Police draft : Consultation - Secure storage requirements for firearm licence holders

As stated in the title, my wife found this hidden away where we couldn't find it.....

Consultation - Secure storage requirements for firearm licence holders | New Zealand Police

We have until December 1st to make comments to them regarding it.

One thing sticks out at me. There is separation of specifications for Rimfire and centre fire semi auto rifles. In the first section under "Wooden lockers and under Gun racks, it states

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

Does this separation hint at a separation on endorsements to follow?

How is a Semi automatic 22 become more dangerous than a semi automatic shotgun? If it is suitable for one, why not the other?

this is a draft and they have implied that we have a chance to make a difference. Whther they will listen or not, your guess is as good as mine. But we can try.

"Feedback is to be provided to secure.storage.firearms@police.govt.nz (link sends e-mail) by 1 December 2017. Please put “Secure Storage” in the subject line of your email and please remember to advise which draft document you’re commenting on."

muza posted on the same subject a few hours ago.

https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....00/#post653670

I saw that post of muzzas,and noted the semi split. I suspect they will change the wording to all semi automatic a class firearms, in effect making a new class AA, or AE perhaps.
It might make life a bit more difficult for renters.

Geeze there's some big changes in there! No mention of the crim though!

Hold on tight folks Nanny state that knows best is on its way!!!!

What a balls aching read that is. Caused me to make a couple of minor adjustments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rushy

What a balls aching read that is. Caused me to make a couple of minor adjustments.

---

I’m sure you meant SMALL:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timattalon

As stated in the title, my wife found this hidden away where we couldn't find it.....

Consultation - Secure storage requirements for firearm licence holders | New Zealand Police

We have until December 1st to make comments to them regarding it.

One thing sticks out at me. There is separation of specifications for Rimfire and centre fire semi auto rifles. In the first section under "Wooden lockers and under Gun racks, it states

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

Does this separation hint at a separation on endorsements to follow?

How is a Semi automatic 22 become more dangerous than a semi automatic shotgun? If it is suitable for one, why not the other?

this is a draft and they have implied that we have a chance to make a difference. Whther they will listen or not, your guess is as good as mine. But we can try.

"Feedback is to be provided to secure.storage.firearms@police.govt.nz (link sends e-mail) by 1 December 2017. Please put “Secure Storage” in the subject line of your email and please remember to advise which draft document you’re commenting on."

---

so what about lever, pump, martini, muzzle loading, rolling block......................???
clearly written by a muppet with no firearms knowledge.

Whilst I am ever suspicious of the folks in Bullshit Castle (Police National HQ) I think it is pathetic that it is legal to pass a chain around the rafters as secure storage

It looks like they are skirting all of the duckshooters who have bought semis and going after A-cat AR15s as well as any old Mini 14 owners and SKS's and whatnot

There could well be a market for DIY flatpack steel safes - pre cut the steel and have brackets that bolt them together from the inside - I reckon it would be a good business opportunity for someone..

Seems fair enough.

Having us all adhere to the proposed new regulation and then "X" time later to a new set seems to be more than a little bit pointless.

I wonder if the differentiation between semi automatic Rifles and shotguns is a reflection of the number of either in the hands of groups that have organised support for their recreational activity?Fish and Game vs "Rabbit shooters anonymous?".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maca49

I’m sure you meant SMALL:D

---

Nah I had to rearrange the tackle while I was reading. Nothing small about it Maca. Ha ha ha ha you nit picking old bugger.

Anybody got a big, cheap safe, that will comply? I’ll need it!

They would need to reclassify all semi automatic rifles to make those proposed changes enforceable. Because what would be stopping somebody from buying an A cat semi? There are mutterings that this is something police will be pursuing, I am yet to hear anything official regarding that though. Totally retarded to try and differentiate A cat semi auto rifles from shotguns, or anything else really.

It seems that they are pursing this Acat "semi-auto" nonsense from any angle they can get. A short time ago it was in regards to importation and now it's to do with storage - What a coincidence.

my five bob says someone is gonna head to court and ask ye old judge to referee another bout .wonder if Hon justice Jillian Mallon is about .she provided the lads at rozzers hq with a very sharp feminine arse kicking when they attempted the infamous free standing pistol grip issue in classification of MSSA.

GunDoc-as a man of considerable experience in these issues whats your take on this are fears truly justified in respect of S/a vs bolt actions or is it in general an attempt to pander to semi hysterical public opinion.
equally is anyone out there in comms with the crims -what do they think-oops sorry their firearms are pinched modified traded all with the "dont give a fuck dont apply to me suckers"

Nick Taylor has already said as soon as they attempt to make it official, it's going straight to court.

sent a letter complete with "read receipt" , no reply so guess its in the bin

Sent one as well but copied Stuart Nash, got an auto acknowledgement from him straight away and a read receipt later. Neither from the Police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotuku

my five bob says someone is gonna head to court and ask ye old judge to referee another bout .wonder if Hon justice Jillian Mallon is about .she provided the lads at rozzers hq with a very sharp feminine arse kicking when they attempted the infamous free standing pistol grip issue in classification of MSSA.

GunDoc-as a man of considerable experience in these issues whats your take on this are fears truly justified in respect of S/a vs bolt actions or is it in general an attempt to pander to semi hysterical public opinion.
equally is anyone out there in comms with the crims -what do they think-oops sorry their firearms are pinched modified traded all with the "dont give a fuck dont apply to me suckers"

---

Now that we have limp-wristed nanny-state government in place, the rats have emerged and are sharpening their teeth. There is no doubt that there is a well-entrenched anti-gun faction in PNHQ, not to mention 'the trendy lefties' now festering on their plush lambskin-covered parliamentary seats. Do not expect any common sense Arms Act decisions to come in the next three years! All of the above-mentioned hoplophobes are convinced that semi-autos have a life of their own than can inhabit the brain of the user, at the same time conveniently overlooking the 'wet bus ticket' sentences dished out by the courts to violent offenders who misuse illegally owned firearms, and the mentally ill that are free to roam our streets. Of course, any changes they make 'will be for the greater good of the community'! Joe Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and the Kim dynasty all said the same thing! I see that our old nemesis, Phillip Alpers, must have got some more funding as he is now foisting his duplicitous scare-mongering on the unsuspecting public once again. I believe Alpers is a Jewish name. I wonder if any of his relatives were victims of similar disarming and subsequent horrors in the 1930's?

In short, fellow shooters, fight this Police paper with well-written, concise and logical facts. Be prepared to keep fighting for the next few years! I certainly shall be!

Apparently the email address the Police gave is incorrect.


https://www.facebook.com/firearmownersunitednz/
POLICE GAVE WRONG SUBMISSION EMAIL ADDRESS
We have just found out that the security policy submission email address provided by police is wrong.
Anyone who has made a submission please resubmit to the new address...
secure-storage-firearms@police.govt.nz
Please also include Stuart Nash MP Stuart.Nash@parliament.govt.nz
and opposition police spokesperson Chris Bishop chrisbishopoffice@parliament.govt.nz
The questions we ask:
Did they receive any submissions?
Is 1 week enough for submissions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beavis

Nick Taylor has already said as soon as they attempt to make it official, it's going straight to court.

---

That's right. The Arms Act is the law, not the Police. Their job is to uphold the law.

I am still at a bit of a loss as to what to submit. I'm going to read over it again and see what I can come up with

Sent from my GT-I9506 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gundoc

Now that we have limp-wristed nanny-state government in place, the rats have emerged and are sharpening their teeth. There is no doubt that there is a well-entrenched anti-gun faction in PNHQ, not to mention 'the trendy lefties' now festering on their plush lambskin-covered parliamentary seats. Do not expect any common sense Arms Act decisions to come in the next three years! All of the above-mentioned hoplophobes are convinced that semi-autos have a life of their own than can inhabit the brain of the user, at the same time conveniently overlooking the 'wet bus ticket' sentences dished out by the courts to violent offenders who misuse illegally owned firearms, and the mentally ill that are free to roam our streets. Of course, any changes they make 'will be for the greater good of the community'! Joe Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and the Kim dynasty all said the same thing! I see that our old nemesis, Phillip Alpers, must have got some more funding as he is now foisting his duplicitous scare-mongering on the unsuspecting public once again. I believe Alpers is a Jewish name. I wonder if any of his relatives were victims of similar disarming and subsequent horrors in the 1930's?

In short, fellow shooters, fight this Police paper with well-written, concise and logical facts. Be prepared to keep fighting for the next few years! I certainly shall be!

---

Don't insult ol dear uncle Joe by putting him in the likes of the Alpers catergory

From a facebook site discussing this very issue

We need to send in our own submissions. Not all my own. I have borrowed to make the point.
To Whom It May Concern

I am writing to comment on your proposed changes by policy of the secure storage of Firearms as laid out in the above documents. Firstly in both versions you are trying to re-classify A-Category Semi-Automatic Firearms by way of separate security requirements compared to other A-Category Firearms. This contravenes the Law. Also in both versions you require Firearms Owners to sign a contract whereby you threaten revocation of the Firearms License and/or any endorsements if it is not signed.

"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"

This is absolutely outrageous when you consider that the highlighted part of the quoted text is Police Policy not Law.In short this is an Ultra Vires practice where Police are overstepping their mandate as enforcers of the Law not the makers of the Law. Also this then when signed will apply to any future Policy changes by Police. And it has to be asked will an applicants security not be approved if the said receipt/contract is not signed. In short Police are attempting to implement policy that has no legal standing. Being forced to sign this policy would remove our rights under the Arms Act. We saw Police attempt this earlier this year with the 2017 Arms Code.

There are issues with both proposals because any Police policies and practices must be consistent with the Law; neither proposal is.

Regulations 19 and 28 of the Arms Regulations 1992 sets out the conditions relating to security precautions. The legal authority for the promulgation of the regulation is s 74(1)(j) of the Arms Act 1983. The authority to prescribe security precautions for firearms is vested in the Governor General; not the Police. Therefore Police may not insist on security precautions that are not prescribed by Regulations made by order in council in congruence with s 74(1)(j). Regulation 28 is partially ultra vires because the Governor General has ostensibly delegated anon-delegable power by making security precautions subject to police approval. This delegation is not authorised by the empowering Act. Therefore the ostensible police veto is not enforceable because it is unlawful (see Hawkes Bay Raw Milk Producers Co-op Ltd v NZ Milk Board [1961] NZLR 218 (CA).).

If the Police believe that the present security requirements set out in the Arms Regulations are inadequate, the response ought to be directed at changing the law rather than the Police policies and practices. Trying to foist unauthorised (and therefore unlawful) Police policies on civilian gun owners and enforcing them by unauthorised practices bypasses the parliamentary process and oversight of the legislature; that is unacceptable in a free and democratic society such as New Zealand and as previously discussed, doomed to the same judicial rejection as the police pistol grip policy in 2009.

almost like the aussie where they have a separate classification for centerfires and another one for rimfires and shotguns. Oh and don't forget that when the port Arthur kneejerk laws came in they didn't think of lever action shotguns so they are still ok.
Also how you are allowed a pump action centerfire but not a P/A shotty. All comes down to what was used at the massacre and the doofus' that have no idea about firearms writing up quickly enabled laws.