also infers that competitive sport shooting can be with any other type of firearm. Automatics, IN MY OPINION, just aren't necessary for shooters to enjoy the sport of shooting. 

Take a good look at the USA currently: the NRA are fighting hard out for NO gun control amendments. Why? Because they fear that allowing any control measures will open a floodgate for eventual gun elimination. This is highly unlikely to occur or even be suggested. But the problem of free-for-all gun sales (in supermarkets next to your meat!) and the possession of automatic weapons by nut jobs competing with the last nut job for the top spot as public enemy No.1 is way out of control. Hunting and club sport shooting isn't even being threatened. 
Do we want this situation here? Personally, I don't. So I'm taking a stand as an ethical gun owner who cares for his community. Feel free to disagree with me, but I wouldn't be convinced of a different way of thinking. Over and out


Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## R93

Umm, you are allowed to keep pistols at home if you have the appropriate licence and security.
I have my E cat soon to renew my B I no longer own an E cat firearm.
I don't need one for hunting but owned one for my job.
If you are fit and proper and it is legal, you should be able to have what you want. Semi or not. 
Far be it for me to say someone does not need something if it is legal and they want to own and use it legally.

----------


## Col.Whiplash

> Automatics, IN MY OPINION, just aren't necessary for shooters to enjoy the sport of shooting. 
> So I'm taking a stand as an ethical gun owner who cares for his community. Feel free to disagree with me, but I wouldn't be convinced of a different way of thinking.


Opinions change.  I started with bolts 35 years ago, obtained an AR maybe 30-32 years ago, got rid of the AR and stayed with bolts.  Recently (maybe last five years) rediscovered semis (Drag's + AR's) as they are fun to shoot (range weapons).
Thank God this country is still a democracy where I am permitted to enjoy life in the ways I choose (morally and legally of course).  I oppose anyone with opinions such as yours which restricts my enjoyment of life.
The politicians have passed reasonable laws and the police have done a pretty good job in keeping loopies away from firearms.  It's all good in NZ in my opinion.

----------


## Hunt4life

I know I've stuck my head out and this view wouldn't be popular with many. I've got similar opinions about speed limits for vehicles on public roads. ie. computerised speed governers/limiters... Highly unpopular as most people want a liberal society where we can choose to break laws and take the consequences if we get caught. I speed like anyone else at times, just as I'd like to shoot an AR for fun. Liberties don't make it 'right', as the risks speak for themselves. My point really is, if as a society we really want to reduce the risk of harm, we should make the rules more fool proof and consequences much more severe. 
It's okay guys... We live in NZ. A soft touch on everything, so we'll all be sweet  :Wink: 


Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Kscott

> As for rimfire SAs Beavis... Again, unnecessary for 'hunting' and in practise, they teach bad habits anyway. This isn't about me and the moral high ground, but I started out with a BSA single shot opn sighted .22. Every shot counted and I learned real quick that if I couldn't achieve a one shot kill (head), don't take the shot. So when it came time to get a more sporty rifle with a magazine, I bought a ten shot bolt action and learned to work the bolt quickly when needed for multiple animals. One day I took all five hares in a family bunch before the last made it to the safety of the scrub. So, as said above, if you're any good at shooting, you don't need a semi auto (shotguns for game birds excluded)


Using your logic, you shouldn't have that single bolt action too. Why not just stick to black powder and ball ? After all, it was good enough in the day, and using cased ammo simply teaches bad habits of being able to shoot quickly. Not like in the old days when every shot counted because of the time it took to reload.

Firearms evolve, one would hope hypocrisy would've evolved into nothingess too. Alas it hasn't.

----------


## 7mmwsm

The sole purpose of sex in the natural world is for reproduction. There is no need for sex if we do not intend to reproduce (I dont seriously believe that shit). Think of that next time you are having a hop on Hunt4life.
Should we ban all forms of contraception and stick to having sex for the sole purpose of keeping the population going?
I'm pleased that rule doesn't apply because I got short changed. Ended up with twins first time around.

----------


## madjon_

My old Magica do that, 1st trigger,both barrels,two bangs :Yarr:

----------


## Beavis

> Oh, good argument Beavis (sigh). So another extremist view is that I should hunt deer with a knife, bow or sticks and stones?
> "Need" refers to type of weapon required to carry out a clean kill at distance and also infers that competitive sport shooting can be with any other type of firearm. Automatics, IN MY OPINION, just aren't necessary for shooters to enjoy the sport of shooting. 
> 
> Take a good look at the USA currently: the NRA are fighting hard out for NO gun control amendments. Why? Because they fear that allowing any control measures will open a floodgate for eventual gun elimination. This is highly unlikely to occur or even be suggested. But the problem of free-for-all gun sales (in supermarkets next to your meat!) and the possession of automatic weapons by nut jobs competing with the last nut job for the top spot as public enemy No.1 is way out of control. Hunting and club sport shooting isn't even being threatened. 
> Do we want this situation here? Personally, I don't. So I'm taking a stand as an ethical gun owner who cares for his community. Feel free to disagree with me, but I wouldn't be convinced of a different way of thinking. Over and out
> 
> 
> Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting


Your post indicates to me that everything you know about "rapid fire automatic weapons" or what ever, you learned from watching TV. You don't need to hunt either.

----------


## ishoot10s

> Automatics, IN MY OPINION, just aren't necessary for shooters to enjoy the sport of shooting.


I wholeheartedly dissagree.

Shooting is* the oldest organised sport in this country*. It was also the first sport here to have trophies competed for, such as the Cavalry Champions Belt, 1st competed for in 1871, now known as the Charles Upham Memorial triophy and recently won by a forum member. 

My point is, our shooting sports has Military origins, before anything else such as hunting. We actually have the historic provenance to support shooting military style matches, with current general issue equipment, more than anything else. So certain MSSA's, IMO, have a legitimate place in NZ shooting sports.

----------


## Nibblet

This whole argument about semi's, in particular ar styled, being used for crimes, is any of this based on actual fact? I would love to see the stats of shot guns vs semi auto rifles used in robberies etc.

All guns go bang, and all are inherently dangerous. Not trying to play down any accidents that happen to shooting victims but ACC pays out a shitload more to people like me that injure themselves in other sports like basketball and rugby. 

NZ is pretty safe in a whole.

----------


## gimp

> This whole argument about semi's, in particular ar styled, being used for crimes, is any of this based on actual fact?


Absolutely not, and most especially in New Zealand

----------


## scaggly

The only ar I've seen in anything vaguely related was a drug bust.  Only thing was, the ar in question was a softair plastic pellet gun.  There might be some limited incidences of ar's falling into the wrong hands, but none that I know of.

According to the cops I know, the firearms most commonly used by criminals are cut down shotguns, .22's and old .303s with all three usually cut down to pistol length.  Mostly this is because they're the most commonly available firearms, and the law of averages says the more prevalent something is the more likely it is to fall into the wrong hands.  

There are already lots of urban legends about OMCs having full auto kit anyway, so semi-autos aren't really up there with those, and at the end of the day, a half-way competent machinist with a P habit could pay off their debts with hand-made pistols in fairly short order.  After all pistols are much more practical for criminals, and cad plans for pistols are all over the web....

----------


## Nibblet

> Absolutely not, and most especially in New Zealand


Exactly. Saw off shotties the choice of most crims over here.

Everyone just being sucked into media hype. Nothing like a bit of scare mongering to get the public flapping.

----------


## gimp

> The only ar I've seen in anything vaguely related was a drug bust.  Only thing was, the ar in question was a softair plastic pellet gun.  There might be some limited incidences of ar's falling into the wrong hands, but none that I know of.
> 
> According to the cops I know, the firearms most commonly used by criminals are cut down shotguns, .22's and old .303s with all three usually cut down to pistol length.  Mostly this is because they're the most commonly available firearms, and the law of averages says the more prevalent something is the more likely it is to fall into the wrong hands.  
> 
> There are already lots of urban legends about OMCs having full auto kit anyway, so semi-autos aren't really up there with those, and at the end of the day, a half-way competent machinist with a P habit could pay off their debts with hand-made pistols in fairly short order.  After all pistols are much more practical for criminals, and cad plans for pistols are all over the web....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fna9WEO6BjE

----------


## Savage1

The E-Cat measures were brought on by the David Grey shooting that happened right here in NZ. It doesn't specifically target ARs. It is a preventative measure to try and stop MSSAs from falling into the wrong hands, and it may possibly have worked for the last 20yrs looking at the statistics.

Do define which weapons needed more control they used features on certain types of firearms that aren't vital for any sporting use of firearms except the odd exception (Service Rifle Shooting), which also attract the types of people that go on shooting sprees. For the people that really wanted them they had the reasonably easy process of getting the necessary endorsement.

Sounds quite reasonable when put out there in the basic version. But people continue to use the argument that the rifles are no more dangerous or used in crime and refuse to look at the reasoning behind it because it doesn't fit their argument.

I personally don't think the A-Cat system is strict enough to allow people to get MSSAs, I mean a 16 yr old can easily get one.

The way I see it is that if you want the toys then get the endorsement, simple. Mine's underway.

----------


## gimp

The reasoning behind it is flawed

----------


## scaggly

> The E-Cat measures were brought on by the David Grey shooting that happened right here in NZ. It doesn't specifically target ARs. It is a preventative measure to try and stop MSSAs from falling into the wrong hands, and it may possibly have worked for the last 20yrs looking at the statistics.
> 
> Do define which weapons needed more control they used features on certain types of firearms that aren't vital for any sporting use of firearms except the odd exception (Service Rifle Shooting), which also attract the types of people that go on shooting sprees. For the people that really wanted them they had the reasonably easy process of getting the necessary endorsement.
> 
> Sounds quite reasonable when put out there in the basic version. But people continue to use the argument that the rifles are no more dangerous or used in crime and refuse to look at the reasoning behind it because it doesn't fit their argument.
> 
> I personally don't think the A-Cat system is strict enough to allow people to get MSSAs, I mean a 16 yr old can easily get one.
> 
> The way I see it is that if you want the toys then get the endorsement, simple. Mine's underway.


It is probably worth saying that those changes were a knee jerk reaction, that cynics might suggest were an attempt to cover up for someone getting a license who never should have had one in the first place....  kind of like the most recent round of changes to the rules.....

Those 1992 changes were also responsible for driving a fairly substantial number of mssa's underground which have had ample opportunities to fall into the wrong hands over the last 30 years...  

The reality is, the world has moved on.  The rules are 30 years old and are as out of date as if they were outlawing that newfangled cased ammunition, and restricting everyone to muzzle loaders.

----------


## Savage1

> The reasoning behind it is flawed


That's an opinion.

----------


## Savage1

> It is probably worth saying that those changes were a knee jerk reaction, that cynics might suggest were an attempt to cover up for someone getting a license who never should have had one in the first place....  kind of like the most recent round of changes to the rules.....
> 
> Those 1992 changes were also responsible for driving a fairly substantial number of mssa's underground which have had ample opportunities to fall into the wrong hands over the last 30 years...  
> 
> The reality is, the world has moved on.  The rules are 30 years old and are as out of date as if they were outlawing that newfangled cased ammunition, and restricting everyone to muzzle loaders.


They actually tried to make the changes earlier but weren't able to, it took a few deaths for them to pass it.

Last time I counted 1992 was 21 years ago. Just because the firearms could have gone underground doesn't mean they all ended up in the wrong hands.

Last I heard MSSA's are still the most popular weapon amongst people in the world for mass shootings, I think the world has moved on but probably in the wrong direction.

----------


## scaggly

20 or 30, doesn't alter the fact that the rules are horribly outdated.  Like if I was going to be pedantic, I'd point to the fact that MSSA's don't exist anywhere but here. 

The interesting common denominator across an awful lot of mass-shootings is that the people doing them shouldn't have had licenses under the rules that existed at the time, but did.  Port Arthur, the guy was a retard. Aramoana, the guy had some fairly serious mental peculiarities. Most of the US ones, mental health issues all over the place.  Being nuts has always been a bit of a no-no for owning guns. before the advent of semi-autos, as well as after.

If i was a cynic, I'd suggest that trying to restrict guns based on looks was a deliberate ploy to distract attention away from questions about how people who never should have had a license, got one and then went off the deep end.

----------


## gimp

> Last I heard MSSA's are still the most popular weapon amongst people in the world for mass shootings, I think the world has moved on but probably in the wrong direction.


cite source. 

Again, if someone who is a potential mass shooter can pass the A-cat req's what is to stop them passing the E-cat req's. And why should they be allowed any gun, given that if they are a potential massshooter they are unlikely to obey the law and would likely modify their firearm to any configuration they like.

----------


## Haydendev

i dont have a problem with need an E cat licence to get a restricted firearm or whatever.

i have and issue with the definition of a MSSA. how does a pistol grip or a adjustable stock, (they are not exactly concealable, just customizable for length of pull) make a firearm more or less "dangerous". flash hiders?? wtf how does that make a firearm more dangerous??

high cap mags are a different story, can clearly see the thinking concerning them, and they are not restricted at all (except for use), my 4year old daughter could legally go and buy one from gun city, (if she had a spare $299 lmao). they should stop restricting firearms because they "look" dangerous.

end of the day, if they make a firearm that i want, to require a specific licence to own it, i will acquire the licence. because i am a "fit and proper person".

----------


## Savage1

If I was going to be pedantic I would say, don't be stupid MSSA's are everywhere, it's just the term that is unique to NZ. Like saying beer only exists in English speaking countries.

First of all Aramoana happened before our current laws were bought into place so can only really be used to support the changes made as it obviously wasn't working prior, if you use that example. Port Arthur was overseas, not under our laws at the time so can't be used to disprove our restrictions. 

Mental problems can be very hard to detect and quite often go on without ever being diagnosed, how could you ever expect an AO to pick up on it?

The Crimes Act 1961
Summary Offences Act 1981
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
All 'horribly outdated'? They're all older than the current Arms Act.

----------


## gimp

> Mental problems can be very hard to detect and quite often go on without ever being diagnosed, how could you ever expect an AO to pick up on it?


Which seems hilarious. Well we can't pick up on it for the A cat checks and interviews with the applicant and 2x referees, maybe we'll pick up on it with the E cat checks and interviews with the applicant and 2x referees!! And even if we decide they can't own a pistol grip, they can own anything the fuck else they like and just illegally modify it if they have any intention of breaking the law by shooting people!




> Misuse of Drugs Act 1975


Unrelated, but a large portion of the population would consider parts of this outdated

----------


## Savage1

> cite source. 
> 
> Again, if someone who is a potential mass shooter can pass the A-cat req's what is to stop them passing the E-cat req's. And why should they be allowed any gun, given that if they are a potential massshooter they are unlikely to obey the law and would likely modify their firearm to any configuration they like.


Source, my own observations.

People change, more inspections and contact with the AO can only help pick up on problems, add in more reference checks I don't see a downside. Small price to pay in my views.

Just to be clear, I'm not against E-Cat, I just don't think an A cat licence is strict enough to own those types of weapons.

----------


## gimp

> i dont have a problem with need an E cat licence to get a restricted firearm or whatever.


E cat:
-requires $200 fee
-requires $1000+ safe - is there actually any evidence to suggest that it prevents theft more than a standard safe, to justify the burden of cost on law abiding shooters?
-can't loan my rifle to a friend
-can't even get my friend to take my rifle to a gunsmith
-can't sell my rifle easily
-can't buy another rifle easily
-can't import parts for my rifle. I want to try a different pistol grip to see if I like it better? FUCK YOU HAND IN YOUR OLD ONE SO WE CAN DESTROY THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY YOU ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO OWN BEFORE WE GIVE YOU AN IMPORT PERMIT

A cat:
-I can do all of the above
-If I am a scumbag asshole murderer, I shouldn't have an A-cat but if I do I can just as easily get an E-cat, or just use my A-cat guns to be a scumbag asshole murderer

----------


## gimp

> I just don't think an A cat licence is strict enough to own those types of weapons.


You mean guns which are functionally identical to A cat guns, just cosmetically different, considering that anyone who has enough disregard for the law to be a murderer is going to have no qualms about using their rifle in an illegal configuration

----------


## Savage1

> E cat:
> -requires $200 fee  There is talk of them waiving the fee for the change over.
> -requires $1000+ safe - is there actually any evidence to suggest that it prevents theft more than a standard safe, to justify the burden of cost on law abiding shooters?  You can get one for $4-500
> -can't loan my rifle to a friend
> -can't even get my friend to take my rifle to a gunsmith     Actually you can.
> -can't sell my rifle easily Yes you can
> -can't buy another rifle easily Yes you can
> -can't import parts for my rifle. I want to try a different pistol grip to see if I like it better? FUCK YOU HAND IN YOUR OLD ONE SO WE CAN DESTROY THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY YOU ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO OWN BEFORE WE GIVE YOU AN IMPORT PERMIT Yes you can
> 
> ...


So we should just remove all difficulties for anyone to own a firearm?

----------


## scaggly

> If I was going to be pedantic I would say, don't be stupid MSSA's are everywhere, it's just the term that is unique to NZ. Like saying beer only exists in English speaking countries.
> 
> First of all Aramoana happened before our current laws were bought into place so can only really be used to support the changes made as it obviously wasn't working prior, if you use that example. Port Arthur was overseas, not under our laws at the time so can't be used to disprove our restrictions. 
> 
> Mental problems can be very hard to detect and quite often go on without ever being diagnosed, how could you ever expect an AO to pick up on it?
> 
> The Crimes Act 1961
> Summary Offences Act 1981
> Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
> All 'horribly outdated'? They're all older than the current Arms Act.


No MSSA's aren't everywhere. Semi auto rifles may be common everywhere, but MSSAs aren't.  

Are you trying to say that before 1992 you could have mental issues and get a license? That doesn't accord with my understanding.  Because that it the point I'm making, the problem is the wrong people got a FAL. The correct reaction is to improve vetting (which was done).  A range of pointless restrictions based on looks was not required.

Port Arthur and aramoana both have key similarities you don't seem to want to hear. People who shouldn't have had FALs were given them. Chaos resulted.  The changes to vetting practice made sense, the MSSA BS does not.

Vetting is supposed to give the greatest chance of picking up mental issues, by interviewing those closest to the applicant.  Are you trying to say that we may as well give up, since it is hard to pick mental issues anyway, and just rely on banning scary looking guns?  I don't think you are, but there does seem to be a lack of consistency in your reasoning.

I can even see why you'd think that about the various Acts you list.  I agree that the enactment date of the principal acts you cite are older.  The real question I'd ask is how many substantial updates were made to those principal acts since their enactment?  Then how many changes were made to the MSSA provisions of the Arms act in the same time?  I'd suggest that is a more accurate way to compare the currency between them.  

I still think the semi auto rules are outdated, and don't reflect where the world has moved to.  As more and more people adopt semi platforms, that view is held by more and more people.

----------


## gimp

> So we should just remove all difficulties for anyone to own a firearm?


We should remove difficulties for a person who has been considered fit and proper to own 2 functionally identical but cosmetically different firearms, considering that the laws don't actually stop anyone who wants to use them for a nefarious purpose from doing so in the slightest

selling and buying requires permit to procure on behalf of the buyer and potential registry fuckups by police staff (these happen all the time). Not as easy as A cat and a much reduced pool of potential buyers which makes it harder to sell.

I can't let a friend who doesn't have his E possess my E rifle to take it to the gunsmith. That would be illegal as I understand the law. I get mates to drop shit at the smith all the time for me, and vice versa.

The handin policy is literally as I described, unless it has been canned (as it should be for being utterly ridiculous bullshit)

----------


## Haydendev

> E cat:
> -requires $200 fee *not if doing another endorsement at same time*
> -requires $1000+ safe *$500+, i think security requirements should be stricter across the board anyway*
> -can't loan my rifle to a friend *what? he can get his own, deadbeat! haha*
> -can't even get my friend to take my rifle to a gunsmith *what? lol surely you are not that lazy*
> -can't sell my rifle easily *did u buy it to use it or sell it? (cant comment, never tried to sell Ecat)*
> -can't buy another rifle easily *not hard at all*
> -can't import parts for my rifle. I want to try a different pistol grip to see if I like it better? *hand in rules all changed afaik, this is kinda a non issue from what i can tell*
> A cat:
> ...


has there been any murders done by a licenced firearm owners using firearms they are legally entitled to own?

----------


## gimp

> has there been any murders done by a licenced firearm owners using firearms they are legally entitled to own?


Yes, but mostly garden variety man-kills-friend-or-acquaintance-over-dispute type murders where if they didn't have a gun they'd have used a bar stool or garden fork or whatever

----------


## mikee

As I keep repeating, you are either  "FIT AND PROPER" to have a firearms licence or you ARE NOT.
There are not levels of "Fit and Properness" as some would have you believe.

Personally I think the Mountain Safety Firearms lecture is too biased toward hunting and does not properly cover all firearm types/ actions.
I would argue a licence holder SHOULD know how to check a firearm OF ANY TYPE is unloaded and safe ( I include handguns here even though most FAL most likely will never need or have the opportunity to handle them they shoudl still know how to check they are unloaded and made safer)

I do not agree that a simple locked wooden box is a suitable "secure storage" for any firearm but nor do I think an "E" spec'ed safe should be mandatory for an A Firearms licence. 

My view is if you are FIT and Proper you should be able to own and use any firearm for whatever (legal) purpose you wish but it should be secured against theft to a better std than we currently have. 

It makes not a jot of difference to me what it looks like, all firearms were originally designed to do the same thing. 

If you are stupid or foolish and bad things  happen deal with the consequences then.  I don't like people stopping me from doing something just in case some idiot trys it and get hurt.  

As you can guess I am a big supporter of the Darwin Theory, best way to thin out idiots is to let them do it themselves, its cheaper.

----------


## gimp

> Personally I think the Mountain Safety Firearms lecture is too biased toward hunting


Absolutely, hunting is not the only legitimate use of a firearm but the licensing process is almost entirely focused on hunting.




> I do not agree that a simple locked wooden box is a suitable "secure storage" for any firearm but nor do I think an "E" spec'ed safe should be mandatory for an A Firearms licence.


Is there any evidence at all that an E rated safe actually prevents theft any more effectively than a standard buffalo river type steel cabinet, to justify the cost??


Where are these mythical $500 E rated safes? Last time I checked I couldn't get anything for less than $1000

----------


## mikee

> Is there any evidence at all that an E rated safe actually prevents theft any more effectively than a standard buffalo river type steel cabinet, to justify the cost??
> 
> 
> Where are these mythical $500 E rated safes? Last time I checked I couldn't get anything for less than $1000


Nope, thats what I was meaning, I paid 1500 for my E safe, never did manage to find a cheap one with the correct certs for the AO

----------


## Hunt4life

> Source, my own observations.
> 
> People change, more inspections and contact with the AO can only help pick up on problems, add in more reference checks I don't see a downside. Small price to pay in my views.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not against E-Cat, I just don't think an A cat licence is strict enough to own those types of weapons.


Brilliant Savage. Thanks for your support haha. I was starting to feel very lonely in my stance  :Have A Nice Day: 
Straight up, the process of acquiring an A-cat license in NZ is waaay to easy, with MSC testing officers 'helping' applicants to pass and police AOs doing referee "interviews" by phone. I've also heard multiple ppl on this forum and elsewhere stating the AO never checked their safe nor firearms! How am I or any other member of the NZ public supposed to have confidence in our system to vet and confirm that someone is "fit and proper" for E-cat?

Further, except for the initial purchase of a firearm from a retailer, what do the police know about who owns what or who sold it to who? The current system is a joke and as much as I love firearms, like fine cars and motorcycles, I am fearful of who might be in possession of any type of firearm, but especially rapid fire styles. 
Additionally, regarding mental health, things can happen in our lives. Ppl can get depressed, or become highly volatile through anger. Is ten years too long between police checks to verify you're of sound mind and judgement? I think so


Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## mikee

> Brilliant Savage. Thanks for your support haha. I was starting to feel very lonely in my stance 
> Straight up, the process of acquiring an A-cat license in NZ is waaay to easy, with MSC testing officers 'helping' applicants to pass and police AOs doing referee "interviews" by phone. I've also heard multiple ppl on this forum and elsewhere stating the AO never checked their safe nor firearms! How am I or any other member of the NZ public supposed to have confidence in our system to vet and confirm that someone is "fit and proper" for E-cat?
> 
> Further, except for the initial purchase of a firearm from a retailer, what do the police know about who owns what or who sold it to who? The current system is a joke and as much as I love firearms, like fine cars and motorcycles, I am fearful of who might be in possession of any type of firearm, but especially rapid fire styles. 
> Additionally, regarding mental health, things can happen in our lives. Ppl can get depressed, or become highly volatile through anger. Is ten years too long between police checks to verify you're of sound mind and judgement? I think so
> 
> 
> Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting


Interesting, you obviously have no clue about those of us who hold other endorsements. I have been "visited" and had my Security checked yearly for as long as I can remember. Either I am special or my local AO is very organised, thorough and quite frankly a pleasure to deal with or he has too much free time. Ditto from what I hear from other endorsement holders in the area too

----------


## Hunt4life

Mikee, I concede that some AOs will be much more conscientious and diligent that others. And you're 100% correct that I am indeed unfamiliar with the technicalities of E-cat follow up. I'm relieved to hear at least your AO is doing a good job.
I'm not on the attack, but we are by nature products of experience. And my experience of renewing my A license about 7 years ago was so lax, it really put the shits up me


Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## AzumitH

> It's simple for me really gimp... No-one needs them.  I do understand the desire to shoot them for fun (& have done so myself while touring Vietnam and Cambodia... AK47s are awesome fun!). But no 'individual' should have any right to keep them at home in NZ. I think a few select contract helicopter culling operators should be able to argue their case for ownership, but I still maintain... No one NEEDS them, and only military forces should (IMO) have access to them.


You really are the worst kind of gun owner.  You don't like black scary guns, so you'll happily line up to push those who do under the legislative bus, as long as they promise not to touch your precious bolt action.





> As for rimfire SAs Beavis... Again, unnecessary for 'hunting' and in practise, they teach bad habits anyway. This isn't about me and the moral high ground, but I started out with a BSA single shot opn sighted .22. Every shot counted and I learned real quick that if I couldn't achieve a one shot kill (head), don't take the shot. So when it came time to get a more sporty rifle with a magazine, I bought a ten shot bolt action and learned to work the bolt quickly when needed for multiple animals. One day I took all five hares in a family bunch before the last made it to the safety of the scrub. So, as said above, if you're any good at shooting, you don't need a semi auto (shotguns for game birds excluded)


"Look guys, I like to compete in 100m sprints with anvils tied to my legs!  It's obviously a severe handicap in this kind of event, but IMO if you don't do it, it means you are bad at sprinting!  I don't see why anyone _needs_ Nike running shoes!"

I was gonna type up a big wordy response with arguments and such but I'm tired so I decided I'd just tell you to fuck off, gas cut your fudd-stick in half and take up knitting.  

Unless you also feel that wood is all you need for knitting needles, and no-one _needs_ large alloy needles to knit a sweater?

----------


## Haydendev

> Where are these mythical $500 E rated safes? Last time I checked I couldn't get anything for less than $1000


EDGE SECURITY 5 GUN E-CAT APPROVED SAFE/CAB - GREY | Trade Me

i got mine for $490 not including shipping

----------


## Haydendev

> Mikee, I concede that some AOs will be much more conscientious and diligent that others. And you're 100% correct that I am indeed unfamiliar with the technicalities of E-cat follow up. I'm relieved to hear at least your AO is doing a good job.
> I'm not on the attack, but we are by nature products of experience. And my experience of renewing my A license about 7 years ago was so lax, it really put the shits up me
> 
> 
> Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting


i have found the same as mikee for endorsed licenses down here, and know plenty of ppl who get regular visits each year.

----------


## mikee

Bit of thread drift but here's another .02c from me

I would fight to the bitter end to support YOUR right to pursue the shooting sport (/ hunting) of your choice using the equipment of YOUR choice, why is it so difficult for some others to do the same.

for the majority of my time as a FL holder I have only shot on  ranges in organised competitive events of one sort or another but just now I am getting into the hunting side of things.

No one needs to do anything to ban anything, different factions of FAL holders will fall over themselves to feed each other to the wolves as long as they think they get to keep on doing their hobby.

----------


## Hunt4life

AzumitH- haha! Great rant mate, nice one. I'm so over this thread. Why some of you cant engage in healthy debate and instead feel the need to slash into personal attacks amazes me. Laterz


Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Ryan

> ... I am fearful of who might be in possession of any type of firearm, but especially rapid fire styles. 
> Additionally, regarding mental health, things can happen in our lives. Ppl can get depressed, or become highly volatile through anger. Is ten years too long between police checks to verify you're of sound mind and judgement?


Breathe mate, breathe. We live in, per capita, one of the most heavily armed countries on earth. Bolt, pump, semi, no difference - they are all around us. How often do you read of people ""getting depressed" and then hosing down other people with semi-automatic weapons... or bolt action weapons, or any firearms at all for that matter? Pretty damn rarely. Why live in fear of something that doesn't exist? Fearing what might happen is just your imagination - an irrational fear, much like me worrying about getting run over by a bus or monsters under my bed. It could happen but hey... I could get also get stung by a sting ray!

Anyone who reads the news even badly sees that fisticuffs, stabbings, bottlings etc are more prevalent because it's easier to carry a bottle or a knife around with you than a firearm. People who are depressed aren't necessarily violent and even if they were, they could do a lot of damage without a firearm.

In NZ, as soon as there is even a hint of a firearm involved... the police are onto that like a fat kid on a happy meal. Case in point, one day in 2006, I was sharing a house in North Auckland with someone. My flattie noticed that the fella next door had an air rifle and one day when we were drunk, he saw him walking around the house with it so he called the cops.

Within 5 minutes, they'd surrounded the house, K9 there was, interviewed the poor guy, came and interview my mate etc. Admittedly a complete waste of tax payers' money but the fact of the matter remains that gun crime is so low in New Zealand, that when it is reported, the police take it extremely seriously.

Where I come from, you'd be luck if the police even answered the phone!

----------


## Nasty Factory Trigger

..and the motor vehicle is one of the largest killers of them all... Mix that with alcohol, drugs, depression, road rage even - theres something that needs a tighter control rather than an already structured system for firearms...  Slighty off topic, but, I have huge arguements with regard to numbers deceased/idiots in control....

----------


## moonhunt

> AzumitH- haha! Great rant mate, nice one. I'm so over this thread. Why some of you cant engage in healthy debate and instead feel the need to slash into personal attacks amazes me. Laterz
> 
> 
> Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting


+1 i was hoping to see some valid debate on this.... disapointing

----------


## scaggly

8 pages of thread, and 1 comment invalidates it all?  Is it only a valid debate if it supports a particular viewpoint?

----------


## mikee

> AzumitH- haha! Great rant mate, nice one. I'm so over this thread. Why some of you cant engage in healthy debate and instead feel the need to slash into personal attacks amazes me. Laterz
> 
> 
> Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting



Hey mate I didn't attack anyone (at least I don't think so) if I did come across that way then I am truely sorry and apologise.

----------


## scaggly

> Hey mate I didn't attack anyone (at least I don't think so) if I did come across that way then I am truely sorry and apologise.



Nah, I don't think it was you he got the pip with.  It was a post prior to that I reckon.

----------


## moonhunt

> 8 pages of thread, and 1 comment invalidates it all?  Is it only a valid debate if it supports a particular viewpoint?


No i didnt say that, i have never handled an AR nor prob ever will, i was genuinely interested in hearing from those that do... i also wasnt going to be part of this but wanted to read with interest

----------


## mikee

> No i didnt say that, i have never handled an AR nor prob ever will, i was genuinely interested in hearing from those that do... i also wasnt going to be part of this but wanted to read with interest


I've been using them for so long now I forget to cycle the bolt on a bolt action. As such I guess I don't see them as "bad". They are easy to shoot, most people find once they get past the way they look they actually can shoot em quite well.
Moonhunt is you are ever down this way you can have a try with mine if you want. 

What gets me is we are taught all our lives you cannot judge people / things by the way they look / are  except it seems when it comes to firearms.  

Seems to follow the Politicians Rule Number One 

 "Everyone is equal BUT some of us are MORE EQUAL Than others"

Politicians Rule Number 2 is 
 "I know that's what you heard m say but what I really said was.........."

Opps there we go again, Cynical Me has just popped up again.

----------


## Beavis

> AzumitH- haha! Great rant mate, nice one. I'm so over this thread. Why some of you cant engage in healthy debate and instead feel the need to slash into personal attacks amazes me. Laterz
> 
> 
> Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting


Because we have been having this stupid debate with fudds for years and we're sick of hearing this "you shouldn't be allowed to own your guns" shit.

----------


## Beavis

I mean seriously, if you want a good debate, research what you're talking about, have a go with an AR, hang out with the people that own them for a while etc. If you rely on the main stream media for info and intuition from your own experiences, you will get nowhere with us.

----------


## moonhunt

Love to get down your way one day, and if a chance did arise i prob would have a shot at some paper with one
So far my only experiance with them has been to look down the barrel of a couple from a couple of very young green horns i caught where they shouldnt have been, and to be honset i thought why do you have one of those for your first rifle, especially with no mentoring or safty conscience at all, but dont get me wrong, these guys would have been the same with any type of firearm im sure
Also i havnt any opinion from this experiance, it had nothing to do with firearm type, but did get me thinking why so easy to procure

----------


## Spudattack

Lets  be honest here though, most criminal acts are performed at close range ie 10 to 15m max, at that range a semi auto or pump shotty loaded with AA would be as, if not more, deadly than an AR, but no one seems to have a problem with them?

----------


## Beavis

A .22lr has sufficient energy to inflict a lethal wound, David grey, amongst thousands of other murders are testament to that.

----------


## Savage1

Yeah people take me the wrong way on this topic a lot, I have no problem with "fit and proper" people owning them, I just think it's a little to easy to get them. MSSAs in the wrong hands scare the shit out of me but pistols even more so.

I know the rules don't appear to make sense, I was just trying to show what the law makers theory was when the rules were imposed ie its not about how dangerous the firearms are but what attracts certain people.

These debates are much easier to have in person.

Moonhunt if you're ever in Whangarei you can have a go with my AR.

----------


## Littledog

> A .22lr has sufficient energy to inflict a lethal wound, David grey, amongst thousands of other murders are testament to that.


Yes as if I remember correctly 50% or more of the victims at Aromoana were shot with a 22lr. 4 were shot with a norinco type 84s .223 semi auto. Not something the powers at be like to publish to often as it doesnt fit with there original all victims shot with a MSSA style rifle (MSSA now).

Cheers

----------


## Beavis

> Yes as if I remember correctly 50% or more of the victims at Aromoana were shot with a 22lr. 4 were shot with a norinco type 84s .223 semi auto. Not something the powers at be like to publish to often as it doesnt fit with there original all victims shot with a MSSA style rifle (MSSA now).
> 
> Cheers


Yea the last spree killer in the UK used a .22lr, as well as the last two publicized ones in Finland. People really don't give credit to how lethal they can be at close range. A couple of well placed shots to your CNS with HV .22 and your gone burger. Anyone who grew up on a farm and watched their dad despatch disproportionately large creatures with a good shot knows this.

----------


## Savage1

The .22LR is just as deadly  :ORLY: 

Do you even wonder how much worse it would/could have been if they had an MSSA with 30 shot clips? Possibly the UK firearm laws prevented that event from being far worse, possibly not. I'm don't know anything about Finnish laws.

I'm not saying in anyway that we should adopt UK firearm laws.

----------


## Beavis

It's impossible to speculate, but it proves that shooting sprees don't magically go away if you ban semi autos. Funnily enough, you are allowed ".22LR MSSA's" in Britain, with all the trimmings, 30 round mags included, and yet he used a CZ 452. Can somebody elaborate on how banning 30 round mags will make a mass shooting better?

----------


## AzumitH

> AzumitH- haha! Great rant mate, nice one. I'm so over this thread. Why some of you cant engage in healthy debate and instead feel the need to slash into personal attacks amazes me. Laterz
> 
> 
> Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting


The fact you think your incredibly narrow and self-centered view of ideal firearm ownership is somehow new, interesting and worthy of any kind of debate staggers me.  I don't actually think it counts as a debate when one person produces facts and statistics, and the other wanks on endlessly about "muh feelins" and "muh personal opinion", so maybe if a debate is what you're after you should work on your approach.

----------


## Wirehunt

> Really? Where? I have never seen it but then I probably haven't looked in the right places.


No loaded firearm within 200 metres of a road and there is also an X amount from built up areas.

----------


## Wirehunt

> So, as said above, if you're any good at shooting, you don't need a semi auto (shotguns for game birds excluded)


Well there ya go.  Here's me trying to do my shooting job and I don't know what I'm doing. Best I go back to rabbiting school.
Try being limited to seven shots. In order to change that would mean going E cat, then I would need at least three E cat safes but probably more. Now since no one even makes a seven shot mag as standard for a bolt action I end up sticking with the 5/6 shot.  Remember, poor rabbiter that can't afford to spend mega bucks on guns. 
So I don't bother and muddle away with the bolt action.  As a direct result of that it takes me a lot longer to do the job so the cockie has to pay more.  While I'm still at his place instead of moving onto the next the rabbits are getting away there.

And apart from that, nothing fucks you off more than being forced to piss around instead of just getting it done.

----------


## Wirehunt

> Yes as if I remember correctly 50% or more of the victims at Aromoana were shot with a 22lr. 4 were shot with a norinco type 84s .223 semi auto. Not something the powers at be like to publish to often as it doesnt fit with there original all victims shot with a MSSA style rifle (MSSA now).
> 
> Cheers


But what did the cop shoot himself in the foot with at that?

----------


## Savage1

> No loaded firearm within 200 metres of a road and there is also an X amount from built up areas.


That's not law. I've never seen anywhere in law that specifies any distances in relation to loaded firearms.

----------


## Wirehunt

I need to find an old copy of the code.   The new version seems to miss a bit of stuff.

----------


## gimp

> I need to find an old copy of the code.   The new version seems to miss a bit of stuff.



There is no distance in any of the legislation. It may have been in the arms code but that just shows that the arms code is somewhat bollocks

----------


## Savage1

> I need to find an old copy of the code.   The new version seems to miss a bit of stuff.


The code isn't law, find the Act and Section you would charge somebody under in that situation.

----------


## Wirehunt

Ergo why people get so fucked up by it all.  Cops saying one thing, code saying whatever then the law says something else then all the other variations on what people see there after.  What a fucking mess.

Some light reading
Arms Act 1983 No 44 (as at 01 October 2012), Public Act Contents &ndash; New Zealand Legislation

----------


## Gunzrrr

I do it ... not because of the law (or not law), rather for my own peace of mind and additional security. Mind you - I can only take the bolt out of less than a third of my firearms. My inspection officer asked if I did separate guns/ammo/bolts and when I showed him that I did he seemed to be delighted that I was taking extra care. Do it if you can I say ... just don't leave it behind like I did once.

----------


## kotuku

Im due for one in about 90secs.heres to hoping. :ORLY:

----------


## mikee

> Im due for one in about 90secs.heres to hoping.


Well?? Are you still with us??

----------


## Maca49

Didn't used to be 50 yds from the rd you can discharge a firearm?

----------


## kotuku

yes.all i can say is what a bloody pleasure the vetter was to deal with.she was more than happy with my setup ,remembered me and my papers(individual a 4sheet description of each weapon)which she actually still has in my file.burglars intending or otherwise please note.also very knowledgable about current issues.overall unlike some a great experience for me.

----------


## 1justin

quick question so i dont have much room in the house can i put my safe in my garage that is not lockable?

----------


## 308

> quick question so i dont have much room in the house can i put my safe in my garage that is not lockable?


Not lockable like a carport?
At risk of needing more details I'd imagine that most vetters would say no to that one but others here may have had a pass on that one

----------


## Cyclops

> quick question so i dont have much room in the house can i put my safe in my garage that is not lockable?


Can you? Yes.
Should you? Probably not.


Can you put a padlock hasp on the garage door - then it is lockable. 
If it is open like a carport then I would suggest not. 
Security is important. I wouldn't want my rifles left in a safe in an unlocked building.

----------


## Jexla

That's a negative. MAKE it lockable, and if you cannot then it's quite simply not suitable.

----------


## 1justin

just a 40 year old garage so locks are poked could put bolts and padlocks on the old garage doors and the side door so that  will sort it out, i live in the country so really if someones planing on getting in to the garage the padlocks only guna add 30 secs to the time it takes them, bolts are in another safe in another place, and ammo is locked in another place as well

ya know im more looking from the legal standpoint because from common sense standpoint the safe and the dayna bolts and the blanket over it and not telling people about it are the deterrent from the opportunist the lock on the door is just guna cost the professional 30 secs when they can probably be out there all day without a worry anyway

and when i was growing up in the country i didnt know anyone that did lock there house when they went out, so is anyone that leaves there house without locking it who has a safe inside breaking the rules than aswell?

----------


## zimmer

> Can you? Yes.
> Should you? Probably not.
> 
> 
> Can you put a padlock hasp on the garage door - then it is lockable. 
> If it is open like a carport then I would suggest not. 
> Security is important. I wouldn't want my rifles left in a safe in an unlocked building.


Agree 100%.
Here's how I see the rules of the game. It is not about bluffing your way past the inspecting person, or just sneaking in with the legal requirements, It's about being happy with yourself that you have taken all practical steps to protect your investment, and have taken a responsible approach to preventing your weapons getting into the hands of lowlife who may potetially then kill with said weapon.
Yes, I am also a realist and know my security can (hopefully not will) be breached by a determined professional. I am confident it will stand up to the average goon/opportunist.

----------


## Jexla

> just a 40 year old garage so locks are poked could put bolts and padlocks on the old garage doors and the side door so that  will sort it out, i live in the country so really if someones planing on getting in to the garage the padlocks only guna add 30 secs to the time it takes them, bolts are in another safe in another place, and ammo is locked in another place as well
> 
> ya know im more looking from the legal standpoint because from common sense standpoint the safe and the dayna bolts and the blanket over it and not telling people about it are the deterrent from the opportunist the lock on the door is just guna cost the professional 30 secs when they can probably be out there all day without a worry anyway
> 
> and when i was growing up in the country i didnt know anyone that did lock there house when they went out, so is anyone that leaves there house without locking it who has a safe inside breaking the rules than aswell?


I understand what you're saying, but what you're risking is that someone who may just be poking around gets into your garage and finds the safe, who can then come back more prepared and you will never know they were there in the first place.

----------


## Glycerine

> and when i was growing up in the country i didnt know anyone that did lock there house when they went out, so is anyone that leaves there house without locking it who has a safe inside breaking the rules than aswell?


times are different now and so are the rules... do you leave your house unlocked when you go out now?

here in Auckland the people I know with gun safes, have had to put a lock on the door on the cupboard/room and windows they are in, weather they use them or not (this was when getting E endorsement)

----------


## 308

> just a 40 year old garage so locks are poked could put bolts and padlocks on the old garage doors and the side door so that  will sort it out, i live in the country so really if someones planing on getting in to the garage the padlocks only guna add 30 secs to the time it takes them, bolts are in another safe in another place, and ammo is locked in another place as well
> 
> ya know im more looking from the legal standpoint because from common sense standpoint the safe and the dayna bolts and the blanket over it and not telling people about it are the deterrent from the opportunist the lock on the door is just guna cost the professional 30 secs when they can probably be out there all day without a worry anyway
> 
> and when i was growing up in the country i didnt know anyone that did lock there house when they went out, so is anyone that leaves there house without locking it who has a safe inside breaking the rules than aswell?


Then from a legal standpoint if you fit the hasp and staple and minimum requirement to class the garage as "lockable" you should be legally fine

Not what I would do but it's your stuff, not mine

----------


## zimmer

> times are different now and so are the rules... do you leave your house unlocked when you go out now?
> 
> here in Auckland the people I know with gun safes, have had to put a lock on the door on the cupboard/room and windows they are in, weather they use them or not (this was when getting E endorsement)


Times sure are different now . I live rural. Saw our neighbour get robbed a couple of years ago - their house is about 180 meters from us.

Didnt immediately gel what was happening  saw car drive up the 150 meter drive and straight under their house (open garage under house). Around a minute later they started to depart. 
I said to the wife holy shit, I think the neighbours have just been robbed. It all happened that quick. Car headed towards town. 

Fortunately we were able to raise the neighbour on the other side and they noted the car's rego as it went past and rung the cops. Amazingly the cops picked them up about 30k away  they were known to the cops. And the car was theirs, not stolen, so they were traceable.

They had the neighbours chainsaw and some workshop tools in the boot. As I said, around a minute and gone.

----------


## Steve123

> As an aside, seeing as this antiquated thread has been dug up and flogged into life again...
> 
> The vetting process is absolutely flawed, so says my BSW-qualified wife who is absolutely fricking disgusted by the process.  (BSW is Bachelor of Social Work - her case with Hons - she works with all sectors of society but one sector is family violence).  Relevance here, is most of the AO's and vetting staff would be lucky to have more than minimal training in identifying domestic violence cases.  As a trained professional, she finds it absolutely abhorent that every time I have been vetted she has had to answer the vetting person's questions with me in the room, despite me offering to leave (I was actually told to stay).  A person living with fear will not answer a vetting question truthfully in this instance.  
> 
> So, A-cat or whatever stupid letter-cat the applicant is going for - I contest it's not worth the paper it's written on.  That makes the whole argument for seperate license classes completely void regardless of politicians good intent.


When I was vetted I had to leave while my partner was interviewed.

----------


## Jexla

> As an aside, seeing as this antiquated thread has been dug up and flogged into life again...
> 
> The vetting process is absolutely flawed, so says my BSW-qualified wife who is absolutely fricking disgusted by the process.  (BSW is Bachelor of Social Work - her case with Hons - she works with all sectors of society but one sector is family violence).  Relevance here, is most of the AO's and vetting staff would be lucky to have more than minimal training in identifying domestic violence cases.  As a trained professional, she finds it absolutely abhorent that every time I have been vetted she has had to answer the vetting person's questions with me in the room, despite me offering to leave (I was actually told to stay). A person living with fear will not answer a vetting question truthfully in this instance.  
> 
> So, A-cat or whatever stupid letter-cat the applicant is going for - I contest it's not worth the paper it's written on.  That makes the whole argument for seperate license classes completely void regardless of politicians good intent.


My partner also has the same degree, and tends to disagree with your wife. Guess they equal each other out?

Fact of the matter is that even in your case, it takes ONE phone call to the police from her and you licence is gone, what makes you think she'd be more likely to open up to a random (to her), civ whilst you are in the other room as opposed to a police officer any other time?

----------


## 10-Ring

The vetting guide states that the spouse, partner, NOK has to be interviewed separately. There is some truth in most of what Jexla says.

----------


## smidey

> When I was vetted I had to leave while my partner was interviewed.


Me to, my wife even told them she hated guns

Sent from my workbench

----------


## Tommy

My missus was interviewed in private each time, I thought that was normal. Vetting guy said afterwards that she told him she was initially very scared and wary of firearms in general, and as a result of me patiently explaining it all over time she now didn't feel that way at all, and was quite interested in getting a FAL herself (she hasn't quite done that yet, but it's on her list). Vetting guy thought it was great.

----------


## kotuku

my last vetting -the vettor told wife she could refuse to answer a question -didnt matter ,but me -refusal seen as guilt -game set &match for me.
we were interviewed seperately her for 30mins me for 90+
asked about my depression -Id got a med cert from GP-no worries ,so i told him to tell the boys in blue theyre welcome to view my entire medical file -ive got no secrets.but dont friggin blame me if ya find the reader snoring peacefully after the first page!
 he laughed like hell!weve just spoken again recently as iwas referee for a good mate- no probs there either.
both my vettors have been fairly reasonable types ,able to use a modicum of discretion/commonsense and not prone to prostrating themselves a the bible of regulations at every query or question asked.

----------

