Thread: Required to justify the number of firearms you own?

Originally Posted by Sarvo

Not sure if anyone else here mentioned it - but - if you have not disclosed ALL firearms with your 10 year Liecence renewal (pain in the ar-s it is) and "if" your house burns down, what about insurance on ALL your firarms that Police have no record of ??
I gave them a compete update last year when I renewed FAL - only still had 1 from 10 year prior - but added 6 new ones

Why would police records be relevant to insurance if there is no legal authority for them to require and keep that information?

The only think that should affect that hyopthetical insurance claim is making sure everything is covered (ie listed specifically on the insurance policy if necessary depending on value, read the small print etc) and having your own records to show you had them. Some insurance companies may want proof of purchase etc too I guess to determine the payout value.

Oh and different counties have different firearm departments here in the uk and they all intemperate the law in different ways.
Some are good and some are really shite!
Here in the Thames Valley they are shite. Waiting times are around 10 to 15 weeks depending on time of year

Originally Posted by Sideshow

It's going to matter!
There lining up to change the law!
Simple as that, they have there bee in there bonnet over this and they can't sort out criminals with firearms!
So attack the weakest link law abiding people. Then it makes them look like there doing something
Don't Kidd yourselves IT MATTERS!

That right there is the crux of it. Same with the MSSA laws.

The MSSA one was a classic. They restricted them because of Aramoana where most damage was done with a humble bolt action 22. Yet the police were warned by a number of people that the guy should have his license and firearms removed well before the incident, but they chose not to act. So now we have the difficulty of defining something that is not defined anywhere else in order to support a knee jerk reaction, rather than looking at the issue of poor policing of the more than adequate rules that already existed which would have avoided the incident.

Originally Posted by stug

Hamish the issue is not the police asking you how many firearms you have or justifying their use, the issue is the Police claiming they have powers the government and courts have not given them. Police are tryin to creep the law with no legal powers to do so.

Funny how this comes from National the supposed political party upholders of individual freedoms and rights.Must have lost their memory very quick like the PM who was a policy analyst in Treasury but forgot or did not know he could not claim an electoral allowance. BS.

Originally Posted by deer243

Hows it going to matter??? If at the renewal i have 1 rifle and disclose it , all good. If four weeks later i buy another 10 rifles theres no law i need to inform the police of the new ones is there. if the house burns down, and i have them insured, all good is it not

Don't know - thats why I threw the Q out there
You can update with Police at any time - but if you don't update and you have added a couple to the safe - is it OK with insurance
Will ask my FMG next week when I pay them annual

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Why would police records be relevant to insurance if there is no legal authority for them to require and keep that information?

The only think that should affect that hyopthetical insurance claim is making sure everything is covered (ie listed specifically on the insurance policy if necessary depending on value, read the small print etc) and having your own records to show you had them. Some insurance companies may want proof of purchase etc too I guess to determine the payout value.

I think you are correct.

Certainly looks as if the police are angling towards tighter restrictions on firearms for the legitimate users. I think the police would be better targeting the gangs and disbanding them as was discussed years ago rather than pick on law abiding people. My brother -in law is waiting for a new Tikka 260 but have been told it along with three other pre paid rifles in the shipment is still sitting in Sweden awaiting police paper work to allow them into the country. I could understand if they were E cat weapons but sporting rifles that sucks big time. We are certainly getting the rough end of the pineapple if this is the case.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

I had an argument with me years ago Rushy, and haven't spoken to myself since, as he sided with me. Now I just do what I want, and bugger me or myself.

Yes I had this happen, it started because being a little deaf I took something I said the wrong way. It escalated from there.

Originally Posted by TeRei

Funny how this comes from National the supposed political party upholders of individual freedoms and rights.Must have lost their memory very quick like the PM who was a policy analyst in Treasury but forgot or did not know he could not claim an electoral allowance. BS.

Perhaps it is because if they were to go before Govt with the request they know they would be turned down so they are trying to sneak it past the goal posts without asking...

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

Which side of the fence are you on?

Why

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

Currently there are no questions in the police vetting guide that asks the applicant to justify any "A-Cat" firearms they own. There are also no questions asking what type of "A-Cat" firearms are held; only one question as to how many are held at the time of inspection.

Originally Posted by HNTMAD

Why

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

Cause on the downhill side you'd be better off in flip flops rahter than the slippers, and you should probably use a 7 iron on the left side of any fence

Originally Posted by Sarvo

Don't know - thats why I threw the Q out there
You can update with Police at any time - but if you don't update and you have added a couple to the safe - is it OK with insurance
Will ask my FMG next week when I pay them annual

I am confused. What has this got to do with insurance?

I think you are referring to the option police have had for a long time to tell them what you have so that the serials etc are recorded in case of a burglary. Thats completely optional, I have never done it for a-cat firearms. Your biggest problem with insurance is if something happens to an expensive gun and it's considered sporting equipment. Got 10K tied up in a gun? happy to get $6k back, ouch!

Any gun I wanted insured I put down as a named item with insurance. As far as my experience goes, if it is in the police database or not is immaterial.

My trouble these days is that I dont want to put them down as named items as thats the only way the wife will find out about the extra four, soon to be five that she has no idea about.

Originally Posted by TeRei

Funny how this comes from National the supposed political party upholders of individual freedoms and rights.Must have lost their memory very quick like the PM who was a policy analyst in Treasury but forgot or did not know he could not claim an electoral allowance. BS.

Never forget this fact. John Banks was police minster when we all lost our rights to lifetime firearms licenses and National was a non coalition government.

Like the line from the Pumkinhead song says "you might be John to your friends but you're dog shit to me..."

I think you all have the wrong end of the stick with this thing. The AO wants to review your collection of bangsticks and then you need to justify why you own that particular number of guns in case you are under-gunned. The AO may point out that you have a pump action shotty but lack a nice semi auto shotty. They might suggest that you add a .17 HMR into the collection to fill the gap between your .22 and your 223. This is a valuable public service that is being performed and we should support it.