# Hunting > Firearm Safety >  E cat safe/safe room options

## canross

It looks like ultimately I'll be going for my E Category eventually, so I should plan on setting up storage to anticipate it. I know I've written a lot, but hoping to nail down my options, and the devil's in the details on these things. 

So, in considering E category, I'm looking at my options for storage. I understand that ultimately everything comes down to the firearms officer that inspects storage, so will get input from them, but am also looking for the forum's input on what has worked for them, and to see whether anyone thinks the police will accept my plan based on their guidelines.

My first option is to just buy an E Cat rated safe. For anything the size I want I'm going to be spending the same as a used truck, which I would rather not do. The only pro to the safe is that I can take it with me if I move.




My second option is to build something. In reading the police storage recommendations ( Firearms storage | New Zealand Police ), I believe that my best option is to renovate a closet in the house to meet the standards for Room Construction (28(1) B). All my proposals are pulled directly from their recommendations. 

In this case I would propose to modify a large inside wall closet to the standards by:

- Door: Steel body door, or the defined 40mm solid wood door with 16gauge+ steel cladding, rebated edges, hinge security bolts, welded hinge pins and heavy wood frame, or steel frame.

- Inside walls, ceiling and floor: stapled heavy steel mesh or screwed sheet metal (no definition of substantial is available on the website) or 16mm+ construction ply to the wall studs.

- Locks: Standard 5 lever mortise lock. For the price I could put in two or three - not a huge difference to me. Since it's the established standard I would probably just use it, as anything I designed would need a locksmith to certify. 

- No windows into the storage area

- Alarms: I see that they are listed as required. Is this A) a fact written in law? B) Is it required to be installed and monitored by a commercial company? I've searched the government standards that determine the rules but you have to buy access to view government regulations? Bizarre.

I recognize I may need to find a tradesperson or engineer to sign off on my setup, but feel that if I do get an engineer's signature on my plan and final inspection and do it myself, I could either save a pile of cash, or spend the same amount and buy a stack of tools in the process. I also consider projects like this to be fun, so if it takes me a month of evenings doing it I'm happy with that.

----------


## 223nut

One thing that will shock you is the prices of metal, timber and building products in general compared to North America. One of the trade off's of being an island at the bottom of the world

----------


## canross

Very valid point - I hadn't considered that at all.


That said, there's always scrap somewhere, and plywood can be glued and screwed, so there's always that.

----------


## gonetropo

if you need alarm help give me a yell

----------


## canross

> if you need alarm help give me a yell


Thanks Gonetropo

Some decent info on the forum about building steel safes, but very little on modifying rooms. Guess another talk with the constabulary is in order.

----------


## Mavarick

Alarms. they say, but sure its not in law, but it does help with sign off if you have a alarm fitted, can be monitored by yourself 
Friend had the steel mesh then 20mm ply over-top of that so all you saw was the ply
Or you could buy a safe, fix that to a wall and then lock the closet with say a deadbolt, or similar
that way E cat stuff is in the safe and all the other stuff is in the closet. effective making the closet your A cat safe.

----------


## canross

> Alarms. they say, but sure its not in law, but it does help with sign off if you have a alarm fitted, can be monitored by yourself 
> Friend had the steel mesh then 20mm ply over-top of that so all you saw was the ply
> Or you could buy a safe, fix that to a wall and then lock the closet with say a deadbolt, or similar
> that way E cat stuff is in the safe and all the other stuff is in the closet. effective making the closet your A cat safe.



If it can be monitored by myself that really helps. Easy enough to install a system to just monitor the safe or just the strong room - power the system and supply a backup battery internally with a door and motion sensor internally so even if they cut their way in it'll still trip. If it's not actually law that gives a lot better ability to work with the AO in sign off.

I was thinking along the lines what your friend did. In the case of a large closet it could then be repainted to match how it originally looked at only the loss of 40mm of depth/width/height at any point internally, so really wouldn't be noticeable to anyone afterwards. 

If I do have to buy an E cat safe that's a good idea as well, since I can't see myself spending enough to buy the size of E cat safe I'd want!

----------


## Koshogi

> My second option is to build something. In reading the police storage recommendations ( Firearms storage | New Zealand Police ), I believe that my best option is to renovate a closet in the house to meet the standards for Room Construction (28(1) B). All my proposals are pulled directly from their recommendations.


Take their guidance loosely. NZ Police clearly (still) do not understand the law. The terms 'shall' and 'required' can only be used when supported by legislation. Which for the vast majority of their usage on that page, are not.




> - Alarms: I see that they are listed as required. Is this A) a fact written in law? B) Is it required to be installed and monitored by a commercial company? I've searched the government standards that determine the rules but you have to buy access to view government regulations? Bizarre.


No, no legal requirement for an alarm system.

Are you referring to https://www.standards.govt.nz/? Standards are not government regulations. Unless cited by legislation, are not mandatory requirements.

_Standards are generally voluntary, but can be mandatory when cited in Acts, regulations, or other legislative instruments. Standards may also be referenced in regulations as one means of compliance or as an acceptable solution under those regulations, without being mandatory. Standards are a successful way to bridge government regulation and industry self-regulation._ Source: https://www.standards.govt.nz/about-us/

----------


## systolic

Take your advice from the cops. THEY will be doing the sign off on your licence and security, not some bush lawyer on the internet.

The whole point of the exercise is strong security for your guns, not being a foreigner starting an argument about police powers or regulations as soon as you step off the aeroplane.

You will just get on their shit list and they will fuck you around forever over your licence.

----------


## Koshogi

> Take your advice from the cops. THEY will be doing the sign off on your licence and security, not some bush lawyer on the internet.
> 
> The whole point of the exercise is strong security for your guns, not being a foreigner starting an argument about police powers or regulations as soon as you step off the aeroplane.
> 
> You will just get on their shit list and they will fuck you around forever over your licence.


Considering that their "advice ' varies from AO to AO and is not supported by legislation....

Actual lawyers and the courts say very similar  things regarding the NZ POLICE'S ability to understand and administer the law. So yeah, let's ignore the courts.....

So obey the Police or they will commit malicious malfeasance? Sounds like a just society you support. 

How dare we peasants question the Police!?!!

----------


## Taff

Depending on how soon you are moving, any info might be irrelevant, with the proposed rewriting of the arms act.

----------


## systolic

> Considering that their "advice ' varies from AO to AO and is not supported by legislation....
> 
> Actual lawyers and the courts say very similar  things regarding the NZ POLICE'S ability to understand and administer the law. So yeah, let's ignore the courts.....
> 
> So obey the Police or they will commit malicious malfeasance? Sounds like a just society you support. 
> 
> How dare we peasants question the Police!?!!


So what if advice varies from AO to AO? He only has to deal with _his_ AO.

Getting all wound up because the arms officer wants you to keep your dangerous weapons properly secured does nothing. 

If the law said I could leave my guns under my bed, I'd still keep them in their big safe in my well locked workshop with the alarm.

"malicious malfeasance" What the fuck does that mean? Big words to make you look educated?

----------


## Koshogi

> So what if advice varies from AO to AO? He only has to deal with _his_ AO.
> 
> Getting all wound up because the arms officer wants you to keep your dangerous weapons properly secured does nothing. 
> 
> If the law said I could leave my guns under my bed, I'd still keep them in their big safe in my well locked workshop with the alarm.
> 
> "malicious malfeasance" What the fuck does that mean? Big words to make you look educated?


Ya, who would would want consistency in law? Like that's important.

Malicious:
_adjective
1. full of, characterized by, or showing malice; intentionally harmful; spiteful:
malicious gossip.
2. Law. vicious, wanton, or mischievous in motivation or purpose._

Malfeasance:
_noun, Law.
1. the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used especially of an act in violation of a public trust)._

I'm guessing you can put them together, or not...

----------


## systolic

> Ya, who would would want consistency in law? Like that's important.
> 
> Malicious:
> _adjective
> 1. full of, characterized by, or showing malice; intentionally harmful; spiteful:
> malicious gossip.
> 2. Law. vicious, wanton, or mischievous in motivation or purpose._
> 
> Malfeasance:
> ...


I get consistency from my arms officer and, once every ten years, the retired detective who does the security check and speaks to the current girlfriend. That's enough for me.

I don't really give a shit what other arms officers do. Every time I been to an arms office, auction, or gunshow out of town where they've had arms officers and I've wanted a permit, everything has been fine.

Some people must just like being the centre of drama and attention.

I'd rather go shooting than argue with cops.

----------


## systolic

My guns are worth shitloads of money. That is why my security far exceeds what is required. 

As I said a few posts above, my security would still be the same if I was allowed to just keep them under the bed.

It's not a competition to see who can get the least amount of security signed off. Well, not for me anyway.

----------


## Gibo

> My guns are worth shitloads of money. That is why my security far exceeds what is required. 
> 
> As I said a few posts above, my security would still be the same if I was allowed to just keep them under the bed.
> 
> It's not a competition to see who can get the least amount of security signed off. Well, not for me anyway.


Shit the bed!!! I agree with you  :3 8 14:  I will read that all again, this can't be so.

----------


## timattalon

> My guns are worth shitloads of money. That is why my security far exceeds what is required. 
> 
> As I said a few posts above, my security would still be the same if I was allowed to just keep them under the bed.
> 
> It's not a competition to see who can get the least amount of security signed off. Well, not for me anyway.


I do agree that security needs to be at least what they are asking. In my mind, if you are not prepared to secure your firearms to the very best of your ability, then you should question whether you are a "fit and proper" person to hold a license. A fit and proper person will take every step possible to control the possession and use of their firearms. 

But I have a minor issue with them stating how much is enough in a minor way. If something happens the onus is then taken off the thief / perpetrator and placed on the owner to prove the measures were enough. 

Here is a parallel situation as an example. 

Motorcycles safety: It is a very good idea to ride with the headlight on so other vehicles see the rider. And I almost always ride with the headlight on. But I will always object to making it compulsory. If a motorcyclist is hit by a car in a situation where the car did not see them (probably because they did not look), then it is clearly the cars fault. But if you make headlights on compulsory, and then the same situation occurs, now the injured motorcyclist has to prove he had his light on because the car driver can easily claim "I did not see him so therefore his light must have been off". If it is off, then it must be his fault I did not see him....Where, in truth, it is still the car drivers fault for not looking. Trains have their lights on and too many car drivers manage to not see those too......Not looking is the problem. 


It does not matter if your guns are in a safe, an alarmed strong room or a fort knox bank vault with three guards on duty, or on your bench, if a thief steals them, it does not lessen the fact that the thief has stolen them. It is still theft of a firearm. Yes, you should definitely take EVERY measure you can to reduce the chances of theft, but the fault  MUST still lie with the thieving piece of boot scrapping, cat turd, low life, miserable, festering cockroach, oxygen burglar, waste of space that decided he could help himself to your property.

----------


## stretch

> In my mind, if you are not prepared to secure your firearms to the very best of your ability, then you should question whether you are a "fit and proper" person to hold a license. A fit and proper person will take every step possible to control the possession and use of their firearms.


Define "very best of your ability" and "every possible step".

Should a FAL holder be spending $1000+ on the security of, say, a $200 .22? Raising the security requirements could be seen as an underhand way for the authorities to price people out of lawful firearms ownership.

Joe Bloggs: "I'd like to get into hunting and shooting. Perhaps I'll get my FAL, then a cheap .22 to familiarise myself with firearms safety, shooting technique and marksmanship principles."

_Joe Bloggs does some research into security requirements..._ 

Joe Bloggs: "Shit, it says here I need x or y security before I can have a .22! That means I need to spend z to get into this hobby. Stuff that - I'll just stick to [insert current hobby]."

Cops and the anti-gun population: "GOOD."

----------


## timattalon

> Define "very best of your ability" and "every possible step".
> 
> *Should a FAL holder be spending $1000+ on the security of, say, a $200 .22?* Raising the security requirements could be seen as an underhand way for the authorities to price people out of lawful firearms ownership.
> 
> Joe Bloggs: "I'd like to get into hunting and shooting. Perhaps I'll get my FAL, then a cheap .22 to familiarise myself with firearms safety, shooting technique and marksmanship principles."
> 
> _Joe Bloggs does some research into security requirements..._ 
> 
> Joe Bloggs: "Shit, it says here I need x or y security before I can have a .22! That means I need to spend z to get into this hobby. Stuff that - I'll just stick to [insert current hobby]."
> ...


What should a "Fit and Proper person" consider secure?  How long is a piece of string? 

If you cannot afford a decent helmet, gloves and jacket, can you afford a motorbike? If you cannot afford a condom, can you afford a child? 


Another view of the same perspective, is if you cannot safely secure them to decent level then yes, perhaps you should not buy a 22. One important factor to bear in mind, The security requirements around A cat firearms has a very different aim to the security around E, B, C, etc. The primary and central objective of A Cat security is to keep un-trained, opportunistic people from gaining easy access and potentially causing harm. Not thieves, not criminals, but your family. It is to stop those who do not understand the safety and dangers involved with firearms from hurting themselves and those around them. Think more along the lines of children and visitors. And consider, decent security for a 22 can be achieved with about $200-$300. 

The increased security around the other categories is more aimed at thieves etc because with the perceived additional danger of these firearms (And that itself is a different conversation) it is expected that these are more highly sought after by those of a criminal persuasion. Hence the additional requirements to discourage theft. 

Consider this. If you looked at the security that you have now. and in three weeks, one of your family or friends somehow gets access to those firearms, and your family member is hurt or worse. Would ANY level of security be enough that you would think...I could not have done any better?????  

To answer your question re spending $1000 on protecting a 22: In most cases it would probably be too much, but if you spend $99 on a cheap safe remember, You have to live with the consequences if someone gets hurt.

----------


## 223nut

Hate to say it folks but any level of security can be breached with enough time and the right tools.... Know someone with a 12ton digger, if he wants to take our see and give it a bit of a squeeze I don't think much would last. House might be toast but he would have your guns  :O O:

----------


## canross

Well, it's official, it's possible to start a heated argument during the discussion gun storage containers in three separate countries on two separate continents.



Anyways, the point of the discussion is to figure out what is the best option in building a gun storage container. If I planned to live in the same house for the rest of my days I would buy a stack of 2.5cm thick steel road plates, gas axe them to size and weld them into an internal safe room inside my house and be done with it. 

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like I'll be purchasing a house in the near future, and moving frequently makes things all the more difficult. I thoroughly enjoy shooting and hunting, so don't want to abandon the hobby because it's difficult, but I also don't want to make my life miserable  trying to move a 750kg safe every couple of years, or have to uninstall and reinstall a security system every time I move, along with the associated repairs to whatever house I'm living in at the time. The level of security should be enough that anyone who didn't come prepared can't get in and take the guns. There are many ways to achieve this, however being new to the country I need to know where I can, and cannot, use my judgement to solve a problem, hence the questioning. In the cases where there is an established standard that I must meet, I will make sure to do so. In the cases where there is a recommended standard, I will try to meet it unless it is negated by something else I have done, or isn't reasonable in this case (IE a full house alarm system installed by a commercial company is not practical in a rental, however I am able to wire my own small system and monitor it myself). 

Several forum members have been kind enough to answer my questions, and those answers have gone a very long way towards figuring out how things work in NZ and really saved me a lot of hours looking for solutions to problems that don't exist, or I didn't know existed.

Anyways, looks like I owe a few folks some beer when I get there!

----------


## canross

> Depending on how soon you are moving, any info might be irrelevant, with the proposed rewriting of the arms act.


Any info on this? Hear-say? Actual in-action in front of the government proposed law? Working-group discussing something? 

Any info on what this re-write contains?




Coincidentally the same thing's apparently in the works in Canada. Only indirect mutterings so far, but since the current ruling party has majority power and created our last Firearms Act, which was a punitive, poorly thought out and overall terrible waste of money and time, things don't look good on this side of the pond.

----------


## systolic

> Any info on this? Hear-say? Actual in-action in front of the government proposed law? Working-group discussing something? 
> 
> Any info on what this re-write contains?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coincidentally the same thing's apparently in the works in Canada. Only indirect mutterings so far, but since the current ruling party has majority power and created our last Firearms Act, which was a punitive, poorly thought out and overall terrible waste of money and time, things don't look good on this side of the pond.


All rumours. Nothing happening, or likely to happen in an election year.

There is a select committee on law and order investigating how criminals are obtaining guns. This has been seen by some people as heralding changes to the laws, but unlikely in an election year.

Just ensure your security is well above what is required by the people who will be signing off your licence, and you will have no problems. If you try to skimp on security and buy some cheap safe you may have problems. 

If your guns are worth keeping, why wouldn't you have good security?

Ignore the bush lawyers on this or other forums wanking on about what the cops can and can't do, legally or otherwise. Don't worry about what other arms officers in other parts of the country may or may not want.

Just listen to what _your_ arms officer or security vetting person wants. Then spend your time shooting.

----------


## Jexla

> Ignore the bush lawyers on this or other forums wanking on about what the cops can and can't do, legally or otherwise.


Ironically I agree. Let the man read the minutes from the meetings of that select committee himself.

http://sportingshooters.nz/wp-conten...ay-minutes.pdf

http://sportingshooters.nz/wp-conten...ugust-2016.pdf

http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/defa...cember2016.pdf


A quote from a member of parliament who his on this committee:



> Hi Guys. Spotted this post. As you know I'm currently sitting in on the Select Committee which is holding this inquiry. I can't go into detail about what is before the committee because it's still confidential, but what I can say is that I am worried. In fact, I am very very worried for law abiding firearms owners. This is worst case scenario people and IT WILL turn into a new law if we don't all get together and do something.



Make your own mind up and don't listen to people like systolic who defines himself as a "bush lawyer".

----------


## canross

Interesting that you can view minutes from the meetings - here it's all top secret until the law hits reading in parliament. Only thing we know is that our committee is made up of police chiefs that have spoken openly about banning firearms (but also joked in a tv interview that he at least once intimidated his daughter's boyfriend with a shotgun, and used his rank to avoid speeding tickets), multiple reps of the anti-firearms lobby groups, and now at least one woman's group rep, who is technically not a representative of the anti-firearms group, but is an honorary member. The last two pro gun members (a federal lawyer and our national firearms organisation rep) were removed when the new gov came into power. 

Anyways, thanks again for the great info.

----------


## Jexla

> Interesting that you can view minutes from the meetings - here it's all top secret until the law hits reading in parliament.


I suspect the real stuff is suppressed considering there's very little mention of any proposed law changes and Ron Mark suggests changes will be coming.

----------


## Ryan

Whatever they are cooking up behind closed doors will inevitably be detrimental to firearm ownership in this country, either through stricter conditions or increased costs - or both. 

Instead of targeting burglaries and other crimes that are of a higher concern to most New Zealanders (justified given their appallingly low resolution rate and increase in many areas) they're targeting - behind closed doors - the most thoroughly vetted people in the country (barring those holding SV and TSV security clearances). 

Their claims relating to firearm crime through their mouthpiece the Police Association in conjunction with their bedfellows, the mainstream media, are completely unsubstantiated and should be treated with the callous disregard that they deserve. It should be obvious to anyone that this is a pernicious attack on all firearm owners that is orchestrated from the highest levels of New Zealand Police, an organisation who have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate _ultra vires_ behaviour which displays scant regard for the law they are sworn to uphold.

It is obvious what is happening once one connects the dots. The end-game is to achieve a monopoly on violence and they are targeting the most powerful weapons first (MSSA), then they will probably come after handguns because of their ability to be concealed and finally those that remain. 

It won't happen overnight, it will be conducted per generation. I.e. the generation succeeding will have no memory of ever being able to own X class firearm so likely won't question why it's not permitted for them to do so.

If the authorities can act the way they do concerning firearm laws, what then is preventing them from encroaching on other rights / privileges / whatever once the populace has been completely disarmed?

----------


## Savage1

An inter-generational conspiracy to disarm the population? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

There is no need for an inter-generational conspiracy to disarm the population, they could enact laws in a few months to do such a thing, no need to draw it out and never see the results due to dying of old age.

I believe it is more because society is changing and violence is becoming less acceptable and the need for firearms is reducing due to urbanisation. The media of the day seem to make people unnecessarily fearful of the world out there, and distrusting of anyone holding a position of power.

----------


## Solo

There's also very little benefit to disarming the populace, from a totalitarian point of view. An armed populace has very rarely been a significant obstacle to conquering armies throughout history. Modern first-world governments are always going to win via superior logistics. It's even more ridiculous when the doomsday "gonna come take our guns" preppers live in a country that routinely uses drone strikes to neutralise guerrilla militants. The ability to legally use a 30 round magazine with your AR is not going to do you much good in that situation.

----------


## systolic

It never takes long for some paranoid people to think _any_ discussions about controls on guns, or proper security, are a huge conspiracy to disarm or enslave people.

----------


## timattalon

> It never takes long for some paranoid people to think _any_ discussions about controls on guns, or proper security, are a huge conspiracy to disarm or enslave people.


Just because they are paranoid, does not make them wrong.....Are they paranoid if it turns out that they really are being targeted?

----------


## Savage1

From Wikipedia: Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of delusion and irrationality.

It still amazes me how much people jump up and down at the slightest hint of registration, ignoring the fact that for years there has been a gun registry running in this country and the sky hasn't fallen and the government hasn't arrived in force to take them.

----------


## Jexla

> From Wikipedia: Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of delusion and irrationality.
> 
> It still amazes me how much people jump up and down at the slightest hint of registration, ignoring the fact that for years there has been a gun registry running in this country and the sky hasn't fallen and the government hasn't arrived in force to take them.


Still doesn't deter from the fact the registration is utterly USELESS.

----------


## Savage1

> Still doesn't deter from the fact the registration is utterly USELESS.


I've actually found it quite useful on a number of occasions prosecuting offenders and returning stolen weapons, but hey, what would I know.

----------


## Danger Mouse

> I've actually found it quite useful on a number of occasions prosecuting offenders and returning stolen weapons, but hey, what would I know.



That must be why the canadians stuck with it. 

I cant help but think that putting the money spent on registration, towards resolving the appalling 7% burglary resolution rate, would have a greater impact in reducing firearms crime, and burglary overall.

Sorry, that was a bit of a snarky post. Overall I dont have any issues with the police doing their jobs, I know several detectives and officers around the country. Their head shed seems intent on destroying any good will from the public however, and as a result trust in the nz police, particularly if you are one of those evil firearms license holders, is waning.

----------


## Krameranzac

[QUOTE=Savage1;564554]From Wikipedia: Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of delusion and irrationality.

It still amazes me how much people jump up and down at the slightest hint of registration, ignoring the fact that for years there has been a gun registry running in this country and the sky hasn't fallen and the government hasn't arrived in force to take them.[/QUOTE

In 2000 George Hawkins, then Minister of Police, announced in the Herald they were going to buy back MSSA's and had $20m to do so. Right then and there the honest people who registered their MSSA's were looking at being rewarded for their honesty by having their guns taken off them. George must have been off his medicine because fortunately nothing came of it. The use of registration to confiscate firearms has happened in Canada, Australia and the U.K. Why would you want to make it easier for that to happen in NZ through universal registration? The NZ Police abandoned  registration because by their own admission it was effectively useless for solving armed crime and was so error ridden as to be useless. It cost Canada billions and they ditched it. As for using it to return stolen firearms, you want to bring in a system that costs millions a year to run to return a few thousand dollars of stolen property? Tell you what, put that in a business case to treasury and let me know how you get on.

----------


## Ryan

Just to add to the above that as long as I can remember, every single firearm in South Africa has had and continues to be registered. It has done absolutely zero to minimize crime simply because they scratch the serials off - why would a criminal worth his salt want to tie their possession of a previously legally held firearm to the person they stole it from and / or murdered?

Not to mention the countless R1s, R4s, R5s, G3s, Z88s etc that have been stolen from state officials over the years, nor the reduced number of AKMs that are coming across the border from Mozambique (easier to just buy / steal weapons from the cops or army).

Long story short, in South Africa the police are regularly guilty of malfeance - only there it's a national sport and there are few "internal enquiries" to cover up their activities. There is a continued effort through parliament to advance even further restrictions on legal firearm ownership - in a country where it's literally, every man / woman for themselves.

In summary, licensed firearm owners are not the problem. One should ask why licensed firearm owners internationally are continually viewed in a suspicious light by the authorities?

----------


## Jexla

> I've actually found it quite useful on a number of occasions prosecuting offenders and returning stolen weapons, but hey, what would I know.


Returning stolen firearms? As if someone cannot and would not give the serial numbers of their stolen firearms when stolen, not beforehand for no good reason.

As for prosecuting offenders, what are you prosecuting them with exactly that wouldn't be possible without the serial number being on record BEFORE the robbery?

----------


## Savage1

> Returning stolen firearms? As if someone cannot and would not give the serial numbers of their stolen firearms when stolen, not beforehand for no good reason.
> 
> As for prosecuting offenders, what are you prosecuting them with exactly that wouldn't be possible without the serial number being on record BEFORE the robbery?


It's actually rare for people to have their serial numbers recorded, so it's virtually impossible to identify if a firearm is stolen and where it came from. If you can identify it you can link it back to a specific burglary.

In my experience most people don't record serial numbers and it's actually reasonably rare to see serial numbers removed.

Registration does have it's uses, regardless of your opinion.

----------


## Jexla

> It's actually rare for people to have their serial numbers recorded, so it's virtually impossible to identify if a firearm is stolen and where it came from. If you can identify it you can link it back to a specific burglary.
> 
> In my experience most people don't record serial numbers and it's actually reasonably rare to see serial numbers removed.
> 
> Registration does have it's uses, regardless of your opinion.


So the answer to my questions is that there's nothing that is made possible from registration that can't be done with personal recording, just that there is a lack of personal recording from your experience. (No doubt there)

Maybe instead of a registration, we encourage self recording of serial numbers like we do with many other firearm related things, and household items.

----------


## Savage1

> So the answer to my questions is that there's nothing that is made possible from registration that can't be done with personal recording, just that there is a lack of personal recording from your experience. (No doubt there)
> 
> Maybe instead of a registration, we encourage self recording of serial numbers like we do with many other firearm related things, and household items.


How about supplying firearms to unlicenced or unendorsed people? Registration has been used to catch/prosecute people who've done that. I also know of a person who did it with A-Cat but since there was no registration nothing could be done about the 10+ AR15s that he'd bought in the last year and sold to his head hunter associates. 

Encouraging people to not speed doesn't work on everyone, why would this be any different?

----------


## Danger Mouse

> How about supplying firearms to unlicenced or unendorsed people? Registration has been used to catch/prosecute people who've done that. I also know of a person who did it with A-Cat but since there was no registration nothing could be done about the 10+ AR15s that he'd bought in the last year and sold to his head hunter associates. 
> 
> Encouraging people to not speed doesn't work on everyone, why would this be any different?



encouraging people not to speed isnt effective because the public are wising up to the tax rort that it is. The arguments for the zealous enforcement are bullshit. 

Regisration of firearms is a joke, the sole purpose is to find out where they are prior to confiscation, as we have seen before.

----------


## gonetropo

i have photos of all my firearms complete with serial numbers and distinguishing features (eg scratch on stock).
sorry @SAVAGE i trust no department or agency with that info unless they were stolen

----------


## Koshogi

> It still amazes me how much people jump up and down at the slightest hint of registration, ignoring the fact that for years there has been a gun registry running in this country and the sky hasn't fallen and the government hasn't arrived in force to take them.


Except when they did in 1972 with pistols or in WW2 for .303s....

----------


## Tommy

> How about supplying firearms to unlicenced or unendorsed people? Registration has been used to catch/prosecute people who've done that. I also know of a person who did it with A-Cat but since there was no registration nothing could be done about the 10+ AR15s that he'd bought in the last year and sold to his head hunter associates. 
> 
> Encouraging people to not speed doesn't work on everyone, why would this be any different?


This comes back to the risk/reward thing again. If there was actually a decent deterrent to these shitheads getting guns illegally, it would be much much less of a problem. But bullshit castle sees fit to tutu with what I do instead of pushing for sentencing to suit the crimes that are actually being committed. Geoffrey Palmer take a bow. 3 months home D here, a fine someone won't pay there. The hole in the system is at the courts end. Making up new regs isn't going to mean shit for the people who break the law. People don't file serials off at the moment because there's no registration scheme - it's because they plain don't give a fuck, they get caught, sweet fuck all happens to them. 

It's not like the States where it all gets rather serious being a felon in possession. The serials get rubbed to stop them getting linked to other crimes, yes, but only because consecutive sentencing makes it worthwhile for them to do so. Here, it doesn't matter, so why bother?

----------


## Ryan

> Registration does have it's uses, regardless of your opinion.


The *fact* is that its uses are infinitesimal compared to the astronomical monetary and administrative cost of implementing and running the system with any degree of accuracy. As has been borne out by Canada who dropped it and has one of the lowest firearm crime rates in the world and South Africa, who continues to implement it and well... **shrugs**

----------


## Beavis

I look at it from cost to benefit. Is it gonna be worth the money and labour recording (pulling numbers from thin air) legally owned guns to catch maybe 1 or 2% of license holders who do dodgy things? 

Who's gonna pay for it? Are they gonna jack up license prices or make you pay per gun registered? Will this result in people going fuck it, as a lot of duck shooters do and just carry on?

How are things going to be recorded accurately when  the current recording of BCE category firearms is fraught with errors?

Would you be no longer able to borrow/lend firearms to/from other people without changing the registration to their name?

----------


## systolic

Didn't that guy Winters who shot the roadworks stop-go man get convicted partly because the cops had a record of his rifles from a security inspection during relicensing? 

Sound like a good reason to have serial numbers to me.

----------


## Savage1

My intention wasn't to promote registration but to point out that it isn't "utterly USELESS".

It certainly does have its uses and has no doubt prevented/detered people from supplying B-C-E cat weapons to unfit people.

----------


## Sasquatch

> An inter-generational conspiracy to disarm the population? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


There's plenty of evidence just look how civilian firearm ownership is _trending_ in the last 50 years, more extraordinary would be the last century! Not only globally but here in NZ - you already have had someone quote the 1972 pistol ban.




> There is no need for an inter-generational conspiracy to disarm the population, they could enact laws in a few months to do such a thing, no need to draw it out and never see the results due to dying of old age.


Refer to previous response ^^^




> I believe it is more because society is changing and violence is becoming less acceptable and the need for firearms is reducing due to urbanisation. The media of the day seem to make people unnecessarily fearful of the world out there, and distrusting of anyone holding a position of power.


Now this part makes me sad, on one hand you say that society is (here's that word again) *trending* towards well let's face it, a more controlled society coupled with a fear mongering media that also puts out alot of disinformation. And on the other hand, you mention of conspiracies and paranoia & no evidence? This seems conflicting to me.

I do find your way of putting it quite amusing - "Urbanization" It's not something I particular subscribe to or like where we are headed for the future. There's the over sensationalized media, the ever spying mass surveillance and the draconian style transformation of power from police & other agencies _against_ everyday citizens.

----------


## Sasquatch

@Savage1

Here's a trailer to an award winning tribeca doco that talks about the change in power I mentioned earlier. The doco is filmed in America but is happening all over the world. I hope this doesn't come to our beautiful country in my life time or that you would ever want this for our society.

----------


## Jexla

> Didn't that guy Winters who shot the roadworks stop-go man get convicted partly because the cops had a record of his rifles from a security inspection during relicensing? 
> 
> Sound like a good reason to have serial numbers to me.


And how'd they get the serial number of said firearm?

----------


## Jexla

> How about supplying firearms to unlicenced or unendorsed people? Registration has been used to catch/prosecute people who've done that. I also know of a person who did it with A-Cat but since there was no registration nothing could be done about the 10+ AR15s that he'd bought in the last year and sold to his head hunter associates. 
> 
> Encouraging people to not speed doesn't work on everyone, why would this be any different?


So all campaigns to reduce drink driving, IDing your target in the bush, keeping your guns locked up (this is a current one run by your organization) etc etc is what? Futile?

----------


## Savage1

> So all campaigns to reduce drink driving, IDing your target in the bush, keeping your guns locked up (this is a current one run by your organization) etc etc is what? Futile?


Only if you consider anything but a 100% success rate a failure, which would be stupid.

----------


## Savage1

> The *fact* is that its uses are infinitesimal compared to the astronomical monetary and administrative cost of implementing and running the system with any degree of accuracy. As has been borne out by Canada who dropped it and has one of the lowest firearm crime rates in the world and South Africa, who continues to implement it and well... **shrugs**


You're assuming that it is only possible by spending billions like Canada, when we have one running here that costs very little. South Africa's problems have little, if anything, to do with their firearm registration and is a ridiculous comparison.

----------


## Danger Mouse

> You're assuming that it is only possible by spending billions like Canada, when we have one running here that costs very little. South Africa's problems have little, if anything, to do with their firearm registration and is a ridiculous comparison.


Are you trolling?

Youre assuming it WONT cost billions in NZ. 
some points.

1. we have an incomplete registry on certain types of firearms
2. you say it costs very little, post your figures please
3. our incomplete registry is innacurate - with frequent cases of license holders having to correct the records, or worse being place under police scrutiny
4. A registry STILL poses no net benefit, hence why the canadians got rid of it
5. registration leads to confiscation. The moment universal registration occurs, YOU WILL HAVE ACTIVE RESISTANCE BY LICENSE HOLDERS. People will register, caulking guns, staple guns, water pistols and anything else they can think of. Think im wrong? its what happned in canada. Some people will just outright refuse to register some of their firearms. As seen overseas, the sale of pv pipe and endcaps will increase by orders of magnitude - congratulations you have now made previously law abiding people criminals becuase they do not want to abide by useless legislation. Now they can buy and sell on the black market, and wont give a shit, becuase hey, once deemed a criminal due to dumb shit legislation, no point in sort of following it. 

This type of argument, introducing pointless legislation and constantly treating license holders like they are criminals, does nothing but increase animosity towards the police, which is my understaning that they are already aware of the change in attitude as per the select committee.

----------


## Ryan

> You're assuming that it is only possible by spending billions like Canada, when we have one running here that costs very little. South Africa's problems have little, if anything, to do with their firearm registration and is a ridiculous comparison.


Let's be clear about what we're discussing - universal registration. Canada has registered firearms, New Zealand has registered firearms, South Africa has registered (all, except black powder) firearms.

It is not an assumption but an evidence based fact that Canada's attempt to introduce universal registration was a costly and cataclysmic failure. As far as the New Zealand system is concerned, presuming we're discussing the register of B, C, D, E, F - by far the least numerous firearms in the country - how much does it cost exactly? 

Can you please define "very little"?

From what I've seen documented on this forum and others, the NZ firearm registry is often comically inaccurate. If we combined inspection periods even more so. I have not had my annual inspection since I've lived at my current residence, which is a number of years. I've even mentioned it to my arms officer more than once when I've processed P2Ps.

If the NZP cannot administer the existing system effectively, how can one expect them to administer one with universal registration - when there are thousands of already unregistered firearms out in the wild? I certainly wouldn't want my or anyone else's hard earned taxes being squandered addressing what is essentially a non-issue in the greater scheme of problems facing this country. 

I'd rather spend that money on my child's education or making sure that I'm not a burden on the health system or any number of other more tangible reasons.

As for South Africa - if you read my posts again carefully, I am referring to licensed firearm owners, registration, the non-effect it has on reducing firearm related crime in that country (or any country really) and the continued legislative push to introduce further firearm restrictions - in a country where poor and rich, need their firearms the most.

----------


## Savage1

I'm basing the 'very little' figure off of the number of staff employed by Police for the AO roles and how much of their time is spent dealing with this part of it.

I'm not for or against registration but some statements on here are just manifestly untrue, eg registration has no use, our registry is inaccurate(sure there are mistakes but overall it's pretty good), it will just be used to confiscate weapons, there is a government conspiracy, won't work because of all the guns out there already etc.

If you look at it pragmatically the issues are far from insurmountable, it's actually a very easy subject in which to play the devils advocate. People on forums have a tendency to only discuss with people on the same side of the fence with little or no opposition/challenges to arguments and Conformation Bias runs rife.

Overall I think registration would have only a minor benefit for the costs involved and that money would be better used targeting organised crime etc

----------


## canross

> How about supplying firearms to unlicenced or unendorsed people? Registration has been used to catch/prosecute people who've done that. I also know of a person who did it with A-Cat but since there was no registration nothing could be done about the 10+ AR15s that he'd bought in the last year and sold to his head hunter associates. 
> 
> Encouraging people to not speed doesn't work on everyone, why would this be any different?


When our long gun registry ended in Canada the gun control groups and liberal party (our current majority government and rabidly anti-gun creators of our current firearms act) claimed that this was going to happen. Ultimately it hasn't, and the few cases that have popped up have been tracked back to the stores they were bought from anyways. I accept that NZ isn't the same as Canada in terms of social and economic issues, however I would think Canada has a stronger criminal network as it's tied in with the drug trade through the US, and a far larger population, so it stands to reason if crime were to be a large issue, it would be so in Canada.




> encouraging people not to speed isnt effective because the public are wising up to the tax rort that it is. The arguments for the zealous enforcement are bullshit. 
> 
> Regisration of firearms is a joke, the sole purpose is to find out where they are prior to confiscation, as we have seen before.


Ultimately the confiscation issue is what caused our long gun registration to be ended in Canada. I was more or less ok with the system we had until our federal police started to change their interpretations of the law in order to seize different makes/models of firearms based on their new interpretations (IE It looks like an AK, therefore it is an AK, therefore it's prohibited and we're taking it or you're going to jail). When this started happening frequently the firearms community voted in the government of the time (conservatives, pro-gun) and ended the long gun registry, which was good timing considering our current gov is now working on legislation to ban the guns that were de-registered, as well as those still registered (pistols and full/converted autos).




> i have photos of all my firearms complete with serial numbers and distinguishing features (eg scratch on stock).
> sorry @SAVAGE i trust no department or agency with that info unless they were stolen


Added bonus - having clear specific photos also often helps insurance pay out on rare or unique firearms that would otherwise be hard to assess by the insurance company. 




> The *fact* is that its uses are infinitesimal compared to the astronomical monetary and administrative cost of implementing and running the system with any degree of accuracy. As has been borne out by Canada who dropped it and has one of the lowest firearm crime rates in the world and South Africa, who continues to implement it and well... **shrugs**


Interestingly Canada's crime rates, gun violence, homicide rates and suicide rates all kept declining at a consistent and unaffected rate since the 70's, through the 90's (when our firearms act came into effect) and through to today, some 5 years after the long gun registry was scrapped. Also our registry was, and remains to be, a colossal money hole. It seems to be stabilizing a bit now (27 years later), but it's been orders of magnitude over budget every year since it was created, and only started to vaguely operate correctly after the long gun registry was ended, reducing its load by 3/4 and retaining the same excess budget to run it... so in truth the system might have been functional with a budget 4 times larger, but even now it struggles along. Last number I saw was that it was supposed to cost 2 million per year to run but by 2002 it was $629 million over budget, after which time they stopped talking about it. Keep in mind the system frequently lost registry information, was riddled with errors, transfers took 3-12 weeks to process or were lost, and it's estimated that there was only a 40-60% compliance/registration rate.




> You're assuming that it is only possible by spending billions like Canada, when we have one running here that costs very little. South Africa's problems have little, if anything, to do with their firearm registration and is a ridiculous comparison.


It seems to me the gist of the conversation (now that it's not about E cat storage) is whether a registry is a good idea or not. At its core the question is: Will the government eventually decide to use the registry to force the surrender of private property, and am I ok with this?




> Let's be clear about what we're discussing - universal registration. Canada has registered firearms, New Zealand has registered firearms, South Africa has registered (all, except black powder) firearms.
> 
> It is not an assumption but an evidence based fact that Canada's attempt to introduce universal registration was a costly and cataclysmic failure. As far as the New Zealand system is concerned, presuming we're discussing the register of B, C, D, E, F - by far the least numerous firearms in the country - how much does it cost exactly? 
> 
> Can you please define "very little"?
> 
> From what I've seen documented on this forum and others, the NZ firearm registry is often comically inaccurate. If we combined inspection periods even more so. I have not had my annual inspection since I've lived at my current residence, which is a number of years. I've even mentioned it to my arms officer more than once when I've processed P2Ps.
> 
> If the NZP cannot administer the existing system effectively, how can one expect them to administer one with universal registration - when there are thousands of already unregistered firearms out in the wild? I certainly wouldn't want my or anyone else's hard earned taxes being squandered addressing what is essentially a non-issue in the greater scheme of problems facing this country. 
> ...


It sounds like NZ is approaching firearms control the same way Canada did - as a feel-good reaction to a non-existent problem. Guns are an easy target to legislate against, the average city person or member of the public only knows guns from movies and news reports, so in their mind guns can be found anywhere easily, the minute you pick one up you're instantly rambo, and that they compel you to start world war 3, so of course they support firearms control. By legislating against firearms the government addresses media sensationalism, and looks like it's doing something, all the while not actually having to do anything to get results. 

It seems that NZ has a semi functional system in place, and I don't know enough about it to really comment on what it is, but I can say that any attempt to implement a universal system like in Canada isn't going to work - it's too expensive and complicated, and even when our government threw money at ours for 25 years, it still didn't work, and has now been partially dismantled. Additionally, I don't consider it paranoid to dislike the idea of firearms being registered. I used to be ok with it, and then went through 10 years of the police arbitrarily changing the rules, and now am facing the prospect of the current majority government changing the rules yet again and banning most of the guns on the market today, including but not limited to, a ton of great hunting guns, because they look scary. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I understand the respect you guys have for the system and its purpose, but I also speak from experience when I say that it does not take much time at all for the laws to change. Not having a registry was the only thing that caused the police to rethink those laws, and is currently the only bargaining tool the firearms and hunting communities have now that there's an anti-gun government in power in Canada. As said above, the real question is: What are the *real* costs to society from not registering firearms?  Are you willing to accept that you, or your children will have their property confiscated now or later, in what is likely to be an ineffective and useless law aimed at making the public feel safe?

Anyways, I'm out. I realize I'm new to the forum and making more waves than is generally polite, so I'll avoid the politics for a bit.

----------


## systolic

> And how'd they get the serial number of said firearm?


Recorded during a security inspection when Winters relicensed.  Like my post said.

----------


## Jexla

> Recorded during a security inspection when Winters relicensed.  Like my post said.


Yes, I read it. But what good was that considering they didn't have the firearm from the scene?

----------


## Jexla

> Only if you consider anything but a 100% success rate a failure, which would be stupid.


That's my point...

Not everyone is going to register their firearms either, just like not everyone is going to record their firearm serials when largely encouraged. Also just like not everyone is going to not speed.
100% compliance will never happen with ANYTHING, but that doesn't make registration any more effective than personally recording your own serials which are then handed to police if stolen.

We're adults, not children and we're fed up all being treating like children because of the few people who act like children.

----------


## Danger Mouse

> That's my point...
> 
> Not everyone is going to register their firearms either, just like not everyone is going to record their firearm serials when largely encouraged. Also just like not everyone is going to not speed.
> 100% compliance will never happen with ANYTHING, but that doesn't make registration any more effective than personally recording your own serials which are then handed to police if stolen.
> 
> We're adults, not  criminals and we're fed up all being treating like criminals because of the few people who act like  criminals


fixed that for you.

----------


## Jexla

> fixed that for you.


Yeah that's exactly what I was saying ;P

----------


## Savage1

> That's my point...
> 
> Not everyone is going to register their firearms either, just like not everyone is going to record their firearm serials when largely encouraged. Also just like not everyone is going to not speed.
> 100% compliance will never happen with ANYTHING, but that doesn't make registration any more effective than personally recording your own serials which are then handed to police if stolen.
> 
> We're adults, not children and we're fed up all being treating like children because of the few people who act like children.


So just because there won't be 100% compliance doesn't make it pointless, I would think that registration compliance would be a lot higher than people that keep their own records up to date and available. Keeping your own records won't deter people from selling to nefarious people either.

If you believe you've been treated like a criminal by Police then I don't think you've ever been dealt with as a criminal by Police. I rarely deal with FAL holders as criminals, I often deal with adults who're acting like children and I do often see FAL holders acting/posting like children.

----------


## stretch

> So just because there won't be 100% compliance doesn't make it pointless, I would think that registration compliance would be a lot higher than people that keep their own records up to date and available. Keeping your own records won't deter people from selling to nefarious people either.


But is the cost and effort of setting-up/administering/maintaining a registry worth it to deter people from selling to nefarious people? Of all the ways crims can get hold of guns, what proportion come from naughty sales?

----------


## Savage1

> But is the cost and effort of setting-up/administering/maintaining a registry worth it to deter people from selling to nefarious people? Of all the ways crims can get hold of guns, what proportion come from naughty sales?


That's all unknowns really, I do think more come from 'naughty sales' than people think.

----------


## Sasquatch

What about customs checking 1 in 10 shipping containers or whatever it is. That's a joke. Surely that would contribute numbers to the black market?

As for claiming that the govt wouldn't bother to come get our guns - What if a future government put a total ban on MSSA's what resources do you think they will use to _track_ down where they are???

Lets face it  @Savage1 firearm registration sucks balls.

----------


## Jexla

> So just because there won't be 100% compliance doesn't make it pointless, I would think that registration compliance would be a lot higher than people that keep their own records up to date and available. Keeping your own records won't deter people from selling to nefarious people either.
> 
> If you believe you've been treated like a criminal by Police then I don't think you've ever been dealt with as a criminal by Police. I rarely deal with FAL holders as criminals, I often deal with adults who're acting like children and I do often see FAL holders acting/posting like children.


I'd disagree, I'd say more people would keep records of their own than would register all firearms. We could even make it a requirement that you keep records of serial numbers and have to give them to police in the event. Although this may deter people who haven't done so from reporting it which wouldn't be good.

So because I disagree with you I am acting/posting like a child? Get out of here, you're taking the piss now.

----------


## timattalon

> That's all unknowns really, I do think more come from 'naughty sales' than people think.


These "Naughty sales" raise another point. How many firearms "disappeared" when the MSSA came in? Or when Aussie did its major buy back / ban? From what I hear from a plumber from Oz that used to work where I work, that year he sold out of large diameter PVC and end caps as fast as he could source them. (Heresay I realise...), and pre MSSA rifles such as the mini 14 with the 30rnd mags, 10/22s with the bananas and SKS unaltered ones that were now only able to be sold to the black market as they could not be sold on the open market. 

If these laws were enacted PRIOR to these types of firearms entering the country then it would be workable (Whether it is right or wrong is not the point) but introducing a ban or change like this has several affects, 1) these firearms that are already here become harder to sell legitimately, and harder to buy legitimately 2) the price lowers for illegitimate sales as there is no longer legitimate sales point to compete with. For example, think in the early 90s when the SKS first hit the market at $299. They sold like hotcakes, cheap, reliable and cheap to feed with milsurp ammo. Then they change the rules to say 7 rounds only. Options spend $100 (or there about at the time) to modify it, spend $200 on an endorsement each year (pointless when you want a cheap rifle) or flick it off at $200 to "someone at the pub" who doesn't mind the problem.  While I do not know of any myself that vanished, I also only know of a few that were altered to A-cat. So how many SKS rifles made it to E cat, how many were imported and how many vanished? And was this what the law maker actually wanted to happen? (I guess No is that answer)

Final big question: Did this law change encourage less or more rifles went into criminal hands?

----------


## Savage1

@Jexla, the childish comment wasn't aimed at you or anybody else in particular, I actually think your style of post has somewhat improved lately but with a few still being unnecessarily obtuse, but I guess that's just your style.

The problem with your idea is that it doesn't discourage a FAL holder from buying legally and selling to unlicenced people, which would be one of the main goals of a database.

Decent firearms are actually worth more on the black market, paticulary amongst gangs who have huge amounts of cash available, pistols are 5-10k+. But yes if you're outside those circles it would be hard to get that kind of money for them.

As for your final question @timattalon I'm not sure anyone could answer that with any kind of certainty.

----------


## Beavis

Serious question regarding dodgy sales. Wiĺl registration deter gang members from selling off or having their guns stolen? If it is to get a patch or raise their status in the gang, are they gonna care if they get caught, especially with our wet bus ticket sentencing? Is their not something that can be addressed to prevent such people being deemed fit and proper?

----------


## 308

As per the Striesand effect*, I think a national registration will cause people to panic buy and stockpile A-cat "untraceable" firearms that will persist for a long time

Hell, there's still a few WW2 Luger pistols floating around that are totally illegal

Keep in mind that the tools we use as firearms owners can easily persist in a working state for nigh on a hundred years if properly maintained - my back-up bush gun has 1942 stamped on the side and will go for another 50+ years if I don't let it rust


Also, given police's track record on maintaining databases I flat out do not trust their competence or financial probity since the INCIS debacle - a national database will be too unwieldy, too leakable and probably poorly maintained and untimely in its updates or useability

Otherwise, a fuckin great idea



*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

----------


## Tommy

> @Jexla,
> The problem with your idea is that it doesn't discourage a FAL holder from buying legally and selling to unlicenced people, which would be one of the main goals of a database.
> 
> Decent firearms are actually worth more on the black market, paticulary amongst gangs who have huge amounts of cash available, pistols are 5-10k+. But yes if you're outside those circles it would be hard to get that kind of money for them.
> 
> .


Repercussions (such as prison and big fines)are the only deterrent to people who would do such a thing. The database would do nothing. The pool of black market firearms are where they would come from, if 60% compliance (what I've read Canada achieved after a quarter century), then at 40% of 3 million firearms, that's 1.2 million black market circulation. 

I still see no point in creating more bureaucracy that will do nothing to those who would flaunt it. Enforce the laws we already have.

----------


## Beavis

Another thing to consider, people speak as if we have a massive problem with gun crime, but other than inner city shit kickers robbing liquor stores, and drug dealers having a stash of guns, where are all the shootings? Yes there are probably a reasonable amount of guns in criminal hands but by far and large they seem to be sitting unused, not a direct threat to the public at large.

----------


## timattalon

> @Jexla, the childish comment wasn't aimed at you or anybody else in particular, I actually think your style of post has somewhat improved lately but with a few still being unnecessarily obtuse, but I guess that's just your style.
> 
> The problem with your idea is that it doesn't discourage a FAL holder from buying legally and selling to unlicenced people, which would be one of the main goals of a database.
> 
> Decent firearms are actually worth more on the black market, paticulary amongst gangs who have huge amounts of cash available, pistols are 5-10k+. But yes if you're outside those circles it would be hard to get that kind of money for them.
> 
> As for your final question @timattalon I'm not sure anyone could answer that with any kind of certainty.


That is, in part, my point. I see it as a potential unforeseen (but not unforeseeable) consequence of enacting those law changes.  I dont disagree that those changes were well intentioned, but I think the changes were made by people who did not have a complete understanding of firearms and the issues around them. A lot of these issues arise because of the lack of knowledge around firearms within the "anti-brigade" who are involved and refuse to understand because they "already know" everything.  It is called the "Backfire effect" and can be very difficult to overcome. https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06...ckfire-effect/

----------


## Sasquatch

I'd have to agree with what  @Beavis said, gun crime in NZ is so minuscule you would wonder why it's even talked about... But unfortunately due to hidden agendas behind the mass media and govt it seems to be frequently "hyped up" & sensationalized in the media and the Police Association. Reason being and scrutiny of FAL holders because of this is all guessing games.

Whether this all has a connection that ties to the UN civilian disarmament regime is probably no coincidence I might add.

----------


## Ryan

If there was a gang / general criminal related firearm problem that was as bad as the Police Association claims it to be, we'd be reading about countless gang members taking the room temperature challenge. They have not provided any statistical data to substantiate their claims.

Gang members do not want to engage in massive gunfights because it will attract police attention and in a country this small, even gang members aren't stupid enough to do that, particularly with the surveillance techniques, technology and legislation available to Police. If gang members have MSSA and pistols, does this not prove that registration doesn't work?

What then is the problem - and why are licensed firearm owners continually lined up for further "analysis" and "review" of firearm laws?

Let's see some statistics from Police which show:

1. Number of firearms stolen
2. Types of firearms stolen
3. Number of firearms recovered and can be connected to a crime (i.e. registered firearms)

Then I'll be happy to analyse the data and consider if - in my opinion - further legislation is required.

----------


## 308

And if the cops say that they can run the current system properly now, why are there so many delays to people getting export permits?

Why so many delays to people getting licenses and endorsements issued which is, after all, the most basic thing that they have to do?

The cops get their best compliance rates IMO on the back of licensed owners' goodwill and yet they seem to want to keep chipping away at said goodwill

----------


## Beavis

Couple of things that may be of interest

https://kiwigunblog.wordpress.com/20...e-gun-records/

https://kiwigunblog.wordpress.com/20...-registration/

----------


## Danger Mouse

> Couple of things that may be of interest
> 
> https://kiwigunblog.wordpress.com/20...e-gun-records/
> 
> https://kiwigunblog.wordpress.com/20...-registration/


And the police wonder why nz shooters have growing animosity to them?
Unbelievable.

----------


## Ryan



----------


## furstimer

Hey fellas, 

Don't mean to necro this thread but it was somewhat better than starting a new thead and hopefully we get away from the discussion that has dominated this thread. 

If I've a out-house or hobbies room as you call it, situated in front of the house with access via a lockable security door screen and a deadbolt door lock There is a rear door but it has a deadbolt door lock. The exterior is weather-board in construction with insulation in the roof and walls, covered by gypboard/plaster. The out-house is on a concrete pad with carpet. The overall size is rectangle with 4 windows with security latches installed and the room is an empty slate with nothing inside.  

My question is reading the room's description, how would I make it compliant (room of stout construction) for my E & B category firearms? I can install grilles on the inside of the windows. I can alarm the outhouse. I will fix my safe into the concrete floor. Should I put concrete blocks with steel mesh to strengthen the entire house or should I just build a strong room inside the outhouse with the required specs so its a room locked within a room and keep my costs lower? 

Cheers for reading I know its quite late!

----------


## 308

Sorry, is the outhouse attached to the house or standalone?

16mm steel bars every 200mm in each direction epoxied into the window frames should do the windows and the fattest grade of steel flooring mesh (the big sheets) on the walls with 18mm ply screwed over it on the interior should meet your requirements but before doing the work I'd strongly suggest going to your local Arms Officer and showing them some pics of what and where and how you plan to do it and get their buy-in so that they are more likely to say yes

Please keep us posted and put up pics as you go - good luck

----------


## furstimer

> Sorry, is the outhouse attached to the house or standalone?
> 
> 16mm steel bars every 200mm in each direction epoxied into the window frames should do the windows and the fattest grade of steel flooring mesh (the big sheets) on the walls with 18mm ply screwed over it on the interior should meet your requirements but before doing the work I'd strongly suggest going to your local Arms Officer and showing them some pics of what and where and how you plan to do it and get their buy-in so that they are more likely to say yes
> 
> Please keep us posted and put up pics as you go - good luck



Yes it a standalone outhouse by itself. Do I need to put flooring mesh on the ceiling as well? The roof is just a standard house roof with potential some space in the roof. Agree with going to see the AO but I figured I have a plan in mind so he knows I have given it some thought.

----------


## 308

I'd armour the ceiling same as the walls - there used to be a crew of burglars that specialized in gaining entry by peeling back a bit of the roofing..

----------


## furstimer

> I'd armour the ceiling same as the walls - there used to be a crew of burglars that specialized in gaining entry by peeling back a bit of the roofing..


Thanks mate. I see a potential issue with anchoring the safe to the wall i.e. not knowing where the studs might be since I didn't build the outhouse. Alternatively I could build a strong-room within the outhouse to save on total costs?

----------


## furstimer

The vetting officer came along tonight after giving me 10 mins prior notice to check my security (dont get me started on this). He was overall pleasant. 

Checked my security arrangements and then proceeded to ask where are my As which I advised - sorry not here! But the ones you need to check are here. In the end passed the inspection but was still trying to ask where my As were. :Wtfsmilie:

----------


## 308

Nosey bugger

It really is luck of the draw as to where in the country you are located that gives you good inspectors or bad

Wgtn one (here at least) is very chilled


Also your post has reminded me - I need to take pics of my latest firearms and copy them to a USB stick which I can store in my mates' safe so cheers for that

----------


## furstimer

> Nosey bugger
> 
> It really is luck of the draw as to where in the country you are located that gives you good inspectors or bad
> 
> Wgtn one (here at least) is very chilled
> 
> 
> Also your post has reminded me - I need to take pics of my latest firearms and copy them to a USB stick which I can store in my mates' safe so cheers for that


I am in Wgtn too... clearly YMMV

----------


## 10-Ring

> The vetting officer came along tonight after giving me 10 mins prior notice to check my security (dont get me started on this).....


You could have said that the time didn't suit you because of the short notice and arranged another time.

----------


## furstimer

> You could have said that the time didn't suit you because of the short notice and arranged another time.


I couldnt as the missus said yes and didn't know her ability to declining the visit. She has since been re-briefed on that.  :Have A Nice Day:  

Plus side - the room of stout construction has been approved so all the money spent hasn't been a waste.

----------

