# Hunting > Firearm Safety >  Secure Storage Requirements Police Consultation

## muzza

https://kiwigunblog.wordpress.com/20...e-of-firearms/

Everyone needs to read this and make a submission if they have any concerns.

Submissions close on the 1st of December this year so you only have  12 days to react.

Dont ignore this , please.

----------


## Marty Henry

Just read both versions as the league is dull at present. Might need to compare but there are differences that need a closer reading. Thanks for the heads up.

----------


## 223nut

So the rack I had put in for 'visitors' rifles when they come to stay no longer cuts it if they show up with a semi auto and I have to find room in my main safe..... And then let them know where the keys are if they show up when i'm at work?? Seems so much safer....  NOT  :Pissed Off: 

Whilst I approve of an increase in security measures, I can see where this could be going for semi auto rifles... Dont hold any endorsements but can see this will make it more difficult to get them in the future... (should get off my arse and do it now I guess) 

Can anyone else see that in the future ou will have to buy your safe off the police I ensure it meets their requirements.... Even though it would be 'legal'

----------


## Chilli_Dog

In the end of those under restricted weapons 33A (2) it says that Police can impose any condition they see fit to the use. Is that in current legislation?

----------


## systolic

> In the end of those under restricted weapons 33A (2) it says that Police can impose any condition they see fit to the use. Is that in current legislation?


No. It says military style semi-automatic firearms. Not restricted weapons.

----------


## muzza

if you have these concerns then you need to make a submission , in intelligent english. If you dont make your concerns known then you cant complain when we all get shafted

----------


## Chilli_Dog

> No. It says military style semi-automatic firearms. Not restricted weapons.


Ok, is that in  the current legistlation for MSSAs, and if you want to be pedantic about it pistols as well

----------


## systolic

> Ok, is that in  the current legistlation for MSSAs, and if you want to be pedantic about it pistols as well


Yes. It has been for years. It's the section where the cops can impose conditions on your endorsement like you can only use a MSSA on a range if they want. 

Conditions on endorsements for Pistols and Restricted Weapons are under a different section of the Arms Act. Section 32. (Which is printed right above the part you misread).

----------


## Russian 22.

A quick comparison online shows that nearly everything is different. But that includes the language used in the description paragraphs.

https://draftable.com/compare/sRRnQtdFkTAy

I have rear them but am at a bit of a loss as to what to say in my email other than that semi autos shouldn't be treated any differently than other firearms. 

Sent from my GT-I9506 using Tapatalk

----------


## Feral

Team, here's a raw rip down while I drank coffee this morning. Not complete, and only looks at the November Draft so far. *Don't copy and paste it verbatim, but use it to prompt your own ideas and individual responses...*

Although Police have sought consultation with the public, this consultation does not appear to be genuine, nor in good faith. The general firearms community has only become aware of this consultation through social media on or around 18 November 2017. As there is no date (only a month) posted on the Police web page advising of the consultation, it is difficult to determine how long the April and November draft documents have been available for review. With a close off date specified by Police of 1 Dec 17, this leaves only 11-12 days at most for the community to consider the documents, analyse the differences between current policy and each of the April and December drafts, seek legal advice on individual or collective community impacts, and respond accordingly. Further, the timeline for publishing the final version of the policy is specified on the Police website as being mid-December 2017. This explicitly states that there is Police intent to finalise draft documentation within two weeks of having closed off submissions from the public and firearms community. It is difficult to believe there is genuine intent to consider submissions in good faith, discuss concerns with the community, negotiate amendments or investigate alternatives to any areas of policy concern therein. In summary, both the consideration time available to the public, and the proposed finalisation date of this policy are unreasonable and not in good faith if genuine consultation and a quality, equitable policy is to be formulated. I request that NZ Police extend both milestones in order to demonstrate good faith and genuine consultation with the community.
Regarding the content and wording of the November 17 draft policy itself, there are many areas of concern I have, both in a more general sense, as well as pertaining to the attempt to codify specific security requirements. I have attempted to capture these points as best as possible, noting the policy formatting is not indexed with paragraph numbers or lettering to allow clear referral to specific aspects of the policy. For ease of tracking I have included my concerns as an enclosure to this letter in spreadsheet format.


1	The background text at the start of the document presents the policy as "guidelines".	 On this basis, it is understood that the policy proposes security requirements, but does not specify a mandatory requirement to comply under any legislative onus.	If these guidelines are to be legally binding for a licensee, the governing legislation should be cited in order to legitimise the policy, otherwise the policy will remain a collection of security "options".

2	"The background text at the start of the document specifies ""The New Zealand Police (the Police) administers the
provisions of the Act and delivers services and enforcement to meet the intent of the Act"""	This is not accurate. The Act and its Regulations do not contain the word "intent" anywhere. The use of the word intent implies Police can subjectively apply aspects of legislation. Law is law.	Remove "intent" wording and adhere to the police mandate of enforcing law as a police function under the Police Act 2008.

3	"Where materials, method of construction or locks do not comply with the Police published standards, remedial action is required to comply."	There is no requirement for a licensee to comply with any Police standards by law, only the legal requirements specified in the Act and regulations. Who determines what the remedial actions are and what any shortfalls are?	The only legal requirement by Police is to determine that a room is of stout construction / strong room / steel box,safe, cabinet etc as per the Arms Act or Regulations.

4	"Although the total security of the residence will be considered, racks will only be considered for approval in the following circumstances: 1. Used only for shotguns and bolt action rifles. 2. Not being used for the secure storage of centre-fire or rim-fire semi-automatic rifles. 3. When they are bolted to a solid floor and in a concealed location, such as a wardrobe which has a solid door with a strong locking mechanism. 4. When they are bolted to a reinforced roof strut or supporting beam in the roof cavity. 5. They are able to withstand violent pushing and tugging and not wobble, become loose or welded points becoming fatigued."	There is no legal basis for the Police to apply such limitations and further break down A Category firearms into sub-groups, no specify where in a residence weapons racks may or may not be installed, so long as they comply with the Act and Regulations.	Remove all Police-applied limitations to the installation of weapon racks in this draft policy.

5	Wooden cabinets must meet the standard of stout as applied by the. 	Definition of Stout or reference to governing law is missing.	Complete the sentence.

6	"The Police define stout as being able to withstand an attack by hand tools (not power tools) for at least ten minutes."	This is not a definition of Stout. Why is 10 minutes proposed as the defining time frame? An oxy torch is a hand tool, a thermic lance is a handtool. A jack is a hand tool. All of which will defeat even an e-cat safe in under ten minutes.	Remove the definition of Stout as being resistant to a 10 minute attack as it is meaningless and bears no outcome on whether firearms will be taken by a thief or not.

7	Although the total security of the residence will be considered, wooden cabinets will only be considered for approval in the following circumstances: 1. Only being used for shotguns and bolt action rifles. 2. Not being used for of centre-fire or rim-fire semi-automatic rifles. 3. When they are bolted to a solid floor and wall studs/dwangs and in a concealed location within the residence with the door leading to the room that they are of solid construction, with a strong locking mechanism 4. When they are bolted to a reinforced roof strut or supporting beam in the roof cavity. 5. When they are able to withstand violent pushing and togging and not wobble or become loose.	There is no legal basis for the Police to apply such limitations and further break down A Category firearms into sub-groups, no specify where in a residence weapons racks may or may not be installed, so long as they comply with the Act and Regulations.	Remove all Police-applied limitations to the installation of wooden containers of stout construction in this draft policy.

8	Regarding Steel safes or containers: "Fixed to the building on two surfaces with at least 6 mm fasteners and fastened to a rigid surface or support such as concrete, brick or through plaster board to a stud or dwang. Fasteners of 6mm x 75mm long will ensure at least 50mm of thread is engaged in the rigid support. Use heavy gauge coach screws anchored by at least 50mm and a large washer placed under each coach screw head into the framing. If secured into concrete, use similar gauge chemical or expanding bolts. Floor fixing to a wooden floor must be completely through the floor. The bolts will require a stout backing plate or sufficiently large washers to prevent them from being pulled through the floor"	"Why should a safe or steel container need to be fixed to two surfaces? This does not necessarily increase strength of attachments and is not always possible in rented premises, where getting permission to secure to the floor alone can be problematic for those who are not owner-occupiers. 

"	"Amend to specify fastening to the floor alone as an aceptable standard of fixing (eg four ppoints of attachement to the floor alone rather than say two to the floor and two to the wall.

"
9	The policy proposes transition dates to move away from racks and wooden storage for non-endorsed and semi-automatic weapons.	This is not in accordance with the Act or Regulations which by law permits the storage of firearms in such arrangements.	Remove an Police-initiated policy restrictions on wooden containers and metal racks. No transition plan is required as a result.

10	That the steel is Xmm thick	It is impossible to comment on a specification that is yet to be determined.	Complete the specification proposal so it may be commented on.

11	RECEIPT DETACH RECEIPT AND PLACE IN APPLICANTS FILE APPLICANT DETAILS Surname Forename(s) Preferred name Date of birth / / I acknowledge receipt from the New Zealand Police of a copy of "SECURITY CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR FIREARMS LICENCES AND ENDORSEMENTS" (Police Form POL67N). I understand that the Police may revoke the licence or endorsement(s) if I fail to observe any of the conditions imposed by the Arms Act 1983, the Arms Regulations 1992 and the New Zealand Police as set out in the document. I further understand that my security precautions must be inspected and approved by a member of the police before I can receive my firearms licence or possess any firearm, military style semi-automatic firearm, pistol, or restricted weapon. Licence holders signature Date Witnessed by Licensing Vetting Officer / Police Employee name Signature Designation QID Date	There is a receipt for that is attached to the rear of the policy which a licensee is required to sign to acknowledge the policy and the law.	Remove as there is no legal requirement for a licensee to acknowledge police policy or law by signature, only to comply with the law.

12	There is no mention of storage of firearms in NZDF armouries. It is current PNHQ policy that a member of NZDF is not permitted to store MSSA in an NZDF armoury unless living in barracks (confirmed by local AO in consultation with PNHQ in 2016). Yet an NZDF armoury is presumably a higher security standard than any average private residence. What about when NZDF personnel deploy overseas? Allow NZDF personnel to secure B,C and E category firearms in NZDF armouries.

----------


## stretch

Police draft document references British Standard 7558, yet they do not provide that document for our reading.

It's available online for £50 https://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDet...00000000264031 or $NZ262 https://shop.standards.govt.nz/catal...2%28BS%29/view.

Not helpful when you're given 11 days to provide feedback. Do the police expect every respondent to buy their own copy of the standard?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

----------


## keneff

Great stuff @Feral. Musta been a helluva coffee. A bucket of it?

----------


## Feral

https://www.standards.govt.nz/assets...egislation.pdf

From MBIE (Standards NZ): _A standard is not, of itself, mandatory or legally required. A standard has to be incorporated by reference in an Act or delegated legislation in order to be mandatory. Once referenced it becomes part of the technical regulation framework._ Ie there is no way Police can make it mandatory to conform to the British Standard because it is not legislated.

When incorporating a standard by reference, regulators should ensure that:
	 the standards technical content is fully understood and aligned to policy objectives
	 the standard is publicly available at the time of incorporation by reference
	 there is a clear distinction between the mandatory (normative) content of a standard which does have
legal effect, and guidelines or explanatory (informative) content which do not have legal effect1
	 the standard can be complied with in New Zealand, and any specified tests can be done by
testing facilities that have been accredited under the International Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation (ILAC) Arrangement.2 In New Zealand the organisation that participates on ILAC is
International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ)3
	 the standard is held by the regulator in the form of a signed hard copy, as evidence of
incorporation.
Standards can be:
	 referenced in Acts or Regulations as legally mandatory
	 referenced in Acts or Regulations as acceptable solutions or means of compliance. This
ensures compliance with legislation but does not prevent the use of an alternative method,
provided it meets the specified legislative criteria
	 used by a government agency to detail a required condition of contract with an external supplier
	 incorporated into non-regulatory material as examples of best practice or guidance for industry
	 employed as a means of compliance with industry regulation, for example, specifying
requirements for audit certification
	 promoted as a means of dealing with legal liability issues. For example, compliance with various
risk management standards may be cited in court as proof that all reasonable steps were taken.

----------


## Feral

> Great stuff @Feral. Musta been a helluva coffee. A bucket of it?


Nah I get paid to do this sort of technical policy stuff. This was just a quick hack tho, not comprehensive or legally referenced.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

----------


## keneff

> https://kiwigunblog.wordpress.com/20...e-of-firearms/
> 
> Everyone needs to read this and make a submission if they have any concerns.
> 
> Submissions close on the 1st of December this year so you only have  12 days to react.
> 
> Dont ignore this , please.


My main concern is that NZ Police seem to be able to change rules, move goalposts and fuck their fellow citizens around, with impunity. O'Connor once stated on TV, that the Police are "the intimidation arm, The enforcement arm, of Government." What happened to the separation of the police and government. Soon Police will be governing the Government, furthering The Police Association's goal of making NZ a police state, like mother England. Or Cousin Australia. Our politicians don't seem to mind too much.

----------


## Feral

I think the real issue starts with Police strategy around making Kiwi's "Feel" safe. This is vastly different to being safe, is subjective and impossible to quantify / measure. This leads the organisation down a line of implementing policy and policing practices which are aimed at winning popular support rather than focusing on the key underlying threats to safety. Ie deal with symptoms rather than illnesses. They are underresourced so I believe they are probably doing their best...well, trying to. But as an organisation it seems there are underperforming individuals who are rushing through changes to Policy which actually steps outside the lawful remit of the Police. Ie, policy which goes against legislation. The comment about underperforming individuals is targeted at those in the organisation who are letting this sort of stuff out into the public domain without due diligence being done on the work. This document wouldn't even get printed or socialised where I work because it is so flawed. It doesn't even appear to have been legally reviewed! It is a real embarrassment to their organisation and to those individuals who have approved putting this out in the public domain. It really is rookie material.

----------


## Chilli_Dog

> Yes. It has been for years. It's the section where the cops can impose conditions on your endorsement like you can only use a MSSA on a range if they want. 
> 
> Conditions on endorsements for Pistols and Restricted Weapons are under a different section of the Arms Act. Section 32. (Which is printed right above the part you misread).


I didnt miss read it I miss wrote it, difference

----------


## Walker

I've also alerted Mr. Mark to this, including a link, with the comment about the police up holding the law not side stepping parliment and its authority so hopefully that should get attention.

----------


## Feral

> @Feral you seem switched on to this how about coming up with a letter as you wrote that could be sent with a list of us that object to what and how they are going about this.some how have some way of us computer dum asses can click on it to add our support so they can see the number of us who object to this.


Will give it a couple more days to see what COLFO announces.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

----------


## keneff

> Nah I get paid to do this sort of technical policy stuff. This was just a quick hack tho, not comprehensive or legally referenced.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Okay, but thanks for doing it and providing perspective. Keep that coffee going, Mate  :Wink:

----------


## timattalon

The irony I found was that it seems to have been snuck through with very little attempt to get feedback and yet n the same page we found this....
_
Police's commitment to strengthening communication with the firearms community

Following release of the Government’s response to the Law and Order Select Committee’s Report on issues relating to the illegal possession of firearms, the Police Executive is taking further steps to deliver stronger consultative and decision-making processes regarding our administration of the Arms Act.

In keeping with the Government’s recommendations, we acknowledge we need to be more responsive in consulting with the Firearms Community Forum and the wider firearms community.

As a result, we have introduced a new governance structure that provides greater oversight and direction of firearms related matters.

A new Arms Act Service Delivery Group, incorporating the Arms Control Unit and the Arms Safety Control Project is in the process of being established to lead this work. This new Group  will report directly to the Police Executive and be focused on improving administrative efficiency and strengthening communications and consultative processes. It will take some time to get this group fully functioning.

In the interim the work already in progress will continue, and we will continue to consult with the Forum as an important conduit between Police and the firearms community.
_
Theres a Tui ad right there.....!!!!!

----------


## Walker

A comment on another forum has also mentioned that those forms, which you'll have to sign, are a contract, so any breeches and your license is gone without due process. It appears they are looking for loop holes to do what they want without having to obay the actual act's.

----------


## imaca

This 'contract' is pretty dam offensive, effectively trying to use commercial law to give them a legal mandate.  Licensed firearms owners are by nature a law abiding lot and it is irksome when the very body that is supposed to uphold the law is simply gaming it

Is anyone aware if any other police contract where they try to do a similar thing?  

Cheers
Mac

----------


## Ryan

> Yes. It has been for years. It's the section where the cops can impose conditions on your endorsement like you can only use a MSSA on a range if they want. 
> 
> Conditions on endorsements for Pistols and Restricted Weapons are under a different section of the Arms Act. Section 32. (Which is printed right above the part you misread).


Holy shit, Rushy actually liked something.

----------


## Maca49

Probably forgot what he was going to say! :Wink:

----------


## timattalon

One thing to note.

All pistols are currently tightly controlled and restricted and REGISTERED. How did this stop a Taxi driver in Wellington being shot with a pistol? Police should have solved that already as the pistol will be registered??????

----------


## JWB

> One thing to note.
> 
> All pistols are currently tightly controlled and restricted and REGISTERED. How did this stop a Taxi driver in Wellington being shot with a pistol? Police should have solved that already as the pistol will be registered??????


How dare you bring irony and common sense to this forum? You'll just confuse most of the readers.
As a side note to Feral, when you're next having a coffee, ponder as to how police will know what you intend to store in your safe, when you have no intention of telling them? Does this proposed policy's acceptance mean that police will be able to compile their much desired, illegal register as a condition of your security inspection?

----------


## timattalon

> How dare you bring irony and common sense to this forum? You'll just confuse most of the readers.
> As a side note to Feral, when you're next having a coffee, ponder as to how police will know what you intend to store in your safe, when you have no intention of telling them? Does this proposed policy's acceptance mean that police will be able to compile their much desired, illegal register as a condition of your security inspection?


You cannot use common sense with Police Hierarchy....clearly they have no comprehension of such a philosophical concept.....Its as big a challenge as honesty or communicating clearly with the public. And Logic has no place there....

----------


## Marty Henry

Or putting it another way"dont confuse them with facts there minds are made up"

----------


## Savage1

> How dare you bring irony and common sense to this forum? You'll just confuse most of the readers.
> As a side note to Feral, when you're next having a coffee, ponder as to how police will know what you intend to store in your safe, when you have no intention of telling them? Does this proposed policy's acceptance mean that police will be able to compile their much desired, illegal register as a condition of your security inspection?


Actually, to imply that a single thing like registration would prevent every gun crime or solve every one lacks common sense, and just shows a silly strawman argument being put forward in an attempt to discredit an idea. It in fact shows a complete lack of common sense or logic.

If it was in fact committed with a registered pistol and not a modified A-Cat then it would be a pretty good piece of evidence if the projectiles were recovered.

----------


## muzza

Important -

The email address supplied by NZ Police for submitting your response is WRONG. Should we be surprised at that I wonder.... ?

The correct email address is     secure-storage-firearms@police.govt.nz.

The earlier one supplied had commas between police and co and govt.

I will leave it to your call as whether this was a deliberate ploy to reduce the number of submissions ......

check here for details  https://www.facebook.com/kiwigunblog/

----------


## Nickoli

> Actually, to imply that a single thing like registration would prevent every gun crime or solve every one lacks common sense, and just shows a silly strawman argument being put forward in an attempt to discredit an idea. It in fact shows a complete lack of common sense or logic.
> 
> If it was in fact committed with a registered pistol and not a modified A-Cat then it would be a pretty good piece of evidence if the projectiles were recovered.


Mate, I respect your opinion; and appreciate you need to tow the party line - I even accept that that "registration will not prevent all gun crime" is actually a straw-man argument....
The problem that I do have, is that there is a non-sequitur argument being pursued by the Police - the proposed changes will not target the problem: criminals will continue to obtain firearms through any means until the incentive is skewed the other way. They don't care about serial numbers or other identifying features and will "modify" a firearm as they see fit.
Chris Cahill (O'connor before him...) and others within the Police have seriously eroded any credibility, respect or relationship with some of the most vetted people (FAL holders) in the country. There is no reason to trust the Police given the track record of late. 
I accept that there are changes required to the security of A-Cat firearms.... but it has to be lawful.... and it would be better to consult in good faith - something that the hierarchy appear to have forgotten. I appreciate you trying to defend the indefensible - but the approach being taken is seriously flawed....

----------


## Beavis

That is really the main issue here. We can have a discussion on security. But giving us less than a week to make submissions (and really why the hell are we making submissions to the police?! They don't make regulations), and trying to, again, bend the law around A cat semi autos, and proposing to make license applicants sign a contract of dubious legality... they clearly don't have any respect for due process and it is becoming increasingly concerning. It is sad to see the relationship between shooters and police deteriorate so rapidly.

----------


## Nickoli

> That is really the main issue here. We can have a discussion on security. But giving us less than a week to make submissions (and really why the hell are we making submissions to the police?! They don't make regulations), and trying to, again, bend the law around A cat semi autos, and proposing to make license applicants sign a contract of dubious legality... they clearly don't have any respect for due process and it is becoming increasingly concerning. It is sad to see the relationship between shooters and police deteriorate so rapidly.


...the other part of what I was trying to say.... :O O:

----------


## JWB

> I accept that there are changes required to the security of A-Cat firearms.....


There is the problem! The gun haters have already won. Through ignorance and stupidity you have joined the enemy if the changes that you accept are required, are anything other than the repeal of the 1992 amendment.
Locking up your valuables does not lower the crime rate, make society safer, or make your valuables less desirable to thieves. 
The victim of a burglary, has not created a criminal being though failing to prevent theft. To prevent theft, one would have to abolish property, should you wish to continue along that line of thought. Oh!, right, lead on to universal registration and confiscation, because in that fantasyland there are no firearms left to steal.

----------


## Nickoli

> There is the problem! The gun haters have already won. Through ignorance and stupidity you have joined the enemy if the changes that you accept are required, are anything other than the repeal of the 1992 amendment.
> Locking up your valuables does not lower the crime rate, make society safer, or make your valuables less desirable to thieves. 
> The victim of a burglary, has not created a criminal being though failing to prevent theft. To prevent theft, one would have to abolish property, should you wish to continue along that line of thought. Oh!, right, lead on to universal registration and confiscation, because in that fantasyland there are no firearms left to steal.


True, and I'm not going to argue with this - but I have seen some abysmal security signed off as acceptable and when those same people have a sh!tload of money tied up in a single rifle - why would you not try your best to ensure it as hard as possible to steal....
The onus always has to be on the thief/unlawful....perhaps if we had a robust deterrent, these scumbags would only rummage through your wife's underwear drawer because the disincentive to steal firearms would be too great...if only...

----------


## Sasquatch

Once the submissions are in and lets say they are _ignored_ then what? I along with other endorsed members of society will not be constructing a strong room around my safe and I don't expect acat FAL holders who own semi's to change their current setup either - Why should we?

It's not in the act so therefore any "policy" implemented from here on out is unlawful.

----------


## Beavis

I wouldn't sign that poxy contract

----------


## Steve123

What concerns me is that I only found out about this shit through social media.
It would have been sensible for them to consult with shooting clubs before pulling this shit.

----------


## Jexla

> What concerns me is that I only found out about this shit through social media.
> It would have been sensible for them to consult with shooting clubs before pulling this shit.


No it wouldn't because then people would have time to submit.
I'm glad some of you are asking the right questions, why the hell are we submitting to the police? They're not legislators.
I thank you guys for passing on info to the forum from social media, sometimes I get too busy to get on the forums  :Sad:

----------


## Danny

I'm just greatfull I've sold all my rifles now. 
Whew.

Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk

----------


## Savage1

I actually worded that post quite poorly, I think I was running on two hours sleep, two more than I'm running on now.

I'm neither for nor against registration, it does seem to be doing a good job with BCE cat weapons however I'm not sold on it being worth it for the A cats.

I'm not towing any party line, I just can't stand people putting out stupid strawman arguments which are easily debunked, they do more harm for their cause and will never convince a reasonable person.

I just read the proposed policy, I don't really care about the A-cat stuff, I think a steel cabinet should be the minimum anyway. Surely they aren't trying to misrepresent S28 of the Arms Regulations 1992 though?! That's pretty clear cut, I'm not building a strong room.

----------


## gonetropo

> I actually worded that post quite poorly, I think I was running on two hours sleep, two more than I'm running on now.
> 
> I'm neither for nor against registration, it does seem to be doing a good job with BCE cat weapons however I'm not sold on it being worth it for the A cats.
> 
> I'm not towing any party line, I just can't stand people putting out stupid strawman arguments which are easily debunked, they do more harm for their cause and will never convince a reasonable person.
> 
> I just read the proposed policy, I don't really care about the A-cat stuff, I think a steel cabinet should be the minimum anyway. Surely they aren't trying to misrepresent S28 of the Arms Regulations 1992 though?! That's pretty clear cut, I'm not building a strong room.


a light steel cabinet lined with mdf or play is damn nasty to break into, or vice versa a mdf cabinet lined with light steel. the dissimilar types of materials involve make entry harder

----------


## Danger Mouse

> What concerns me is that I only found out about this shit through social media.
> It would have been sensible for them to consult with shooting clubs before pulling this shit.



You misinterpret their motives. Pulling this shit at the last minute and the constant change is done to fuck you around and be difficult to be challenged.

Why do you think this is a draft? Oh no your honor it's a draft that isn't in place yet.

----------


## Pengy

They haven't even managed to roll out the rules around mail order stuff yet, so this new storage issue is a joke.
Case in point. Friend bought bulk amo on TM, filled in police form and returned it to cop shop. Desk officer reads form and tells him he has not put serial numbers down. WTF
He points out that it is amo, not a firearm. Officer says ok, and gives him the form back. He politely informs the police that they have to email the seller the form under the new(ish) rules. Not one person in the station at that time had a clue about it.

----------


## imaca

Has anyone had a response back from the email address?  Yes I used the correct one but how hard is it to set up an auto response so that at least you know it is sitting in their in-box?

----------


## gonetropo

> Has anyone had a response back from the email address?  Yes I used the correct one but how hard is it to set up an auto response so that at least you know it is sitting in their in-box?


i sent letters (c/w read receipt required) not a single reply.

----------


## gonetropo

Pretty much the state of NZ

----------


## Jexla

Here's a quick explanation of my recent experience with trying to import an AR15 gas block for an A category rifle with police.

To whom it may concern.

I'd like to know why I was forced to apply for an import permit for an a category part with the reason to import being it is for an a category firearm when there is no mandate in the legislation to require that. In fact the police website specifically says:  "There is no provision for Police to issue a permit to import for components of firearms, other than those that fall within the definition of ‘part’ above.".
This item that is being held in customs is a gas block which cannot be described as a 'part' as defined in section 2 of the Arms Act 1983.

Thank you,

Jexla



Good Afternoon Jexla,

Thank you for your email.

The gas block is manufactured as an MSSA part and therefore you need to apply for a permit as required pursuant to section 18 of the Arms Act 1983. The importation of this part without a permit is an offence against section 16 of the Arms Act 1983 and a person is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding $2000 or to both.

Hence you are required to apply for a permit to import this part as it is an MSSA part.
Your application will be processed in the normal manner.

Kind Regards,

Tim



So apparently my gas block was manufacture as an MSSA part in a country that has no legal definition of an MSSA.
Ask yourself this, where does it end? 

Barrels? Gas tubes? Handguards? Roll pins?

----------


## stretch

That's why I import "pressure regulators" instead of gas blocks.

----------


## Jexla

> That's why I import "pressure regulators" instead of gas blocks.


Haven't noticed that option on brownells website?

----------


## Beavis

I skim read both the documents last night, I didn't read it as though you would need to have your E cat safe inside of a strong room? Maybe I was too tired

----------


## Jexla

> I skim read both the documents last night, I didn't read it as though you would need to have your E cat safe inside of a strong room? Maybe I was too tired


Defs doesn't say that. The only real changes are the separation of semi's having their own storage requirements vs other action types available on a cat.

----------


## Savage1

> Endorsed Firearms Security Checklist
> 
> The Police consider that there are two requirements involved in Regulation 28 of the Arms
> Regulations (1992), for securing endorsed firearms (category B, C & E): a strong room or a
> room of stout and secure construction, and steel safe, box or cabinet.


http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/defa...age-policy.pdf

Am I misreading this? To me it reads that you need both a steel cabinet and a strong room/stout construction, I'm happy to be wrong, I sucked at English at school.

----------


## Beavis

> http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/defa...age-policy.pdf
> 
> Am I misreading this? To me it reads that you need both a steel cabinet and a strong room/stout construction, I'm happy to be wrong, I sucked at English at school.


Yea reading that implies that there are indeed two requirements - hopefully I am wrong or they have chosen words poorly. I have always looked at it as, you keep your pistols etc in an approved steel box/safe _or_ in a strong room, not and.

----------


## Savage1

Yeah, Section 28 of the Arms Regulations is quite clear, the Police will get a spanking in court if they try that on.

----------


## systolic

.

----------


## Sasquatch

Bet me to it @Savage1 - That's how I read it should be or not and

----------


## Jexla

"...a strong room or a
room of stout and secure construction, and steel safe, box or cabinet."

Strong room being just that, something built to high and strong specs.

"OR A"

'Room of stout and secure construction (in a safe)" Meaning a secured garage (or house), not a small tin shed from mitre 10 with no decent lock on the door, that has an E cat safe in it.

----------


## Cordite

So, had some time today and jotted down some my feedback.  Thank you, @muzza for drawing attention to this.

[My Name and letters after my name, address, email etc]

November 24, 2017

For attention of 
Committee on Firearm Secure Storage Policy
New Zealand Police 
By email: secure-storage-firearms@police.govt.nz


Dear Madam, Dear Sir,

*Re: Invited Feedback on November 2017 Draft Firearm Secure Storage Policy
*
Thank you for your invitation to feed back on the draft proposal for Secure Firearm Storage. 

I am a FAL holder (A-cat) and mainly enjoy target shooting.  I own only bolt-action rifles and keep these in a safe so proposed changes in the draft document leave me with no personal axe to grind, apart from a shared interest in public safety.

It is my view that a secure storage policy should be simple, explicit and effective, to both prevent child and criminal access to working firearms, which also means that it should not impose ineffective burdens on firearms owners.

That said, once someone has been identified in advance by a motivated thief as a firearms owner, there is a substantial risk that any reasonable level of security will be defeated.  Meaningful security against targeted gun theft is thus chiefly through obscurity... but rules forcing gun owners to equip homes with security worthy of a drug dealer's pad may invite unwanted attention.

Points that I wish to draw your attention to are as follows:


*3.7 Doors of Buildings.
*===================

Size 12 boots and a walking kick can overcome many a door constructed according to requirements listed.  It is a waste of resources to specify strengthening of areas less prone to failure.  Better to simplify door requirements. while addressing one weak area of most door assemblies: the superficially anchored lock strike plate.  Simply specify that

  "The lock strike plate must be secured with at least two 5mm diameter steel screws of at least 120mm length."

This cheap, easy and effective increase in security also has the advantage of invisibility.

A simple example of it being applied to a domestic dwelling door:  
Burglar Proof Your Doors - Striker Plate Failure - Kick In Door Burglaries Tip 



A graphic testing performed by a helpful US Police Department SWAT team:
Inexpensive and Effective Door Security 





*3.7 Windows of Buildings.
*=====================

Steel bars on the face of it seem to increase security, after all, they are used in prisons aren't they?  But requiring steel bars on windows can also be counterproductive by forcing firearms owners to invite trouble upon themselves.  It will advertise to thieves that something extra is stored behind the bars... and in New Zealand that is most likely restricted firearms!  Invisible security is surely desirable in order to avoid targeted firearms theft.

Having windows locked, by key or permanent screws is a useful, practical (and inconspicuous!) defense.  Burglars do not like having to pick out all broken glass before pushing their bodies through a hole.  Aside from a personal risk of leaving some glass and cutting themselves, it also adds a significant delay which increases discovery risk.  Double glazing, now standard in NZ dwellings, makes ingress through a smashed but still unopenable window even less likely as two panes need to get broken resulting in twice the noise and twice as much glass to clear out.


*Rack Specifications (pages 3 and 4) * 
=============================
"1. Used only for shotguns and bolt action rifles. 2. Not being used for the secure storage of centrefire or rimfire semiautomatic rifles."

Two separate implicit issues:

(a) An assumption that racks are LESS secure than a locked sturdy cupboard / safe, which is generally true.  That does not necessarily mean that racks are insecure.

(b) The idea that shotguns (presumably including semi-autos and pump actions) and bolt action rifles somehow need less secure storage than semi-auto rifles is, on the face of it, insane.  ANY firearm accessed without permission by a child, or possessed by a person not "fit and proper" is unacceptable.  It may be insensitive to ask any Police Officer or shop owner who have had a presumed-loaded firearm pointed at them if the firearm type made any difference!

Criminals may possibly have a "wow!" feeling about semi automatic firearms, but such excitement is irrelevant as it will be felt upon encountering the guns during a burglary, but they are unlikely to know in advance what they will find (NB comment above re steel bars advertising the presence of restricted firearms).  Such criminal preference (if it indeed exists) is a separate issue to the notion of levels of dangerousness of different firearms.

Regarding a higher relative risk from certain firearm types, consider:

  - For single murders and mass murders most guns can do, and have done.  They must all be stored safely.

  - A bullet fired from a full bore centrefire rifle can kill or injure through a thick tree trunk, through a car body, through a brick wall, through most body armour, and from hundreds of metres away.  They are potentially dangerous devices and must be stored equally securely irrespective of whether their barrels are attached to a pump- lever- bolt- or semi-automatic action.

  - In New Zealand the legal restriction on magazine capacity has rendered A-cat semi-autos on a par with manual repeating rifles in their overall rate of fire.  Bolt, pump and lever action repeating rifles and shotguns may have a slower rate of fire than an autoloader, but that does not mean they have "slow" rates of fire!  The British Empire was slow to adopt a semi-automatic rifle as it already had a fast bolt action rifle, and thousands of these .303s went into NZ private ownership post-war.  There is constantly half a dozen .303s up for sale on TradeMe for $75 upwards, known as "deer guns". This is the most ubiquitous bolt action rifle in NZ, has terrifying potential and must be stored as securely as A-cat autoloaders.

Dangerousness grading of different A-cat firearms is uninformed fantasy at best, at worst passive aggression, and risks resentment and loss of the respect most firearms owners have for NZ Police.  Much better to just come out and declare, "Racks are not good enough!"  Some may disagree with such a statement, but at least a rational debate can be had over that one.


*Receipt - Page 13.
*===============

The way this is worded makes the signatory enter into a civil contract with the NZ Police, rendering police guidance in the document a binding obligation, something which is above and beyond current legislation.  If that is the intent, that is improper as NZ Police should not usurp the role of the NZ legislature.

That said, it is a reasonable practice to request someone to sign for having read a document and to confirm that they have had a chance to ask for clarification about anything not understood.


*On the "separate" keeping of ammunition / essential working parts of guns  - several references through document.
*==================================================  =========

Security can become an imposing financial barrier on prospective participants in the shooting sports, an obvious example being of renters (of whom we have more and more) who may have difficulty getting permission to install higher security safes, etc.  Some expensive steps may add little to security, yet other inexpensive steps can add significant gains.

One step is DISTANCE.  This can be included simply by NZ Police interpreting the "SEPARATE" storage of parts including ammunition, magazines, bolts to mean "IN A SEPARATE ROOM" in addition to usual storage requirements.  So, if a gun safe is in the cellar, bolt and ammunition must then be stored in a suitable storage either in the house or the garage.  If a gun safe/rack is in the bedroom, the bolt/ammunition is in the laundry, etc.  Such separation would significantly add to public security, at no significant extra cost and with only minor inconvenience to gun owners.  Separating working parts between rooms would also implicitly affirm the ethos that firearms ownership is not intended as a means of self-defense.

Thank you for noting my submissions.

Yours sincerely,

[double-base spaghetti]

----------


## 308

double base spaghetti?

----------


## Marty Henry

> http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/defa...age-policy.pdf
> 
> Am I misreading this? To me it reads that you need both a steel cabinet and a strong room/stout construction, I'm happy to be wrong, I sucked at English at school.


Also look at the grammer "police is required to" on two occasions, incomplete sentences, poor sentence structure, reference to items that are not included for reference etc. It this was an english NCEA answer it would get a fail.

----------


## Maca49

What thoughts are there on letting " contractors" come into your house to check you security? I don't like anyone apart from a bonifide employee, under the control of the AO visiting. What security check will be in place with a "contractor"?like,  Amour guard? Normal security companies? Nope I don't think that's right?

----------


## timattalon

> What thoughts are there on letting " contractors" come into your house to check you security? I don't like anyone apart from a bonifide employee, under the control of the AO visiting. What security check will be in place with a "contractor"?like,  Amour guard? Normal security companies? Nope I don't think that's right?


Contractors that have done this that I met here were both ex police officers doing this part / full time in "retirement". Not sure if this is the same around the country. After having a friendly chat with one, it sounds like (but I could be mistaken) that they are considered contractors as they get paid by the inspection. I am reasonably comfortable that these "contractors" are pretty well vetted by the arms officer or Police for the job at hand. I now here that they report back directly to the Arms officer.

----------


## Maca49

Yes agree with what we have now, but I read “contractors” now as something different?

----------


## muzza

Just dont procrastinate with your submissions , folks. Time is running out .

Interestingly COLFO appears to be keeping a low profile on its efforts in this direction , I hope they have some usefull input  despite not informing us of it . I may be wrong , of course....

----------


## 308

My inspector is ex AOS






> Contractors that have done this that I met here were both ex police officers doing this part / full time in "retirement". Not sure if this is the same around the country. After having a friendly chat with one, it sounds like (but I could be mistaken) that they are considered contractors as they get paid by the inspection. I am reasonably comfortable that these "contractors" are pretty well vetted by the arms officer or Police for the job at hand. I now here that they report back directly to the Arms officer.

----------


## Cordite

> double base spaghetti?


 @308

Look at my avatar pic.  (-:=

----------


## Cordite

> a light steel cabinet lined with mdf or play is damn nasty to break into, or vice versa a mdf cabinet lined with light steel. the dissimilar types of materials involve make entry harder


 @gonetropo

Maybe you should write in and submit a suggestion that A-cat safes have to be lined with at least 3mm MDF.  Still need to get round to doing that myself.

----------


## Steve123

My security is a metal safe 2mm walls and 3mm 
door. Ammo and bolts are stored separately in a locked cabinet. The location is covered by an alarm sensor and is not obvious. This is allowed in the arms act and is more than the minimum.

Sent from my SM-G388F using Tapatalk

----------


## 10-Ring

> Contractors that have done this that I met here were both ex police officers doing this part / full time in "retirement". Not sure if this is the same around the country. After having a friendly chat with one, it sounds like (but I could be mistaken) that they are considered contractors as they get paid by the inspection. I am reasonably comfortable that these "contractors" are pretty well vetted by the arms officer or Police for the job at hand. I now here that they report back directly to the Arms officer.


Firearms Licensing Vettors are not contractors as such but police casual employees and defined as members of the police under the Arms Act 1983 with reference to the Policing Act 2008 (without constabulary powers) - a non sworn authorised officer. Such employees are usually ex police officers; however, not all are. All Firearms Licensing Vettors are extensively vetted by the police prior to employment. They come under the direct control of the Arms Officer in their area. 

In some more remote or sparsely populated areas of NZ the local police officer may do the vetting for a firearms licence or security check.

----------


## muzza

Only a couple of days left people. Please make some sort of submission.

Divide and conquer will be the end of us all.

----------

