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

Nice one Massive. A much needed light hearted look. This world has become way too crazy and serious recently.

I see it the same as fishing and fishing rods you need casting rods, bait, fast jigging, slow jigging, soft bait, stick bait, deep water, surf casting, salmon rods, trout rod, fly rod and then you my need a backups.

I justify having as many firearms as I do because I can't afford and have nowhere to put, an equal or greater number of classic cars.

Originally Posted by Ryan

I justify having as many firearms as I do because I can't afford and have nowhere to put, an equal or greater number of classic cars.

Or a motorbike collection....

Originally Posted by Ryan

I justify having as many firearms as I do because I can't afford and have nowhere to put, an equal or greater number of classic cars.

these days im downsizing my clasic pushbike colection and growing my firarms colection, space is a real part of it

Being married my justification speech is well rehearsed....hell I have justification speeches for rifles I dont even have yet.

Originally Posted by Pineapple

Being married my justification speech is well rehearsed....hell I have justification speeches for rifles I dont even have yet.

Good man. Must stay vigilant.

I have itemised my firearms, scopes, reloading equipment for insurance purposes so there could be no argument in case of a claim even though most of them have been assembled from components which individually are below the value that has to be disclosed.

I didn't show my wife the itemised list as it had passed the point of being safe to show her.
It would be something like "You've spent how much ?" What she doesn't know doesn't worry her.


She doesn't know that there are two new (expensive) scopes and two new barrels on the way.

And the police don't know I have any because I had none when I got my FAL.
Actually they might know I have one as I needed them to sign off on the purchase of a Barnard action.

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

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.

I like your thinking Masive, but if my limited experience of firearms officers is anything to go by, they wouldn't know what most of those items were

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I have itemised my firearms, scopes, reloading equipment for insurance purposes so there could be no argument in case of a claim even though most of them have been assembled from components which individually are below the value that has to be disclosed. ...

The insurance snag is often "portable items"". My contents policy covers them all at home but as soon as you've got them elsewhere, they need to be itemised. My company agreed to having two nominated ones at ~$5K each but said they'd pay out if the actual loss was an equivalent-value one.

My advice- check you actually have cover if your toys are out of the house.

Originally Posted by 6x47

The insurance snag is often "portable items"". My contents policy covers them all at home but as soon as you've got them elsewhere, they need to be itemised. My company agreed to having two nominated ones at ~$5K each but said they'd pay out if the actual loss was an equivalent-value one.

My advice- check you actually have cover if your toys are out of the house.

I am covered, itemisation was to ensure this.
When they aren't at home they are sporting equipment and are covered.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

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.

Yes-gadget is dead right(excuse the pun)-the issue withdavid gray was he had a defined mental illness -paranoid schizophrenia,but nothing was done about it until too late-eerily paralled by events involving a mr stanley graham at kowhitirangi in OCT1941-

my self when i offered the police a complete record (including individual descriptions) in case of burglary or god help us i went psychotic i was informed we dont want it ,we cant deal with it donr fit our system.AFAI whats in my gunsafe is my bloody business -police business is just to check its reasonably secure.
If you want anexample of police egg on moosh in this respect _Justice jillian mallons verdict in the freestanding pistol grip casefeaturing "gundoc'at his finest
Madam judge did not mince words with the boys in blue(shineyarsed biro pusher variety)

I've have an ongoing argument with several insurer fronts over firearms, they class them as sporting equipment and even if I list them at x value all that means is I will pay a premium based on that insured value however if stolen/lost they will not replace them or pay out the insured value as sporting goods are indemnity only and not replacement.. so if you buy a $1500 tikka and never use it but list it in your insurance as $1500, and it gets knicked... you will prob get $800 then less excess.. about $600 with no option of replacement. It's insurance theft if you ask me.
I might look into listing them as tools or costume jewellery

Originally Posted by Pineapple

Being married my justification speech is well rehearsed....hell I have justification speeches for rifles I dont even have yet.

i was explaining to the mrs last night why you can't use a rimfire for ducks or large game, why you can't (in my situation) use a shotgun for rabbits or large game and why you can't use a large calibre centrefire for rabbits or ducks. she looked quite bored by the end of it, but i think i'm wearing her down

Originally Posted by MightyBoosh

i was explaining to the mrs last night why you can't use a rimfire for ducks or large game, why you can't (in my situation) use a shotgun for rabbits or large game and why you can't use a large calibre centrefire for rabbits or ducks. she looked quite bored by the end of it, but i think i'm wearing her down

Now all you need to do is introduce the meat damage / trauma question into the discussion with technical input around the faster smaller vs slower larger calibre and like my wife, she will begrudgingly accept that you really do have insufficient firearms for the active pursuit of your interests.