# Firearms and Shooting > Shooting >  New range laws and shooting on unregistered ranges

## rambo-6mmrem

I shoot a fair bit on the back of my mates farm 
For load Development etc this is not a range just a nice flat paddock with a good natural background  the primary Use is farming not shooting 


Has been Rumours that the new laws being released shortly have Restrictions on private property shooting not sure exactly what 

Dose anyone have any facts on what the plans are?

----------


## Taupohunter

Then I guess you are now doing "pest control"

----------


## Ben Waimata

> Then I guess you are now doing "pest control"


wasps are pests too! I'd like to see someone prove there was not a wasp on that target.

----------


## 199p

> wasps are pests too! I'd like to see someone prove there was not a wasp on that target.


The way things are you would have to prove that there was a wasp nest its all backwards these days remember bro

----------


## dogmatix

> I shoot a fair bit on the back of my mates farm 
> For load Development etc this is not a range just a nice flat paddock with a good natural background  the primary Use is farming not shooting 
> 
> 
> Has been Rumours that the new laws being released shortly have Restrictions on private property shooting not sure exactly what 
> 
> Dose anyone have any facts on what the plans are?


In theory yes, the 'range' will need to follow templates and be certified.
Practically, no one is going to pay attention except for the organised PRS style competition shoots on farms.

Its a cluster f**k.
The public consultation and committee report itself said there was no record of issues. It was just creating regulations because none existed.

----------


## CBH Australia

It already applies in Australia.

We are allowed to "sight in" on private property. 

If you want a private range it's going to have regulations.

Be sensible about it and hope the police implement the laws with commonsense. It should not affect the majority or make it impossible. At least I don't think that's the intention.
Use common sense and good judgement you should be ok.
Load development (sighting in different loads)

----------


## tac a1

> Which opens up the possibility of subjective application of the laws, and that's never a good thing.   99% of the coppers I've met have been fair and reasonable.  
> As usual, it's the 1%ers that screw things up and those ratbags could have a profound impact on ones "suitability to own and operate a range and/or firearm".


Ha Ha!! that one percent is all the Police management in bullshit castle!!!

----------


## 40mm

> Ha Ha!! that one percent is all the Police management in bullshit castle!!!


There are a fair few assholes on the street too.
My experience is that most of them are fair, but there is still a good number of assholes. 
Just like in any profession.

----------


## gundoc

The regulation is designed to catch club ranges. Sighting-in on a mates property is just the same as hunting on that property. So long as you are entitled to be there and observe all safety protocols then you are good to go.

----------


## RUMPY

> The regulation is designed to catch club ranges. Sighting-in on a mates property is just the same as hunting on that property. So long as you are entitled to be there and observe all safety protocols then you are good to go.


This is the answer I was hoping to see, I have access to a farm to sight in my rifle but not allowed to hunt there yet. Although last time I was there I helped draft a mob of about 150 ewes and lambs so hopefully he thinks I'm a good c~^t now.

----------


## Gillie

> The regulation is designed to catch club ranges. Sighting-in on a mates property is just the same as hunting on that property. So long as you are entitled to be there and observe all safety protocols then you are good to go.


The Act is quite specific and all encompassing:
_Shooting activities—
(a) means activities that are carried out using a firearm or an airgun for the purpose of shooting at inanimate targets (whether fixed or moving); but
(b) excludes—
     (i) paintball shooting; and
     (ii) airsoft shooting_

The Regulations should hopefully be out for public comment in the next few weeks. 

It looks as though the Police will choose not to require range certification for an "ad hoc sighting in range". The new draft Police Range Manual that slightly expands on this definition should come out for public comment with the Regulations. I really hope the Police put their interpretation in the Regulations because just because the Police choose not to require certification doesn't mean it isn't against the Act.

----------


## Basenjiboy

I am one of the Shooting Range Inspectors trained and recognised by the Police (note that the majority of us are not Police, but involved with shooting disciplines). 
We do the inspection, and write the report *for* the club or individual, which they forward to the Police.
We try to be as pragmatic and practical as possible - we are not here to shut ranges!!!

As Gillie has said, wait for the Information and consultation process.

Note the interpretation under the Act is:
_shooting range
(a) means a facility (whether indoor or outdoor), or a designated area of land, used by a shooting club or members of the public for the primary purpose of carrying out shooting activities; and
(b) includes any defence area (as that term is defined in section 2(1) of the Defence Act 1990) used by a shooting club._

BB

----------


## TeRei

The idiocy of the new laws being promoted by the police is that essentially you do not have to be a fit and proper person to vote. Would have thought the latter was a more important right.

----------


## 7mmwsm

> I am one of the Shooting Range Inspectors trained and recognised by the Police (note that the majority of us are not Police, but involved with shooting disciplines). 
> We do the inspection, and write the report *for* the club or individual, which they forward to the Police.
> We try to be as pragmatic and practical as possible - we are not here to shut ranges!!!
> 
> As Gillie has said, wait for the Information and consultation process.
> 
> Note the interpretation under the Act is:
> _shooting range—
> (a) means a facility (whether indoor or outdoor), or a designated area of land, used by a shooting club or members of the public for the primary purpose of carrying out shooting activities; and
> ...


It appears you are talking about designated ranges.
The op is talking about sighting in on a farm. Completely different.
Some days I can shoot off my lawn. Other days it is to windy so I need to find another spot. I could choose to shoot at fifty or so different spots. So if any clown thinks they are coming out here to "certify" my place they better be ready for a long day.

----------


## Basenjiboy

Yes @7mmwsm, I am comfirming they are different.
Note the words in the Act :"the primary purpose of carrying out shooting activities". I believe that the primary purpose of a farm is farming.

BB.

----------


## Gillie

> Yes @7mmwsm, I am comfirming they are different.
> Note the words in the Act :"the primary purpose of carrying out shooting activities". I believe that the primary purpose of a farm is farming.
> 
> BB.


Just to let you know the Police have taken the exact opposite view point as this. They read the Act as saying the public primarily use the land for shooting when they are there - Not the land's primary use is shooting.

----------


## Skirch

This is incredibly sad. Why any of you are justifying excessive laws that are creating more problems rather than fixing any is beyond me.
Regardless of what the technicalities might be, this law puts anyone who wants to shoot a piece of paper or a gong on a farm at risk of loosing their license.
We have seen over and over again, the police abusing their powers and authority, and all you guys have to say is "not all of them are bad."

This country is doomed, because good people do nothing.

----------


## Marty Henry

Good people tried, but the "consultation" process was just a token gesture to satisfy legislative requievents.

----------


## Tentman

> This is incredibly sad. Why any of you are justifying excessive laws that are creating more problems rather than fixing any is beyond me.
> Regardless of what the technicalities might be, this law puts anyone who wants to shoot a piece of paper or a gong on a farm at risk of loosing their license.
> We have seen over and over again, the police abusing their powers and authority, and all you guys have to say is "not all of them are bad."
> 
> This country is doomed, because good people do nothing.


So Skirch - tell us how you got right out of your comfort zone and "did something"

----------


## tikka

The police arent stopping the gangs using the streets for a gun ranges and houses as a back stop.

----------


## chindit

If you have a good relationship with your neighbour's you sight in your gun or spend 30 mins busting clays no one will report you so the police have no reason to come to your place. If you dont have that relationship or spend hours blasting away it may be a different story. 
I know of 2 places on public land that are used for for sighting in and target practice one very close to a few lifestyle blocks and those people need to be stopped leaving empty shells and maccas wrappers ect. Not a good look.

----------


## Husky1600

> So Skirch - tell us how you got right out of your comfort zone and "did something"


Take it from somebody who knows, Skirch went way beyond his comfort zone for the past 3 years and spent endless hours fighting for our firearms rights. Way more than the average firearms owner that I have met. So lets just leave it at that shall we.

----------


## Nick-D

> Just to let you know the Police have taken the exact opposite view point as this. They read the Act as saying the public primarily use the land for shooting when they are there - Not the land's primary use is shooting.


Do you have a source for the police policy interpretation? iirc the wording was changed to primary use for this exact reason, to exempt shooting on private land from the range regulations.

Imo the wording is fairly clear

----------


## Gillie

> Do you have a source for the police policy interpretation? iirc the wording was changed to primary use for this exact reason, to exempt shooting on private land from the range regulations.
> 
> Imo the wording is fairly clear


Best place is the Police "Exposure Draft" Shooting Range Manual that should be released publicly in the next few weeks. 

I think we'll need case law to set a precedent... if the Police interpretation stays in the coming Regulations.

----------


## Beavis

The issue of shooting on farms for recreation or target practice was supposedly clarified during the select committee process - people raised the same concerns you guys are right now, and the wording was changed, and assurance given that it would not affect shooting on private land.

However I have heard it mentioned that the way police want it, you won't be allowed to have mates around to the farm for a pre duck season clay practice, nor, will you be able to do anything other than truly ad hoc sighting on your farm, without going through the range certification process.

Much like the supposed creation of an independent firearms authority, we have been sold short with weasel words. As the delegated regulatory authority, they can basically do whatever they want, and we just get to suck the Kumara.

----------


## mikee

Well the general idea it seems is to make compliance so onerous and difficult we all will give our hobby/recreational activity away.... which was always the endgame anyway.
These were the good old days. I hope you made the most of them!

----------


## GDMP

> This is incredibly sad. Why any of you are justifying excessive laws that are creating more problems rather than fixing any is beyond me.
> Regardless of what the technicalities might be, this law puts anyone who wants to shoot a piece of paper or a gong on a farm at risk of loosing their license.
> We have seen over and over again, the police abusing their powers and authority, and all you guys have to say is "not all of them are bad."
> 
> This country is doomed, because good people do nothing.


I am sure you are correct in your summary.....I believe a great many shooters have simply lost any faith in the process because they know their input will simply be ignored by the current administration,and are pinning any hope of better treatment,and hopefully a change of direction about who administers what,on a change of Govt.

----------


## Finnwolf

I guess DOC land will have to be used if the law makers keep on being a pain re using private land?

----------


## imaca

> I guess DOC land will have to be used if the law makers keep on being a pain re using private land?


You mean public land.   There is no such thing as "DoC" land.  DoC administered yes, but it is public land

----------


## gundoc

> Just to let you know the Police have taken the exact opposite view point as this. They read the Act as saying the public primarily use the land for shooting when they are there - Not the land's primary use is shooting.


Please note that any Police 'interpretation' has no legal standing, and many times in the past has been found unlawful by the courts. The only thing that is legal is the 'plain English' meaning of the words as they are written in the legislation. Whilst the 'intent' of parliament can be taken into account when judges consider the meaning of a piece of legislation, if the written word has been poorly drafted and does not reflect the intent of parliament then that is tough luck for the prosecution as the written word takes precedence.  Reading the legislation on ranges makes it obvious that it does not impact on casual shooting on any land where you have the legal right to be (DOC or private) provided it is not an organised or regular event shooting at 'inanimate targets', and is being done in a safe manner. Go to your mate's farm and develop your handloads or sight-in your rifle without getting all twisted about the regulations relating to range certification!

----------


## Ross Nolan

[QUOTE=gundoc;1286210]Please note that any Police 'interpretation' has no legal standing, and many times in the past has been found unlawful by the courts. 

The process is the punishment - it is no skin off the Police's nose if they take a case and lose, and in the meantime Joe Public has (possibly) an arrest, time and cost to fight it in court, all against a body that uses our money to fight us.

Your "many times" comment suggests that not much change is occurring with the blue group.

----------


## Uplandstalker

> I guess DOC land will have to be used if the law makers keep on being a pain re using private land?


Under the current DOC Hunting permit, target shooting is not allowed either. The permit allows for hunting only, and only the species mentioned in the permit. This has been the case for over 10 years, if not much longer.  The hunting permit fulfills the requirement for "the landowner consent to use a firearm on the land" within the Arms Act from a long time ago (not the changes since March 2019).

I would also challange that most hunters on DOC administered land DON'T have a current premitt too.

----------


## Skirch

[QUOTE=Ross Nolan;1286245]


> Please note that any Police 'interpretation' has no legal standing, and many times in the past has been found unlawful by the courts. 
> 
> The process is the punishment - it is no skin off the Police's nose if they take a case and lose, and in the meantime Joe Public has (possibly) an arrest, time and cost to fight it in court, all against a body that uses our money to fight us.
> 
> Your "many times" comment suggests that not much change is occurring with the blue group.


Not to mention it being used as a reason to label you not "fit and proper"

----------


## Gillie

> Please note that any Police 'interpretation' has no legal standing, and many times in the past has been found unlawful by the courts. The only thing that is legal is the 'plain English' meaning of the words as they are written in the legislation. Whilst the 'intent' of parliament can be taken into account when judges consider the meaning of a piece of legislation, if the written word has been poorly drafted and does not reflect the intent of parliament then that is tough luck for the prosecution as the written word takes precedence.  Reading the legislation on ranges makes it obvious that it does not impact on casual shooting on any land where you have the legal right to be (DOC or private) provided it is not an organised or regular event shooting at 'inanimate targets', and is being done in a safe manner. Go to your mate's farm and develop your handloads or sight-in your rifle without getting all twisted about the regulations relating to range certification!


I completely agree gundoc hence my later comment:



> I think we'll need case law to set a precedent... if the Police interpretation stays in the coming Regulations.


Of course if the Police interpretation is written directly into the regulations we have slightly different kettle of fish to deal with. Best we all get to providing public feedback on the draft regulations and draft Police Shooting Range Manual when it is released publicly.

----------


## gundoc

> Of course if the Police interpretation is written directly into the regulations we have slightly different kettle of fish to deal with. Best we all get to providing public feedback on the draft regulations and draft Police Shooting Range Manual when it is released publicly.


The Regulations can only be made as directed by the Act, they cannot subvert the Act which always remains the guiding document. Not that they would not try of course!

----------


## Danger Mouse

> I completely agree gundoc hence my later comment:
> 
> 
> Of course if the Police interpretation is written directly into the regulations we have slightly different kettle of fish to deal with. Best we all get to providing public feedback on the draft regulations and draft Police Shooting Range Manual when it is released publicly.


Appreciate the information and contribution gillie. It's important we keep as informed as possible.

----------


## grandpamac

Greetings All,
I would be more concerned over the Police Shooting Range Manual. Although this will no doubt be written from the viewpoint of a club range the danger areas are likely to at least partly to home ranges under the Health and Safety rules in other legislation, especially after any unfortunate accidents. I am looking at re aligning my range for this reason.
Regards Grandpamac.

----------


## Gillie

> Appreciate the information and contribution gillie. It's important we keep as informed as possible.


Its a little tricky. Until Police actually release their "Exposure draft" Shooting Range Manual i am not allowed to distribute it. I can talk to whats in it in general though...




> Greetings All,
> I would be more concerned over the Police Shooting Range Manual. Although this will no doubt be written from the viewpoint of a club range the danger areas are likely to at least partly to home ranges under the Health and Safety rules in other legislation, especially after any unfortunate accidents. I am looking at re aligning my range for this reason.
> Regards Grandpamac.


In the soon to be released "exposure Draft" Police Shooting Range Manual a range that doesn't already fall under the HSWA2015 will not be required to fall under it. The HSWA2015 is very clear about volunteer organisations, etc. A commercial range being operated as a business right now does fall under the HSWA and that won't change. A "range" on a farm, if it is not operated as part of the farm business, does not necessarily fall under the HSWA either.

----------


## zimmer

> Its a little tricky. Until Police actually release their "Exposure draft" Shooting Range Manual i am not allowed to distribute it. I can talk to whats in it in general though...
> 
> 
> 
> In the soon to be released "exposure Draft" Police Shooting Range Manual a range that doesn't already fall under the HSWA2015 will not be required to fall under it. The HSWA2015 is very clear about volunteer organisations, etc. A commercial range being operated as a business right now does fall under the HSWA and that won't change. A "range" on a farm, if it is not operated as part of the farm business, does not necessarily fall under the HSWA either.


Where it got difficult in day's long gone was if you gave school kids a few dollars to pull targets for you at your (non commercial) rifle club.
That of course has disappeared as an issue (except at Trentham Nats?) as what kid will give up a Saturday for 2 bob?

----------


## Marty Henry

Here the pay rate was a bag of chips and bottle of fizz

----------


## grandpamac

Greetings All,
In my last post I tried not refer only to the HSWA but also to other legislation that governs our duty not to recklessly endanger others. The principal risk in having a home range is that a projectile goes further than we intend. Some of us try to mitigate tis by siting the range where we have a decent backstop but others not so much. My concern is that the very high standards needed for a centrefire range where position shooting is done get applied to the home range where only a few shots are fired and those from a bench. I will read the draft with interest when it is released.
Regards Grandpamac.

----------


## Cyclops

> Best place is the Police "Exposure Draft" Shooting Range Manual that should be released publicly in the next few weeks. 
> 
> I think we'll need case law to set a precedent... if the Police interpretation stays in the coming Regulations.


Another option is the seek a declaratory statement/judgement from the High Court to clarify the interpretation.

----------


## Gillie

> Greetings All,
> In my last post I tried not refer only to the HSWA but also to other legislation that governs our duty not to recklessly endanger others. The principal risk in having a home range is that a projectile goes further than we intend. Some of us try to mitigate tis by siting the range where we have a decent backstop but others not so much. My concern is that the very high standards needed for a centrefire range where position shooting is done get applied to the home range where only a few shots are fired and those from a bench. I will read the draft with interest when it is released.
> Regards Grandpamac.


Absolutely agree - and I have spent ~18 months trying to convince the Police staff involved of this. Our history of 0 incidents has to demonstrate what we are doing now works? 
So far the definition of "decent backstop" in the Exposure Draft Police Shooting Range Manual is almost impossible to comply with unless you are shooting into a bluff, have an excavator, or have exclusive control of the ~3km behind your target...

"Ad hoc" sighting in is excluded at the moment - but among other definitions that means you can't leave your target in place in between visits...

I'll be encouraging everyone i can to read and provide comment back on the draft when it gets released.

----------


## Daniel Kwon

I can say with an extremely high degree of confidence that your submissions make a very big difference when it comes to the formulation of legislation.  I implore you to submit your consideration if there is something that you have identified as being incorrect or poorly conceived. Every one of the submissions will be analysed and an analysis conducted to examine what needs to be addressed, amended, or included. EVERY submission will be analysed. Identify the section and subsection that you don't agree with and highlight why. Make sure it is within the scope of the Act/Bill, and write in a way that reflects the legislative process.

Also, if you see something that could be improved, make a recommendation. First, identify the section and appropriate subsection/clause, and then offer up your recommendation. Ask for an amendment or removal etc. It all gets taken into consideration. I'm telling you, ALL of it gets read and analysed. It's a real democratic process and one that every kiwi should truly be proud of.

----------


## ilikepie

> I can say with an extremely high degree of confidence that your submissions make a very big difference when it comes to the formulation of legislation.  I implore you to submit your consideration if there is something that you have identified as being incorrect or poorly conceived. Every one of the submissions will be analysed and an analysis conducted to examine what needs to be addressed, amended, or included. EVERY submission will be analysed. Identify the section and subsection that you don't agree with and highlight why. Make sure it is within the scope of the Act/Bill, and write in a way that reflects the legislative process.
> 
> Also, if you see something that could be improved, make a recommendation. First, identify the section and appropriate subsection/clause, and then offer up your recommendation. Ask for an amendment or removal etc. It all gets taken into consideration. I'm telling you, ALL of it gets read and analysed. It's a real democratic process and one that every kiwi should truly be proud of.


like they did with the semi auto changes?

----------


## Danger Mouse

> like they did with the semi auto changes?


Of course, can't you read 1000 submissions an hour? Peasant, the glorious government can.

----------


## dogmatix

Not even this submission to Tranche 2 made any difference. 
Why bother.

----------


## zimmer

It's an utter shit sandwich. Very much Catch 22.

On previous occassions we are certain written submissions were ignored or not even viewed. Or at the very least read by the world's top speed readers, yeah right. And as for the presentations......
That leaves a bad why bother taste in the gob and a why bother attitude which you cannot blame people for.

Problem is, by not submitting it plays further into their hands. "They were given the opportunity but didn't contribute, they must be in agreement".

It's a 3 Waters situation.

----------


## Daniel Kwon

Then don't submit. Don't do anything.

 I'm trying demonstrate how the process works. All of those submissions are read. Every single one of them. It doesn't matter if there are 20 or 2000. They are all read.  From those submissions, a general consensus is established which gets deliberated on by the responsible committee. The committee is comprised of various politicians, subject matter experts, special interest groups, etc. They deliberate on the submissions, come to a consensus, and then it goes through the Parliamentary process. During this process, there are time where you can raise additional concerns. 

I think we can all agree that policy decisions are not made in a vacuum. Everything exists in a political context and the tragic Chch shooting generated a lot of context. Only one MP voted against it. Whether you like it or not, a democratic system is by it's very nature majoritarian. Make of that what you will and use it to your advantage. 

I don't know about you, but would rather be a part of the process and have my voice heard than do nothing.

----------


## woods223

@Daniel Kwon. Are you personally involved in the process of dealing with submissions? If not what makes you so sure the process is followed correctly. From my own perspective I am very cynical of the process. Submissions to govt. departments etc are meant to receive an acknowledgement of receipt within a specified time-frame, something which doesn't always happen. When speaking to a submission it can become immediately clear that the panel is reading your submission for the first time there and then. All makes one wonder why even bother going to the effort.

----------


## Daniel Kwon

Yes I am.

----------


## Micky Duck

@Daniel Kwon    as you will have gathered,there are still many ruffled feathers if not outright plucked arses from the debarkcle of semi confiscation .....people just do not trust government to look at thing logically when they already have predetermined agenda in play.

Timaru township used to have a range that .303 was used on regularly...its just about perfect and right inside township...big high backstop of clay bank some 30 meters high all along one side and the butt end....it hasnt been used for years,its a soccor field now as the land above bank has houses for miles.
good safe places to sight in have been harder to get for years,so local riverbed or beach with clear visibility have been a default setting for as long as I can remember.... or folks sight in on hunting grounds making racket and spooking game for days.
its not as bad as it was in the "mag dumping" era and a lot of the crowds who were issues no longer seem to be shooting at all....some might say thankfully.
there is thread on lake lyndon   in here somewhere,it makes for interesting reading and may give insight to historical issues.

----------


## Finnwolf

> Then don't submit. Don't do anything.
> 
>  I'm trying demonstrate how the process works. All of those submissions are read. Every single one of them. It doesn't matter if there are 20 or 2000. They are all read.  From those submissions, a general consensus is established which gets deliberated on by the responsible committee. The committee is comprised of various politicians, subject matter experts, special interest groups, etc. They deliberate on the submissions, come to a consensus, and then it goes through the Parliamentary process. During this process, there are time where you can raise additional concerns. 
> 
> I think we can all agree that policy decisions are not made in a vacuum. Everything exists in a political context and the tragic Chch shooting generated a lot of context. Only one MP voted against it. Whether you like it or not, a democratic system is by it's very nature majoritarian. Make of that what you will and use it to your advantage. 
> 
> I don't know about you, but would rather be a part of the process and have my voice heard than do nothing.


The other MPs didn’t vote against it as it might be jeopardizing the chance of their re-election. (Cynical I know but likely close to the truth!)

----------


## Daniel Kwon

> @Daniel Kwon    as you will have gathered,there are still many ruffled feathers if not outright plucked arses from the debarkcle of semi confiscation .....people just do not trust government to look at thing logically when they already have predetermined agenda in play.
> 
> Timaru township used to have a range that .303 was used on regularly...its just about perfect and right inside township...big high backstop of clay bank some 30 meters high all along one side and the butt end....it hasnt been used for years,its a soccor field now as the land above bank has houses for miles.
> good safe places to sight in have been harder to get for years,so local riverbed or beach with clear visibility have been a default setting for as long as I can remember.... or folks sight in on hunting grounds making racket and spooking game for days.
> its not as bad as it was in the "mag dumping" era and a lot of the crowds who were issues no longer seem to be shooting at all....some might say thankfully.
> there is thread on lake lyndon   in here somewhere,it makes for interesting reading and may give insight to historical issues.


Yeah, I was one of them. I'm just trying to raise awareness of how to submit and how important of a process it is. It's a nuanced system that could do with some clarity, which is what I'm trying to bring. At the end of the day it's up to you to decide if you want to submit or not, but don't be surprised if our majoritarian system of governance doesn't work in your favor because we failed to be heard. 

I wrote a six pager during the pistol grip saga. This is just as important to me, as it is to you. I'm trying to help.

----------


## Growlybear

> There are a fair few assholes on the street too.
> My experience is that most of them are fair, but there is still a good number of assholes. 
> Just like in any profession.


The thing with assholes in other professions,is that we can take our business elsewhere.

----------


## zimmer

> Yeah, I was one of them. I'm just trying to raise awareness of how to submit and how important of a process it is. It's a nuanced system that could do with some clarity, which is what I'm trying to bring. At the end of the day it's up to you to decide if you want to submit or not, but don't be surprised if our majoritarian system of governance doesn't work in your favor because we failed to be heard. 
> 
> I wrote a six pager during the pistol grip saga. This is just as important to me, as it is to you. I'm trying to help.


The process for the new range laws I guess (I hope) should be different in that the first rounds were totally political with predesignated outcomes. Hence peoples' now why bother views.

I'll decide when there is something available to review whether to submit but in any case the organisations I belong to (like SSANZ) will receive my support and input in whatever they submit. I just hope there is sufficient time provided.

----------


## ilikepie

> Yeah, I was one of them. I'm just trying to raise awareness of how to submit and how important of a process it is. It's a nuanced system that could do with some clarity, which is what I'm trying to bring. At the end of the day it's up to you to decide if you want to submit or not, but don't be surprised if our majoritarian system of governance doesn't work in your favor because we failed to be heard. 
> 
> I wrote a six pager during the pistol grip saga. This is just as important to me, as it is to you. I'm trying to help.


Agree. It's the avenue we have, so it must be used. 

Other than voting. But it does feel like the definition of insanity.

----------


## Marty Henry

You would hope the principle of de minimis non curat lex gets applied otherwise the system may get buried under a mountain of applications. My "home range" stretches 400 m and has a cliff as a backstop. It only gets occasional use but there are steel targets permanently in place so from my reading of the above it would need certifying. Guess we need to wait and see what the discussion draft actually contains/ specifies.

----------


## Steve123

> You would hope the principle of de minimis non curat lex gets applied otherwise the system may get buried under a mountain of applications. My "home range" stretches 400 m and has a cliff as a backstop. It only gets occasional use but there are steel targets permanently in place so from my reading of the above it would need certifying. Guess we need to wait and see what the discussion draft actually contains/ specifies.


Just call your permanent steel targets "sculptures" and bingo it's no longer a range. Not your fault you can't afford expensive massive shit like Alan Gibbs but same idea  :Thumbsup:

----------


## GravelBen

> I can say with an extremely high degree of confidence that your submissions make a very big difference when it comes to the formulation of legislation.


Your faith in government process is quaint, but the current government's actions suggest they receive submissions, laugh, throw them in a file to pretend they undertook meaningful consultation, and then do whatever they were planning to do anyway.

Numerous pieces of legislation have been forced through (often 'under urgency' despite there being nothing urgent about them) with in some cases IIRC 80-90% of submissions opposed, including objections from submitters like the law society and human rights commission. And guess what... legislation pushed through with minimal changes. So much for democratic process.

----------


## Jusepy

So you are saying I cannot go down the back of the sister in laws farm( I live on the farm and do pest control ) , with the brother in law and his mate and blast some clays , preparing for duck shooting...... ?
Or
Put my target gong up and shoot it from 100 yards to sight in for deer hunting and familiarizing myself with my 303 and 308 ?
What utter fucking shit.

----------


## Micky Duck

> So you are saying I cannot go down the back of the sister in laws farm( I live on the farm and do pest control ) , with the brother in law and his mate and blast some clays , preparing for duck shooting...... ?
> Or
> Put my target gong up and shoot it from 100 yards to sight in for deer hunting and familiarizing myself with my 303 and 308 ?
> What utter fucking shit.


no..you can still do this.....its informal ,not charged for...and just how we do things.... 
how is the ol 303 going anyway???

----------


## Jusepy

Hey Micky Duck ,
Honestly , the 303 has stayed in the gun cabinet . I have not fired it since I have had it apart. 
I will hold off until after duck shooting , as the brother in laws pond is on the farm and he is pretty anal about me hunting or firing loud guns at this time of year.

I am looking forward to shooting up some paper and seeing how it is grouping now.

----------


## Danger Mouse

> Yeah, I was one of them. I'm just trying to raise awareness of how to submit and how important of a process it is. It's a nuanced system that could do with some clarity, which is what I'm trying to bring. At the end of the day it's up to you to decide if you want to submit or not, but don't be surprised if our majoritarian system of governance doesn't work in your favor because we failed to be heard. 
> 
> I wrote a six pager during the pistol grip saga. This is just as important to me, as it is to you. I'm trying to help.


When it is claimed that the submission are read at a rate of 1000 an hour for 24 hours straight, I don't believe it.

Just like when colfo sent out a template for an opposing submission and they were counted as a single submission, but when a north shore councilor sent out a supporting submission template on Facebook, they were individually counted.

90% of submissions opposed the legislation change. The submission process is a consultation box ticking exercise. The decision has already been made.

----------


## Cyclops

> 90% of submissions opposed the legislation change. The submission process is a consultation box ticking exercise. The decision has already been made.


A submission process isn't simply about the number of submissions, it should be about the quality of the submissions. 

It isn't good or sufficient simply to oppose a proposal (or legislation). 
Well reasoned and logical arguments are a vital part of a submission. 

A select committee (or a council committee or hearing panel) need to be able to understand the reasons underpinning and supporting a submission. 

A well reasoned, well argued submission has a much greater chance of success. 

A submission process isn't a referendum. A majority of votes (in favour or against) doesn't mean anything. It isn't just a numbers game.

----------


## ebf

> A submission process isn't simply about the number of submissions, it should be about the quality of the submissions. 
> 
> It isn't good or sufficient simply to oppose a proposal (or legislation). 
> Well reasoned and logical arguments are a vital part of a submission. 
> 
> A select committee (or a council committee or hearing panel) need to be able to understand the reasons underpinning and supporting a submission. 
> 
> A well reasoned, well argued submission has a much greater chance of success. 
> 
> A submission process isn't a referendum. A majority of votes (in favour or against) doesn't mean anything. It isn't just a numbers game.


True, I watched several submitters spout off conspiracy theories and wild claims, only for MPs from all parties to visibly disengage.

But when the members of the governing party on a select committee pretty much ignore all the points made from one side, you need to start questioning the functioning of "democracy". Having been through the process myself, I doubt if I would bother again in future...

----------


## GDMP

> You would hope the principle of de minimis non curat lex gets applied otherwise the system may get buried under a mountain of applications. My "home range" stretches 400 m and has a cliff as a backstop. It only gets occasional use but there are steel targets permanently in place so from my reading of the above it would need certifying. Guess we need to wait and see what the discussion draft actually contains/ specifies.


I think you could argue though that your steel targets 'identify' with being something else entirely....I mean,if you can call a river a person,whats to say your target can't be something other that it appears to be  also?.

----------


## Russian 22.

> True, I watched several submitters spout off conspiracy theories and wild claims, only for MPs from all parties to visibly disengage.
> 
> But when the members of the governing party on a select committee pretty much ignore all the points made from one side, you need to start questioning the functioning of "democracy". Having been through the process myself, I doubt if I would bother again in future...


when i took the time off work to do it on the second round I got the distinct impression of this.

https://youtu.be/bi7V_RoUW3k

whenever anyone added something useful or brought up inconvenient facts.

----------


## GravelBen

> A submission process isn't simply about the number of submissions, it should be about the quality of the submissions. 
> 
> It isn't good or sufficient simply to oppose a proposal (or legislation). 
> Well reasoned and logical arguments are a vital part of a submission. 
> 
> A select committee (or a council committee or hearing panel) need to be able to understand the reasons underpinning and supporting a submission. 
> 
> A well reasoned, well argued submission has a much greater chance of success. 
> 
> A submission process isn't a referendum. A majority of votes (in favour or against) doesn't mean anything. It isn't just a numbers game.


True, but when you see them more or less ignore very well reasoned and well argued submissions (including well qualified experts in the field, and the likes of the law society and the human rights commission) because they've already made up their minds in advance... lets just say its difficult to have much faith in the system.

----------


## Gillie

> So you are saying I cannot go down the back of the sister in laws farm( I live on the farm and do pest control ) , with the brother in law and his mate and blast some clays , preparing for duck shooting...... ?
> Or
> Put my target gong up and shoot it from 100 yards to sight in for deer hunting and familiarizing myself with my 303 and 308 ?
> What utter fucking shit.


The way you have worded it here would meet the current Police definition of "ad hoc" and would not need certification.

----------


## Krameranzac

https://www.police.govt.nz/advice-se...o-clubs-ranges

----------


## Finnwolf

> https://www.police.govt.nz/advice-se...o-clubs-ranges


Was there any issues or problems with the existing ranges and or the way they were run?

Or is this just a new law because ‘somebody’ thought we needed one ?

----------


## mikee

> Was there any issues or problems with the existing ranges and or the way they were run?
> 
> Or is this just a new law because ‘somebody’ thought we needed one ?


This, someone had to appear to fix a problem that was not there to cover up their cock up which resulted in a lot of people getting hurt and worse.

----------


## GDMP

> Was there any issues or problems with the existing ranges and or the way they were run?
> 
> Or is this just a new law because ‘somebody’ thought we needed one ?


Probably just another idea imported from overseas....there is nothing wrong with existing practise in NZ.

----------


## yeah_na_missed

Thanks for posting this @Krameranzac... I admit I had done none of my own research on this. 

Sorry if I'm going over old ground here, and I get people's caution/healthy cynicism on real-life interpretation, but the wording is actually pretty clear. 

Taking Jusepy's example of blasting some clays or sighting in on a family/friends farm, which will hopefully apply to me very soon:

While you _are_ undertaking shooting activities ("_using a firearm... for the purpose of shooting at inanimate targets_..."), you are not doing it as part of a shooting club, or as a member of public, or on an area of designated land used... for the primary purpose of shooting at inanimate targets.

Does anyone else read/interpret that differently?


Section 38, Parts 6 and 7 (https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/...LMS256768.html)
shooting activities—
(a)
means activities that are carried out using a firearm or an airgun for the purpose of shooting at inanimate targets (whether fixed or moving); but
(b)
excludes—
(i)
paintball shooting; and
(ii)
airsoft shooting
shooting club means a voluntary association of people who—
(a)
act in accordance with a set of written rules; and
(b)
participate in, or intend to participate in, shooting activities on a regular basis
shooting range—
(a)
means a facility (whether indoor or outdoor), or a designated area of land, used by a shooting club or members of the public for the primary purpose of carrying out shooting activities; and
(b)
includes any defence area (as that term is defined in section 2(1) of the Defence Act 1990) used by a shooting club.

----------


## deye223

> It already applies in Australia.
> 
> We are allowed to "sight in" on private property. 
> 
> If you want a private range it's going to have regulations.
> 
> Be sensible about it and hope the police implement the laws with commonsense. It should not affect the majority or make it impossible. At least I don't think that's the intention.
> Use common sense and good judgement you should be ok.
> Load development (sighting in different loads)


Might apply to New South Wales but not to Victoria we can do as much shooting as we like over 3-hours. 
As Long as theres less than 10 people only thing we're not allowed to do is have permanent infrastructure .

----------


## Gillie

> means a facility (whether indoor or outdoor), or a designated area of land, used by a shooting club or members of the public for the primary purpose of carrying out shooting activities;


 @yeah_na_missed, 
I think the Police interpretation is based upon that there is a comma after the word "land" and the fact there is not one after the word "public". 

So by their interpretation "used by a shooting club or members of the public for the primary purpose of carrying out shooting activities" has nothing to do with the primary land use - it has to do with for what primary purpose do "a shooting club or members of the public" use the land for. If they use the land for shooting then Police will considered it a range.

----------


## Quicknock

> @yeah_na_missed, 
> I think the Police interpretation is based upon that there is a comma after the word "land" and the fact there is not one after the word "public". 
> 
> So by their interpretation "used by a shooting club or members of the public for the primary purpose of carrying out shooting activities" has nothing to do with the primary land use - it has to do with for what primary purpose do "a shooting club or members of the public" use the land for.


Primarily use it for a BBQ and secondarily use it for sighting in, understood.

----------


## MrDrifter

Don't forget to read other sections of the new proposals and provide feedback. Some of the wording in section 3.2.2 around those under 16 years old for example. Their recommendation is to completely stop those under 16 shooting on a range. Other option is they can shoot but not compete. Then if you can and read the question they ask that aligns with this, its wording can be interpreted that only children of Licences are eligible.

There are some very poorly worded pieces in these regulations.

Sent from my M2011K2G using Tapatalk

----------


## Marty Henry

They aren't regulations yet and if we don't all get stuck in and point out the errors, unworkable suggestions and proposals that far out step what the act requires we are all buggered, club member or not.

----------


## BSA

Police Range Manual. This is what Police/Inspectors are using to assess ranges. There are very few who will pass muster without major works involved. Expect ranges to close wholesale. To the Shotgun/Clay Target Clubs, I hate to say it but "We told you so" when you threw all those nasty guns/owners under the bus. Welcome to the real world, I truly hope you survive. Many will not. To the small volunteer Clubs with no funding I feel for you all but the agenda is there for all to see now.

https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/def...anual-2022.pdf

----------


## Friwi

Vote act in 2023

----------


## Peteforskeet

I see in the section headed"fees", there is provision for a $500 fee for 'one off use, clay target' or similar.
My family run a yearly shoot on a family members farm, ourselves, our grown children, girlfriends, few friends sort of thing.
Is this daily fee there for us?
We shoot on one day  on a clear flat piece of land,

----------


## Marty Henry

SpecificallyI think it's designed to target the likes of GPRE  type events etc it's unclear if you don't charge a fee or are considered a club if it would or could be applied not that that would stop them trying.

----------


## Cyclops

> Vote act in 2023


 :36 1 5:  :36 1 5:  :36 1 5:  :36 1 5: 

Act, with their announcements on Treaty issues, will struggle to be a member of any government. 

If you want to vote for an opposition party, and you think that's going to help, go for it.

----------


## yeah_na_missed

@Gillie, keen to get your view on Section 10 - Ad-hoc Sighting-in from the doc above. 

This probably covers most of the previous "what about my situation" comments above... I read that and felt pretty comfortable that I would get arrested sighting in a rifle on a mate's/family members farm... but you seem to have a better understanding of what they say vs. what they mean. What were your thoughts? Thanks!

----------


## Micky Duck

> Act, with their announcements on Treaty issues, will struggle to be a member of any government. 
> 
> If you want to vote for an opposition party, and you think that's going to help, go for it.


I would tend to differ...it seems to me,a 27th generation Kiwi.....that they are making perfect sense.... the treaty was never about co-governance   infact if I CAN BE SO BOLD...the very idea of co-governance reeks to high heaven of apartied ..you know the thing every one got so upset about in the 80s??? 
people have different rules because of the colour of thier bum or who their granddady is said to be....also reeks of old school elitism ..... 
like it or not NZ is a country with population made up of many many different people from many different places around the globe...for the majority of my 50 years on this earth we as a country have tried to live together as one people..... to try and seperate it is madness on a grand scale.

----------


## Preacher

Just make up a patched jacket and shoot on the farm.  Whilst wearing said patch.

Cops won't even bother

----------


## Gillie

> @Gillie, keen to get your view on Section 10 - Ad-hoc Sighting-in from the doc above. 
> 
> This probably covers most of the previous "what about my situation" comments above... I read that and felt pretty comfortable that I would get arrested sighting in a rifle on a mate's/family members farm... but you seem to have a better understanding of what they say vs. what they mean. What were your thoughts? Thanks!


 @yeah_na_missed, From the Police Shooting Range Manual Rev 1 (2022-03-03):



> Areas set up for and routinely used by the public for sighting-in will need to be certified as a range. However, sighting-in that is conducted as an ad-hoc or occasional shooting activity does not require the use of a certified range, if it can be carried out safely, whether on private or public land, for example: it is done by an individual or a small group of individuals (but not a shooting club); and they are doing sighting-in as an ad-hoc or occasional activity (such as, prior to a hunting trip, or pre-duck shooting season); and the public (or a club) do not access and use that area for sighting-in (for example, there are no established targets, or other indications that the area is used for shooting activities).


In discussion with the Inspector running the Police Shooting Clubs and Ranges team:
If the area is used regularly for sighting in (within every couple or three months), if there are targets left at the location, etc. then it is considered a range and subject to certification. 

I have asked Police to clarify "sighting in" because this section doesn't say anything about practicing, recreational shooting, plinking, etc. 
If you take your kids down on to the farm with a few targets for some fun every few months (and you do it safely, and there is not a complaint) then i don't see Police having anythign to do with that. If you leave the targets up "permanently" and are down there every month then i can see Police wanting certification. 

In writing, I think the Police are trying to align with their interpretation of the definitions of a Range in the Act while appreciating that certifying every instance of anyone shooting at an inanimate object is practically impossible. In practice, i can't see Police arresting and prosecuting people for sighting in unless you were doing it in an unsafe way and there was a complaint. If you were sighting in safely and there was a complaint (and you weren't a dick about it) then i think Police would take an "educational" approach and either be happy or simply advise you to apply for range certification. 

So regarding, Section 10 - i think Police have given themselves enough of a vague definition such that they can apply some judgement in practice. 


In @Peteforskeet example - i think Police would interpret that as needing certification because it sounds like a bit of an organsied event for his family / friends.

----------


## 7mmwsm

So technically a stand on a driven shoot, and a mai mai would need to be certified?

----------


## Gibo

> So technically a stand on a driven shoot, and a mai mai would need to be certified?


Shooting 'at' not 'from' an inanimate object is the difference I believe

----------


## yeah_na_missed

Awesome, thanks @Gillie, good to get your interpretation of it! 

I guess that "no complaint" point is a big one... be nice to your neighbours, and keep any neighbours who might not like loud noises well supplied with meat!

----------


## Micky Duck

and pick up the pizza box after you have poked holes in it.... the lake lyndon fiasco a few years back is classic WHY this is on the cards...if you wanted to find a REASON to change things,thats about as good as can get.

----------


## Sideshow

> So technically a stand on a driven shoot, and a mai mai would need to be certified?


Now dont go giving them ideas :O O:

----------


## 40mm

> @yeah_na_missed, From the Police Shooting Range Manual Rev 1 (2022-03-03):
> 
> 
> In discussion with the Inspector running the Police Shooting Clubs and Ranges team:
> If the area is used regularly for sighting in (within every couple or three months), if there are targets left at the location, etc. then it is considered a range and subject to certification. 
> 
> I have asked Police to clarify "sighting in" because this section doesn't say anything about practicing, recreational shooting, plinking, etc. 
> If you take your kids down on to the farm with a few targets for some fun every few months (and you do it safely, and there is not a complaint) then i don't see Police having anythign to do with that. If you leave the targets up "permanently" and are down there every month then i can see Police wanting certification. 
> 
> ...


Letting the police use their 'judgement' is a bad idea in my books.
They have proven many times to be pricks when dealing with firearms.
Although, there are good cops out there I believe the majority will be horrible to deal with regarding shooting.

In saying this, I think the law is an ass and if it is enforced to the letter as it stands we are screwed.

What a crappy situation.

Does anyone have an idea what certification will cost for a private range? and any annual costs etc?

----------


## Marty Henry

It's all in the discussion document $830 per range and $500 for a "special event" range even if it's only a one off organised shoot. There's a lot more in there and submissions close 4 may.
It would be nice to have the established national bodies get a set of guidelines out so people can formulate their own replies. A copy n paste template is no good.

----------


## MrDrifter

> It's all in the discussion document $830 per range and $500 for a "special event" range even if it's only a one off organised shoot. There's a lot more in there and submissions close 4 may.
> It would be nice to have the established national bodies get a set of guidelines out so people can formulate their own replies. A copy n paste template is no good.


Don't forget, that that cost is the estimated Police Cost Recovery, the Shooting Range Inspector may also have costs associated as they will likely need travel to get on-site for the inspection and spend time actually doing their part and the write up.

----------


## 7mmwsm

> Shooting 'at' not 'from' an inanimate object is the difference I believe


I know my comments are pedantic, but it's not much different to a get together to shoot some clays. Which it sounds like is covered by their one off fee.

----------


## 40mm

All I see is my range that cost me a lot of time and money going up in smoke because those swine bastards at PNHQ think they know how to think.
What am I supposed to do when I want to shoot some targets? I cannot afford to buy their bullshit 'approval' I will be forced to shoot at different locations every time so there is no set range.
The neighbors are going to fucking love that.

You bastards at PNHQ reading this? Get a real job.

----------


## imaca

> All I see is my range that cost me a lot of time and money going up in smoke because those swine bastards at PNHQ think they know how to think.
> What am I supposed to do when I want to shoot some targets? I cannot afford to buy their bullshit 'approval' I will be forced to shoot at different locations every time so there is no set range.
> The neighbors are going to fucking love that.
> 
> You bastards at PNHQ reading this? Get a real job.


I'd really like to see a justification from PNHQ on the value of this, a balanced scorecard on how these specific changes will "make us safer", reduce harm and crime in the community and identify specific cases where had this legislation been in place, a crime would have been prevented, failing that, an accident or injury would have been prevented.  But not something related to human factors like a ND which could just as easily happen on a "certified range"

I'd like somewhere comfortable to wait though.

----------


## Danger Mouse

> I'd really like to see a justification from PNHQ on the value of this, a balanced scorecard on how these specific changes will "make us safer", reduce harm and crime in the community and identify specific cases where had this legislation been in place, a crime would have been prevented, failing that, an accident or injury would have been prevented.  But not something related to human factors like a ND which could just as easily happen on a "certified range"
> 
> I'd like somewhere comfortable to wait though.


It's not about making us safer. It's about making it difficult so you give up and do something else

----------


## XR500

What he said.

Don't get lost in the minutia of the proposed regulations. Look at the big picture. There was no problem prior to the Police incompetence that permitted an Aussie psycho to get one of our FAL. None of the proposed changes stand up to a robust cost-benefit analysis, as incidents by licenced FAL holders have been very few and far between. This is all part of a much bigger push to make the average Kiwi citizen more pliable and compliant to forthcoming social engineering.  Oh...but if you are a gang member...none of this applies to you.

My take: there's going to be an awful lot of 'pest control' being undertaken by mates of farmers on their private property.

----------


## Ross Nolan

How many people have been killed on a NRA or NZDA range - think of  a number smaller than 1. 

What was the problem again?

----------


## BSA

If there are no permanent structures present it is not a range. Mobile shooting bench/targets. I'm sure we will see some very clever bits of kit contrived to stay within the numbskull regulations we all know will be implemented.

----------


## 40mm

> What he said.
> 
> Don't get lost in the minutia of the proposed regulations. Look at the big picture. There was no problem prior to the Police incompetence that permitted an Aussie psycho to get one of our FAL. None of the proposed changes stand up to a robust cost-benefit analysis, as incidents by licenced FAL holders have been very few and far between. This is all part of a much bigger push to make the average Kiwi citizen more pliable and compliant to forthcoming social engineering.  Oh...but if you are a gang member...none of this applies to you.
> 
> My take: there's going to be an awful lot of 'pest control' being undertaken by mates of farmers on their private property.


But I like shooting targets.
I don't want to be setting gongs and cans up every time I shoot.

----------


## Preacher

Seems like road ends/quarries/river beds etc are going to get a lot messier in the pursuit of "safety".

----------


## Micky Duck

> But I like shooting targets.
> I don't want to be setting gongs and cans up every time I shoot.


so dont...have steel sculptures set up in strategically pleasing to the eye positions around the show...... steampunk is all the rage dont you know....

----------


## 40mm

Good idea.  But I have grown fond of shooting cans filled with water. I have a wheely bin full of empties to shoot, and a contraption to fill 20 at a time, and a small trough with ballcock etc for filling.  

Put a bit of effort into it, and for what? 
Not happy is what.

----------


## GDMP

The current situation seems fine to me,its never been a problem before so why is it now?.It makes about as much sense as cutting down the tube mags on bolt action .22's.......

----------


## GDMP

> Act, with their announcements on Treaty issues, will struggle to be a member of any government. 
> 
> If you want to vote for an opposition party, and you think that's going to help, go for it.


At the moment they are about the only ones talking any sense....you could hardly be more wrong.

----------


## chindit

Just spent around 4 hours filling out the discussion document for public consultation. Not much time left to get yours in. Cant help feeling I am wasting my time, but I live in hope that some sense will prevail

----------


## GDMP

Not necessarily a waste of time.If we have a change of govt,the more who put in submissions now against such changes,even if they are ignored,the more likely we are to get the next govt to give it a second look and just maybe have some change for the positive.Ultimately its a numbers game but just because it seems futile now,it may not be down the track.

----------


## PeteD

Currently clay bird shooting at the local club and pleasing to see a large group from the local high school out here. All potential future shooters and some potential Olympic shooters.
Unfortunately under the new rules they wont be able to return if passed.
Even the ladies on the committee that cook the sausages will need a license dispite the fact they have no interest in shooting.

----------


## outlander

> Good idea.  But I have grown fond of shooting cans filled with water. I have a wheely bin full of empties to shoot, and a contraption to fill 20 at a time, and a small trough with ballcock etc for filling.  
> 
> Put a bit of effort into it, and for what? 
> Not happy is what.


It would seem quite funny if it weren't so bloody serious.

----------


## LBD

> Just spent around 4 hours filling out the discussion document for public consultation. Not much time left to get yours in. Cant help feeling I am wasting my time, but I live in hope that some sense will prevail


Agreed.. the questionnaire was more about the shape the regulation will take rather than the need for the regulation in the first place.

----------


## Danger Mouse

> Agreed.. the questionnaire was more about the shape the regulation will take rather than the need for the regulation in the first place.


That's because it's just ticking the consultation box. They aren't interested in the response as the decision has already been made

----------


## csmiffy

Morons. Doesnt seem to include the junior shooters (clay bird) like my good mate Ben that need a couple of years of competition before representing NZ
Cancel culture and political correctness over-ride some of the old methods where responsible firearms training was a valued thing.
Oops sorry forgot we are roped in with nutters and crims but are low hanging fruit.
As a modern day risk assessment would ultimately shoe, how for you eliminate the risk, remove all firearms.
Just a stepping stone in the ultimate directive.
Conspiracy theory would also suggest the govt wouldn't want the public having a means to get snarky if they get a bit of inspiration from the book 1984

----------


## PeteD

> Morons. Doesnt seem to include the junior shooters (clay bird) like my good mate Ben that need a couple of years of competition before representing NZ
> Cancel culture and political correctness over-ride some of the old methods where responsible firearms training was a valued thing.
> Oops sorry forgot we are roped in with nutters and crims but are low hanging fruit.
> As a modern day risk assessment would ultimately shoe, how for you eliminate the risk, remove all firearms.
> Just a stepping stone in the ultimate directive.
> Conspiracy theory would also suggest the govt wouldn't want the public having a means to get snarky if they get a bit of inspiration from the book 1984


Unfortunately this will end the school clay shooting and small bore rifle competitions which are the the feeders of our top national and international teams.
It will also put an end to junior class NZDA type competition and restrict HUNTS courses to the over 16 who have a license.

----------


## PeteD

> Morons. Doesnt seem to include the junior shooters (clay bird) like my good mate Ben that need a couple of years of competition before representing NZ
> Cancel culture and political correctness over-ride some of the old methods where responsible firearms training was a valued thing.
> Oops sorry forgot we are roped in with nutters and crims but are low hanging fruit.
> As a modern day risk assessment would ultimately shoe, how for you eliminate the risk, remove all firearms.
> Just a stepping stone in the ultimate directive.
> Conspiracy theory would also suggest the govt wouldn't want the public having a means to get snarky if they get a bit of inspiration from the book 1984


Unfortunately this will end the school clay shooting and small bore rifle competitions which are the the feeders of our top national and international teams.
It will also put an end to junior class NZDA type competitions including local club family xmas shoots that have a junior class and restrict HUNTS courses to the over 16 who have a license.

----------


## Cyclops

If the same approach was applied to other sports there'd be no rugby, no motorsport, cycling would be heavily restricted.

----------


## Micky Duck

yip make it law it has to apply to rugby....and golf.

----------


## Ned

One to keep an eye on.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-dai...uel-over-noise

----------


## Moa Hunter

> One to keep an eye on.
> https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-dai...uel-over-noise


Phillips must be planning a subdivision

----------


## gonetropo

western springs in dorkland was home to motorsport and outdoor  concerts, then it got built up etc..........

----------


## NZVarminter

There are multiple pieces of legislation, regulation and mandatory design manual that cover what we will be able to do when shooting at inanimate objects!

The Arms Legislation Act 2020 is now law and this Act defines what activities are defined as shooting clubs and shooting ranges. This has been covered in some of the posts above

The Police have prepared a new Shooting Range Design Manual (Draft version released prior to the pending new regulations on the 2020 Act), which has the following paragraph:

_"10.1 Sighting-in is a shooting activity and can be conducted on a certified range (provided it complies with that ranges standing orders). Areas set up for and routinely used by the public for sighting-in will need to be certified as a range. However, sighting-in that is conducted as an ad-hoc or occasional shooting activity does not require the use of a certified range, if it can be carried out safely, whether on private or public land, for example:
a. it is done by an individual or a small group of individuals (but not a shooting club); and
b. they are doing sighting-in as an ad-hoc or occasional activity (such as, prior to a hunting trip, or pre-duck shooting season); and
c. the public (or a club) do not access and use that area for sighting-in (for example, there are no established targets, or other indications that the area is used for shooting activities)."
_

The Police have issued a consultation document for the new regulations that will cover ranges and it does not say any more than the design manual on this point, however when the new regulations do come out (supposed to be in December this yr), they could well have some additional rules and requirements.

Wont really know where we stand until the new regulations come out at the end of this yr

----------


## GWH

> There are multiple pieces of legislation, regulation and mandatory design manual that cover what we will be able to do when shooting at inanimate objects!
> 
> The Arms Legislation Act 2020 is now law and this Act defines what activities are defined as shooting clubs and shooting ranges. This has been covered in some of the posts above
> 
> The Police have prepared a new Shooting Range Design Manual (Draft version released prior to the pending new regulations on the 2020 Act), which has the following paragraph:
> 
> _"10.1 Sighting-in is a shooting activity and can be conducted on a certified range (provided it complies with that range’s standing orders). Areas set up for and routinely used by the public for sighting-in will need to be certified as a range. However, sighting-in that is conducted as an ad-hoc or occasional shooting activity does not require the use of a certified range, if it can be carried out safely, whether on private or public land, for example:
> a. it is done by an individual or a small group of individuals (but not a shooting club); and
> b. they are doing sighting-in as an ad-hoc or occasional activity (such as, prior to a hunting trip, or pre-duck shooting season); and
> ...


Thank you for that summary, very informative.

----------


## RUMPY

At the moment looking at 10.1 a,b and c above it seems like heading to my local friendly farmers paddock and sighting in will not be changed. 
Probably the only good bit of the legislation.

----------

