Thread: Call to Arms

Originally Posted by Koshogi

Our rights as firearm owners are under attack. The media, the Police Association and others are having a concerted effort to destroy the firearms culture of New Zealand. They are lying and deceiving politicians and the public. Now is the time to act.

Write to the media. Write to your local representative, write to the Police Minister, write to the Prime Minister. Let them know, no more. Now is the time to act.

Call the lies out. Call the deception out. Now is the time to act.

This is my response to the Select Committee report, use it or write your own.

Response to the Law and Order Select Committee Report:
“Inquiry into issues relating to the illegal possession of firearms in New Zealand”

Dear Members of Parliament,

I write to you in response to the report by the Law and Order Select Committee released on 7th April 2017. I feel that the recommendations contained within the report fails to properly address any of the real issues of firearms crime in New Zealand, and instead seeks to encumber lawful firearm, the NZ Police and the tax payers, with administrative and financial burdens.

Bias of Critical Submissions and Premise

The entire premise of this enquiry has been tainted from its onset. The media, NZ Police and the NZ Police Association have all perpetuated a misleading and often erroneous campaign against lawful firearms ownership in New Zealand. The New Zealand Police Association has routinely claimed in the media that “There is a "major problem" with illegal gun possession in New Zealand, says the Police Association.”(1) or that “Anyone with the right licence can import military assault style rifles, he said, but the problem was where they go once they're in the country.
"Because they're not registered to individual owners they go missing, they get stolen, and we don't even know what's out there." (2). The fact is that firearm related crime is at a 10-year low, and the details of every MSSA legally imported into the country is recorded by the NZ Police. So where is the problem? Is there actually a major problem with firearms in New Zealand or is the NZ Police Association and media distorting the truth to fit a personal agenda?

Let’s look at what the New Zealand Police in their submission (3) to the Select Committee, said about firearm crime:
Attachment 66945

The firearm seizures are up though, so is that an indication of an “increase in firearm possession”? Once again, we will have a look at what the NZ Police said:
Attachment 66948

So what about illegal handguns?
Attachment 66944

Were they actually stolen pistols though?
Attachment 66946

So, can people just import a MSSA into the country with no restrictions like Chris Cahill, President of the NZ Police Association claims? No, it is an offence to import any firearm, pistol, MSSA or restricted weapon without a permit issued by the NZ Police Arms Act 1983 s16 Offence to import firearms, starting pistols, restricted airguns, or restricted weapons, or parts of firearms, starting pistols, or restricted weapons without permit.

Clearly the New Zealand Police Association, or just the President Chris Cahill, do not like law abiding citizens and residents of New Zealand owning firearms. This is clear from their presentation to the Select Committee:
Attachment 66947
Too many firearms? Where or why is there a limit on the number of firearms held by licenced citizens?

The presentation and submission continues with the Associations or Presidents anti-gun narrative with claims of:
• Numbers of firearms seizures, which do not correspond with official NZ Police figures;
• Raising the “issue’ that someone could buy an A Category firearm and then fit a magazine with greater than 7rd capacity. Which would be illegal. Just like if someone bought a Ferrari, and then broke the speed limit.
• Raising the issue of .50 caliber rifles. Firearms used for long range target shooting, that cost in excess of $10,000, some costing more than $25,000. What criminal is going to spend that money?
• Referencing the New Zealand Hunting Shooting Forum thread about obtaining an ‘E’ Endorsement. Claiming that it was “Subverting requirements on legitimate membership of Rifle Club, participating in’3 gun matches’ and claiming the need for pest control when the true intent is hunting.”. What legislative requirement is this? There is no such requirement. The only requirement for an ‘E’ Endorsement is that one be a ‘fit and proper person’.

Reports Recommendations

I will address each of the report’s recommendations, including those that contradict themselves.
Sale and supply of firearms and ammunition
1. that the law be amended so that a firearms licence is required to possess ammunition, unless the person in possession of the ammunition is under the immediate supervision of a firearms licence holder (page 7).

As it is already an offence to possess ammunition without a lawful, proper and sufficient purpose (Arms Act 1983, s45). What will a legislative amendment change? Effective enforcement by the NZ Police and courts of the current law would achieve the same goal.

2. that the law be amended so that a firearms dealer’s licence be required to sell or supply ammunition by way of a business (page 7).

What would this achieve? The law already prohibits sale of ammunition to unlicenced persons (Arms Act 1983, s43B).

3. that the law be amended so that dealers be required to keep records of sales of ammunition (page 8).

What would this achieve? Ammunition does not a have a unique serial number. So how would this control the supply of ammunition? Effective enforcement by the NZ Police and courts of the current law would achieve the same goal.

4. that it create a Police registration process for websites that wish to facilitate the buying, selling, or trading of firearms, parts of firearms, or ammunition online. It would be an offence to operate such a website without current registration (page 8).

What would this achieve? Any person conducting the sale of firearms as a business must already possess a dealers licence. Any private sales are already controlled by legislation. So, what would this registration control or stop?

5. that the permit to procure process be extended to cover the sale or transfer of all firearms (page 9).

What would it achieve?

The NZ Police have a difficult time processing the current applications for permits, with some persons waiting in excessive of two years for an application to be processed. How would this additional burden be met by current NZ Police resources? Who would pay for the additional resources?

Current permit to procure procedures require the purchased/transferred firearm brought to a NZ Police station to verify the details of the firearm. This is often done in full view of the public, criminals and those on bail. Is this not going to increase the risks firearms in public and those with criminal intent identifying those with firearms?

Would criminals obtain a permit to procure?

Would a licenced father need to obtain a permit to procure in order to borrow a firearm from his licenced son or daughter? Would another permit be required to return that to the father? What would this administrative burden achieve?

Definition of military-style semi-automatics
6. that the Police investigate the creation of a category of restricted semi-automatic firearm (rifle and shotgun) to replace the MSSA firearm endorsement category (page 10).

What would this achieve?

How many crimes are committed with MSSAs? How many are seized by NZ Police? According to the NZ Police submission, MSSAs accounted for 0.022% of all firearm seizures in 2013/14. (Table three: Seizures of firearms by Police, by type, 2005/5 to 2014/15. Reference 3)

How many semi-automatic .22LR rifles and 12 gauge shotguns will be affected by the creation of a new category? For what purpose? How many will disappear into the grey market?

Effectiveness of licensing, training, and registering firearms
7. that firearms prohibition orders be implemented in New Zealand (page 12).

Is the possession of firearms by unlicenced persons already an offence? Yes. Arms Act 1983, s43B. Will this make it doubly illegal?
Effective enforcement by the NZ Police and courts of the current law would achieve the same goal.

8. that the Police Arms Manual guidelines on determining who is fit and proper to possess firearms be codified within the Arms Act 1983, with any necessary modifications, to improve the overall certainty and consistency of the licensing process (page 13).

The Police Arms Manual is not law. It should not be viewed as law. The current process has worked successfully since the enactment of the Arms Act 1983.
The NZ Police can continue to use their internally written manual as guidance in vetting applicants, but the decision should ultimately rest with the courts.

9. that it implement a stand-down period after revocation of a licence, before a new application for a firearms licence can be made (page 13).

What would this achieve? Any person who is not a ‘fit and proper person’ as a result of their actions that caused the revocation of their licence, would not be issued a licence.

10. that the Arms Act 1983 be amended to clearly state that a gang member or prospect must not be considered a fit and proper person to possess firearms and therefore must not hold a firearms licence (page 15).

This is already contained within the Police Arms Manual. If the NZ Police adhered to their own guidance material, they would achieve the same goal. As mentioned in the report, the NZ Police have not followed their own guidance and issued firearms licences to numerous known gang members.

The report detailed evidence of 44% of gang members and prospects having been charged with a serious offence involving a firearm. 9% had been charged with five or more offences in their lifetime. So what really have the courts done? Are these person’s wo have committed serious violent offences free to roam New Zealand to commit further offences?

The report also identifies that the NZ Police had issued 29 gang members with firearms licences. Six of these have since been revoked. Why were these issued in the first place? If the NZ Police Arms Manual states that a person who “have affiliations with a gang involved in committing violent offences or in conflict with another gang” is not a ‘fit and proper person’, why did the NZ Police issue the licence? Was each of those applications rejected and then appealed against?

Who decides what a gang is? How do you identify who a prospect is?

Any person who has a serious criminal record should not be considered a ‘fit and proper person’.

If you have not committed any crime, should you lose your rights? Every person should have the right to appeal against the NZ Police decision.

11. that the law be amended to require the Police to record the serial numbers of all firearms possessed by licence holders upon renewal of their licence or inspection of their premises (page 16).

The report contradicts itself here, it states “We recommend that instead of creating a firearms register, the legislation be amended to require the Police to record the serial numbers of firearms owned by licence holders.” Page 16

Where are they going store the serial numbers of these firearms? In a register?

The report also provides a list of issues relating to registration:

There are several issues with registering firearms, many of which were raised in the 1997 Thorp Report and the 2001 report of the Law and Order Committee on the Arms Amendment Bill (No 2) 1999. These include:
• the cost of implementation and the time it would take
• lack of evidence that registration will result in a reduction of violence involving firearms
• difficulties with obtaining a high degree of compliance and accuracy
• the number of illegal firearms that would remain outside the system (including those in possession of the criminal community), which would significantly reduce the benefits of registration.

How would these issues not remain with the proposed recommendations?

What would recording serial numbers of firearms achieve?

Criminal offending with firearms
12. that it review the penalties in the Arms Act 1983 (page 18).

How often are the maximum penalties imposed currently?

In March 2017, a person who was convicted of unlawful possession of pistol, MSSA, other firearms and drugs, was only given 3 months community work. Under the current offences in the Arms Act 1983, the individual could have been sentenced to up 7 years of imprisonment and/or fines of $9000. Were these applied? No, so what will increasing the penalties achieve, if the current ones are not even enforced?

Effective enforcement by the NZ Police and courts of the current law would achieve the same goal.

13. that the law be amended so that where a dealer has committed an offence under the Arms Act 1983, the court must treat this as an aggravating factor at sentencing (page 18).

What type of offence? An administrative offence? Making a human error while completing paperwork?

14. that the Police undertake further work to determine appropriate security standards for “A” category firearms (page 19).
Why is this in the “Criminal Offending with Firearms” Section?

The NZ Police have a long history of ultra vires policies. They have recently attempted to impose new ‘requirements’ on the storage for endorsed firearms. This is being challenged by a judicial review in June 2017. The firearm community does not trust their competence to make these decisions.

While improving security for ‘A” category firearms is a sensible goal. Caution must be taken to ensure that the requirements do not make an excessive financial burden, on farmers or those who use firearms as tools of trade.

15. that the law be amended to make it clear that the secure storage requirements must be met to the satisfaction of the Police, before a licence or endorsement can be issued (page 19).

Arms Regulation 1992, s19 and 28 require ALL firearms be stored correctly.

What would this achieve?

16. that it extend the power under regulation 29 to allow the Police to enter premises to inspect the security of “A” category firearms (page 19).

Why should law abiding person forego their rights? If the NZ Police feel an offence has/is being committed, should the NZ Police not have to provide evidence to a court and obtain a warrant?

Why do persons who have already demonstrated that they are ‘fit and proper persons’ have less rights than a convicted criminal?

17. that the Arms Act 1983 be amended so that failure to comply with the storage regulations must result in revocation of a firearms licence (page 19).

If the NZ Police have evidence that a person has contravened Arms Regulation 1992, s19 or 28, then they should lay charges. It is up to a court to decide the punishment for that particular offence.

Reducing the number of grey firearms
18. that it clarify the amnesty in section 10 of the Arms Act 1983 and extend it to include MSSAs, “A” category firearms, and the handing in of firearms to the Police (page 21).

May clarify some drafting errors.

19. that the Police develop policy guidance so that, under the amnesty, when people hand in firearms that are unlawfully in their possession, or report firearms lost, stolen, or destroyed, the Police will have the discretion not to prosecute for the possession offence, subject to police inquiries not revealing offending other than breach of lawful possession of firearms(s) under the Arms Act 1983 (page 21).

May clarify some drafting errors.

Importing firearms into New Zealand

20. that it ensure that visitors who have imported firearms and have been in the country for up to twelve months for a sporting holiday or competition should have the export of the firearms checked by the Police when they leave New Zealand (page 24).

What resources do the NZ Police have to allocate to this?

As of the 27th February 2017, 6727 firearm licences are shown to be expired. Only 2455 of these are in the process of renewed. What are the NZ Police doing about the other 4272? (5)

Can the NZ Police really commit to any more administrative burdens?

What should be done about the illegal possession of firearms in New Zealand?

The best and clearly most effective method to tackle the illegal possession of firearms in New Zealand, is enforcement and application of appropriate penalties by the courts, under the current laws. The existing Arms Act 19834 and supporting regulations, supply sufficient penalties to punish those who misuse firearms in New Zealand. Increasing penalties mean nothing if the current penalties are not enforced.

The report identifies that burglary is a common source of criminal access to firearms. The current NZ Police resolution rate for burglary is 9.3% (6). What in the report tackles this? Nothing. The NZ Police should increase resources to reduce the burglary rates and to increase their resolution rates. Not wasting resources monitoring law abiding citizens and recording serial numbers.

Gun crime in New Zealand, including homicides, is down.

New Zealand does not have a firearms problem. New Zealand has an enforcement problem.

Do not waste valuable Police resources with administrative burdens, that only monitor those who are already ‘fit and proper’ citizens of this country. We are the doctors, the lawyers, the professionals, the tradesmen, the workers. New Zealand shooters are the backbone of this country. Do not punish us. Punish the criminals.


Kind regards,

Koshogi












 
References:
1. Gun inquiry will shock - Police Association: Gun inquiry will shock - Police Association | Radio New Zealand News
2. Illegal guns a focus for new Police Assn president: Illegal guns a focus for new Police Assn president | Radio New Zealand News
3. NZ Police Submission to Select Committee:
https://www.parliament.nz/resource/e...c8a9bc1245bf62
4. Stuff NZ March 29 2017:
Marlborough man Michael Just sentenced for weapons collection, cannabis grow room | Stuff.co.nz
5. Kiwi Gun Blog: Thousands of Expired Licenses Go Unchecked: https://kiwigunblog.wordpress.com/20...-go-unchecked/
6. Burglary exclusive: 164 burglaries a day unsolved:
Burglary exclusive: 164 burglaries a day unsolved - National - NZ Herald News

Any one can import an MSSA, in parts, don't try and make out that the statement is incorrect.

Just because crime is at a "low" doesn't mean that it's not a problem or that there isn't going to be a problem, I'm actually finding there are more armed offenders out there, especially in the last 12 months, but this could just be regional, but there is a major problem.

The problem is that any person can import the parts to assemble a MSSA or buy up a-cat firearms and onsell them to anyone without any kind of trail. The Police assosiation example involving the head hunter is a perfect example, he hasn't been prosecuted as there is proof that he supplied to unlicenced people.

In the last six months I've been involved in two incidents where guns were pointed at frontline police, one incident shots were fired and it was a MSSA.

Just because something is an offence doesn't mean that it's a deterrent, just like speeding, lots of people speed on open roads, put a speed camera out there (a way of being caught) and they stop.

The PA presentation was reffering to too many firearms in the wrong hands, not in general.

1) Yes possession of ammunition by a non-FAL holder is already an offence, I'm unsure why he thinks otherwise but is a very minor issue here.
2)3)4) Agreed, not really needed.
5) I disagree with this as well, too much hassle. I'd rather a compulsory notification sent to Police via e-form or similar. It's not about whether a criminal would obtain a p2p, it's that the FAL holder wouldn't sell to a person without one as they could be traced.
6) they haven't defined what the new category would involve here so speculation can go both ways, it does need some kind of change to make less open to interpretation.
7)prohibition orders would stop people using them under someone elses supervision which isn't an offence and would remove any defence for having one, great idea for certain people.
8)fit and proper is subjective to the police, that is in law, so if they decide to put it in a code book then it is arguable whether it is law or not. Sure it can be challenged in the courts but anything can be. Your argument is irrelevant to the point.
9)stops muppets from intantly applying, getting turned down and dragging it through the courts. But agreed it's not really needed.
10) It's the courts that decided that being a gangmember alone isn't reason enough not to be considered fit and proper. Police are bound by the courts decision so your whole argument is unfounded.
11) I actually think this is ok, they're already recording B C E cat weapons and it appears to be effective, sure there are negatives but there are certainly positives as well, the main one being the deterrence of on-selling to non FAL holders.
12)Judges can't just dish out maximum sentences cumulatively whenever they like, they're bound by legislation and are also open to appeal. To increase the penalties would give the judges more freedom to give bigger sentences. it's much easier to give 2yrs imprisonment on a 10yr max penalty that a 2yr max penalty.
13) selling firearms to unlicenced people?
14) Who cares what section it is, that's erroneous. This is a great submission, financial burden? Do you expect them to spec bank safes? more likely BCE standards or less.
15)there is nothing to say an endorsenment can't be issued until there is suitable storage arangements, this would remove that.
16)Do you really have a problem with random inspections? I see no end of unsecured firearms by some great and generally responsible people, so many get stolen from unlocked safes too. It's hardly like your house is going to be searched whilst you're put in plasticuffs and are not free to leave. If all people were reasonable this kind of thing wouldn't need to be law.
17)actually it's the police who decides who is fit and proper so it's up to them to revoke FALs, it's in the arms act.

You talk about effective enforcement however the problem is that the Police aren't able to enforce some of the current laws because of easy defences and lack of accountability of FAL holders for the whereabouts of their firearms. Have you ever investigated a burglary? If so you'd know just how notoriously hard they are to solve due to lack of evidence, and if this is how FAs are mainly obtained then increasing security should be first priority. Preaching about Police needing to solve more burglaries is just easy scapegoating.

Not all people that're vetted 'fit and proper' are 'fit and proper'

I'm not against you at all, just trying to add a bit of perspective and play devils advocate.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Any one can import an MSSA, in parts, don't try and make out that the statement is incorrect.

Just because crime is at a "low" doesn't mean that it's not a problem or that there isn't going to be a problem, I'm actually finding there are more armed offenders out there, especially in the last 12 months, but this could just be regional, but there is a major problem.

The problem is that any person can import the parts to assemble a MSSA or buy up a-cat firearms and onsell them to anyone without any kind of trail. The Police assosiation example involving the head hunter is a perfect example, he hasn't been prosecuted as there is proof that he supplied to unlicenced people.

In the last six months I've been involved in two incidents where guns were pointed at frontline police, one incident shots were fired and it was a MSSA.

Just because something is an offence doesn't mean that it's a deterrent, just like speeding, lots of people speed on open roads, put a speed camera out there (a way of being caught) and they stop.

The PA presentation was reffering to too many firearms in the wrong hands, not in general.

1) Yes possession of ammunition by a non-FAL holder is already an offence, I'm unsure why he thinks otherwise but is a very minor issue here.
2)3)4) Agreed, not really needed.
5) I disagree with this as well, too much hassle. I'd rather a compulsory notification sent to Police via e-form or similar. It's not about whether a criminal would obtain a p2p, it's that the FAL holder wouldn't sell to a person without one as they could be traced.
6) they haven't defined what the new category would involve here so speculation can go both ways, it does need some kind of change to make less open to interpretation.
7)prohibition orders would stop people using them under someone elses supervision which isn't an offence and would remove any defence for having one, great idea for certain people.
8)fit and proper is subjective to the police, that is in law, so if they decide to put it in a code book then it is arguable whether it is law or not. Sure it can be challenged in the courts but anything can be. Your argument is irrelevant to the point.
9)stops muppets from intantly applying, getting turned down and dragging it through the courts. But agreed it's not really needed.
10) It's the courts that decided that being a gangmember alone isn't reason enough not to be considered fit and proper. Police are bound by the courts decision so your whole argument is unfounded.
11) I actually think this is ok, they're already recording B C E cat weapons and it appears to be effective, sure there are negatives but there are certainly positives as well, the main one being the deterrence of on-selling to non FAL holders.
12)Judges can't just dish out maximum sentences cumulatively whenever they like, they're bound by legislation and are also open to appeal. To increase the penalties would give the judges more freedom to give bigger sentences. it's much easier to give 2yrs imprisonment on a 10yr max penalty that a 2yr max penalty.
13) selling firearms to unlicenced people?
14) Who cares what section it is, that's erroneous. This is a great submission, financial burden? Do you expect them to spec bank safes? more likely BCE standards or less.
15)there is nothing to say an endorsenment can't be issued until there is suitable storage arangements, this would remove that.
16)Do you really have a problem with random inspections? I see no end of unsecured firearms by some great and generally responsible people, so many get stolen from unlocked safes too. It's hardly like your house is going to be searched whilst you're put in plasticuffs and are not free to leave. If all people were reasonable this kind of thing wouldn't need to be law.
17)actually it's the police who decides who is fit and proper so it's up to them to revoke FALs, it's in the arms act.

You talk about effective enforcement however the problem is that the Police aren't able to enforce some of the current laws because of easy defences and lack of accountability of FAL holders for the whereabouts of their firearms. Have you ever investigated a burglary? If so you'd know just how notoriously hard they are to solve due to lack of evidence, and if this is how FAs are mainly obtained then increasing security should be first priority. Preaching about Police needing to solve more burglaries is just easy scapegoating.

Not all people that're vetted 'fit and proper' are 'fit and proper'

I'm not against you at all, just trying to add a bit of perspective and play devils advocate.

Thanks for you input to this thread Savage1.

I have a major problem with "Random inspection" if a gang members p lab cant be randomly inspected at any time with no reason then why can I not tell police wanting to inspect my security(which is well above minimum A spec) to fuck off if I am in the middle of bumming the missus,celebrating an event, just dont feel like dealing with the man.
Why should I have less rights than known criminals known to be performing criminal acts?

And I also have another major problem with police telling us what arms are acceptable....in no short time we will all be using slingshots or be criminals....dont say it isnt so your spokesperson clearly wants no arms available to the public.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Any one can import an MSSA, in parts, don't try and make out that the statement is incorrect.

Just because crime is at a "low" doesn't mean that it's not a problem or that there isn't going to be a problem, I'm actually finding there are more armed offenders out there, especially in the last 12 months, but this could just be regional, but there is a major problem.

The problem is that any person can import the parts to assemble a MSSA or buy up a-cat firearms and onsell them to anyone without any kind of trail. The Police assosiation example involving the head hunter is a perfect example, he hasn't been prosecuted as there is proof that he supplied to unlicenced people.

In the last six months I've been involved in two incidents where guns were pointed at frontline police, one incident shots were fired and it was a MSSA.

Just because something is an offence doesn't mean that it's a deterrent, just like speeding, lots of people speed on open roads, put a speed camera out there (a way of being caught) and they stop.

The PA presentation was reffering to too many firearms in the wrong hands, not in general.

1) Yes possession of ammunition by a non-FAL holder is already an offence, I'm unsure why he thinks otherwise but is a very minor issue here.
2)3)4) Agreed, not really needed.
5) I disagree with this as well, too much hassle. I'd rather a compulsory notification sent to Police via e-form or similar. It's not about whether a criminal would obtain a p2p, it's that the FAL holder wouldn't sell to a person without one as they could be traced.
6) they haven't defined what the new category would involve here so speculation can go both ways, it does need some kind of change to make less open to interpretation.
7)prohibition orders would stop people using them under someone elses supervision which isn't an offence and would remove any defence for having one, great idea for certain people.
8)fit and proper is subjective to the police, that is in law, so if they decide to put it in a code book then it is arguable whether it is law or not. Sure it can be challenged in the courts but anything can be. Your argument is irrelevant to the point.
9)stops muppets from intantly applying, getting turned down and dragging it through the courts. But agreed it's not really needed.
10) It's the courts that decided that being a gangmember alone isn't reason enough not to be considered fit and proper. Police are bound by the courts decision so your whole argument is unfounded.
11) I actually think this is ok, they're already recording B C E cat weapons and it appears to be effective, sure there are negatives but there are certainly positives as well, the main one being the deterrence of on-selling to non FAL holders.
12)Judges can't just dish out maximum sentences cumulatively whenever they like, they're bound by legislation and are also open to appeal. To increase the penalties would give the judges more freedom to give bigger sentences. it's much easier to give 2yrs imprisonment on a 10yr max penalty that a 2yr max penalty.
13) selling firearms to unlicenced people?
14) Who cares what section it is, that's erroneous. This is a great submission, financial burden? Do you expect them to spec bank safes? more likely BCE standards or less.
15)there is nothing to say an endorsenment can't be issued until there is suitable storage arangements, this would remove that.
16)Do you really have a problem with random inspections? I see no end of unsecured firearms by some great and generally responsible people, so many get stolen from unlocked safes too. It's hardly like your house is going to be searched whilst you're put in plasticuffs and are not free to leave. If all people were reasonable this kind of thing wouldn't need to be law.
17)actually it's the police who decides who is fit and proper so it's up to them to revoke FALs, it's in the arms act.

You talk about effective enforcement however the problem is that the Police aren't able to enforce some of the current laws because of easy defences and lack of accountability of FAL holders for the whereabouts of their firearms. Have you ever investigated a burglary? If so you'd know just how notoriously hard they are to solve due to lack of evidence, and if this is how FAs are mainly obtained then increasing security should be first priority. Preaching about Police needing to solve more burglaries is just easy scapegoating.

Not all people that're vetted 'fit and proper' are 'fit and proper'

I'm not against you at all, just trying to add a bit of perspective and play devils advocate.

I see and understand that there are clearly different perspectives on these issues. My biggest concern is around the sheer volume of resources in dollars and manpower hours that will be needed to cope with the suggestions. The delays show us they cannot cope with the resources that are available now. If we were to put a value or indication on the cost in staffing and dollars, would these resources not be more beneficial to be spent on actually targeting the criminals? The police , and especially the front lie cops, have enough of a challenge now. Let put the resources that we can into the place where it will do the most good. The Canadians spent over $2billion on registration before giving up. That is nearly $60 per person in Canada. To put that in perspective that would be about $227 million in NZ. Lets put that to better use.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Any one can import an MSSA, in parts, don't try and make out that the statement is incorrect.

Not sure what you are on about with that comment. The law currently requires a permit to import ANY part of an MSSA. Can people do so illegally? Of course they can. Mr Cahill's comments were not about the illegal importation of MSSAs though.

Anybody can ILLEGALLY import drugs or slaves into this country too....

Originally Posted by Savage1

Just because crime is at a "low" doesn't mean that it's not a problem or that there isn't going to be a problem, I'm actually finding there are more armed offenders out there, especially in the last 12 months, but this could just be regional, but there is a major problem.

The OFFICIAL NZ Police statistics and NZ Police submission to the Select Committee would differ with you on that.

Originally Posted by Savage1

The Police assosiation example involving the head hunter is a perfect example, he hasn't been prosecuted as there is proof that he supplied to unlicenced people.

So he wasn't prosecuted because there is proof that he supplied to unlicenced people. Maybe that's the problem, NZ Police only prosecute people were they don't have any proof....

Originally Posted by Savage1

In the last six months I've been involved in two incidents where guns were pointed at frontline police, one incident shots were fired and it was a MSSA.

Two incidents, with no injuries, in 6 months, is a major problem?

Originally Posted by Savage1

Just because something is an offence doesn't mean that it's a deterrent, just like speeding, lots of people speed on open roads, put a speed camera out there (a way of being caught) and they stop.

Your argument doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by Savage1

The PA presentation was reffering to too many firearms in the wrong hands, not in general.

Chris Cahill and his predecessor have made it abundantly clear their attitude about the number of firearms in civilian hands.

“There appears to be a glaring omission in the report when it comes to tightening up on the tens of thousands of firearms imported into New Zealand every year.

"We have to ask why on Earth we need all these firearms, why we need MSSAs and pistols, and why is it acceptable to not know where many of these weapons end up,” Mr Cahill said. Source

Originally Posted by Savage1

1) Yes possession of ammunition by a non-FAL holder is already an offence, I'm unsure why he thinks otherwise but is a very minor issue here.

The Select Committee not even knowing what the current law is, is a very minor issue. It discredits the entire Report and destroys any faith the firearms committee into the competency of the Select Committee members.

Originally Posted by Savage1

5) I disagree with this as well, too much hassle. I'd rather a compulsory notification sent to Police via e-form or similar. It's not about whether a criminal would obtain a p2p, it's that the FAL holder wouldn't sell to a person without one as they could be traced.

Hmmm...sounds familiar "Just because something is an offence doesn't mean that it's a deterrent". How would the NZ Police even know they had them? They couldn't be stolen?

Originally Posted by Savage1

6) they haven't defined what the new category would involve here so speculation can go both ways, it does need some kind of change to make less open to interpretation.

Open to interpretation? The definition is of MSSAs is pretty clear. It is only the NZ Police who likes to reinterpret the category of firearms. Thankfully the courts quashed their last attempt.

Originally Posted by Savage1

7)prohibition orders would stop people using them under someone elses supervision which isn't an offence and would remove any defence for having one, great idea for certain people.

If a 'fit and proper' person is supervising the use of the firearm, what is the problem?

If the person is not using it for a 'lawful, proper of sufficient purpose', charge them.

45 Carrying or possession of firearms, airguns, pistols, restricted weapons, or explosives, except for lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose
(1) Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to both who, except for some lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose,—
(a) carries; or
(b) is in possession of—any firearm, airgun, pistol, restricted weapon, or explosive.
(2) In any prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in which it is proved that the defendant was carrying or in possession of any firearm, airgun, pistol, restricted weapon, or explosive, as the case may require, the burden of proving the existence of some lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose shall lie on the defendant.

Originally Posted by Savage1

8)fit and proper is subjective to the police, that is in law, so if they decide to put it in a code book then it is arguable whether it is law or not. Sure it can be challenged in the courts but anything can be. Your argument is irrelevant to the point.

Your argument doesn't even make sense.....

Originally Posted by Savage1

9)stops muppets from intantly applying, getting turned down and dragging it through the courts. But agreed it's not really needed.

Stops 'muppets' from using their right of appeal? How dare these people use the judicial system in their defence....

Originally Posted by Savage1

10) It's the courts that decided that being a gangmember alone isn't reason enough not to be considered fit and proper. Police are bound by the courts decision so your whole argument is unfounded.

So, my argument that if you have not committed any crime, (you) should you lose your rights? is unfounded?

Originally Posted by Savage1

11) I actually think this is ok, they're already recording B C E cat weapons and it appears to be effective, sure there are negatives but there are certainly positives as well, the main one being the deterrence of on-selling to non FAL holders.

Effective? You're joking right?

I know dozens of people who have had incorrect details of BCE firearms on their licences.

The point you are really missing though. How many people will comply? How may will hide them away?

If the NZ Police do not know what people have now, how will the deter selling to unlicenced persons?

What was the compliance rate in Canada or Australia?

Originally Posted by Savage1

12)Judges can't just dish out maximum sentences cumulatively whenever they like, they're bound by legislation and are also open to appeal. To increase the penalties would give the judges more freedom to give bigger sentences. it's much easier to give 2yrs imprisonment on a 10yr max penalty that a 2yr max penalty.

Actually judges are REQUIRED to 'dish out' maximum sentences....


Sentencing Act 2002 - 8 Principles of sentencing or otherwise dealing with offenders
In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court—
(a) must take into account the gravity of the offending in the particular case, including the degree of culpability of the offender; and
(b) must take into account the seriousness of the type of offence in comparison with other types of offences, as indicated by the maximum penalties prescribed for the offences; and
(c) must impose the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence if the offending is within the most serious of cases for which that penalty is prescribed, unless circumstances relating to the offender make that inappropriate; and
(d) must impose a penalty near to the maximum prescribed for the offence if the offending is near to the most serious of cases for which that penalty is prescribed, unless circumstances relating to the offender make that inappropriate; and

Unless the possession of MSSAs, pistols and drugs is not a serious case....

Originally Posted by Savage1

13) selling firearms to unlicenced people?

That would already be an offence....

Originally Posted by Savage1

14) Who cares what section it is, that's erroneous. This is a great submission, financial burden? Do you expect them to spec bank safes? more likely BCE standards or less.

I care. It implies that it is 'criminal offending'.

So a farmer with their single shot .22LR must get a $900 E/C rated safe? With an engineers certificate produced every 24mths, because you know....metal dissolves withing 2 years...

Originally Posted by Savage1

15)there is nothing to say an endorsenment can't be issued until there is suitable storage arangements, this would remove that.

Yet, their IS something saying that a person can not take possession of an endorsed firearm until suitable security is in place.

[B]28 Security precautions in relation to pistols, military style semi-automatic firearms, and restricted weapons[/B]
(1)Every person who is lawfully entitled to possession of a pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon other than an air pistol by virtue of a permit under section 18 of the Act or a firearms licence endorsed under section 30 or section 30B of the Act shall ensure that, except when the pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon is in his or her immediate physical possession or is being used, in accordance with section 31 of the Act, for the purpose of making a broadcast or producing or staging a play or filming a cinematic production or television film or is in the custody of a licensed dealer or a member of the Police, it is—
(a)kept in a steel and concrete strongroom of sound construction and of a type approved for the time being in writing either generally or in the particular case by a member of the Police; or
(b)kept in a room of stout and secure construction capable of being adequately secured against unlawful entry, being in every case a room which is approved for the purpose by a member of the Police and which meets the following requirements:
(i)the room shall be in structurally sound condition:
(ii)the doors that give access to the room, and their locks, bolts, hinges, and other fastenings shall be in good condition:
(iii)the windows, skylights, or other things intended to cover openings to the room, and their locks, bolts, hinges, and other fastenings shall be in good condition:
(iv)the doors referred to in subparagraph (ii) and the windows, skylights, and other things referred to in subparagraph (iii) shall be capable of being secured against unlawful entry; or
(c)locked in a steel safe or steel box or steel cabinet (being in every case a safe, box, or cabinet of sound construction and of a type approved in writing either generally or in the particular case by a member of the Police) bolted or otherwise securely fixed (in a manner approved in writing either generally or in the particular case by a member of the Police) to the building within which the pistol or military style semi-automatic firearm or restricted weapon is kept.

Originally Posted by Savage1

16)Do you really have a problem with random inspections? I see no end of unsecured firearms by some great and generally responsible people, so many get stolen from unlocked safes too. It's hardly like your house is going to be searched whilst you're put in plasticuffs and are not free to leave. If all people were reasonable this kind of thing wouldn't need to be law.

Yes, I really have a problem with giving up my rights.

It's not like we haven't seen NZ Police acting unreasonable...

Originally Posted by Savage1

17)actually it's the police who decides who is fit and proper so it's up to them to revoke FALs, it's in the arms act.

So, you are saying that you already have the power. SO you don't need to change anything then.

Originally Posted by Savage1

You talk about effective enforcement however the problem is that the Police aren't able to enforce some of the current laws because of easy defences and lack of accountability of FAL holders for the whereabouts of their firearms. Have you ever investigated a burglary? If so you'd know just how notoriously hard they are to solve due to lack of evidence, and if this is how FAs are mainly obtained then increasing security should be first priority. Preaching about Police needing to solve more burglaries is just easy scapegoating.

So, because burglaries are "notoriously hard they are to solve, you punish the victims? That's not scapegoating?

Police complaining about how hard it is do do their job, but want more work to do....OK.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Not all people that're vetted 'fit and proper' are 'fit and proper'

So maybe the NZ Police should stop giving out licences in Wheatbix boxes then....

Originally Posted by Savage1

I'm not against you at all, just trying to add a bit of perspective and play devils advocate.

Good, I'm not against the NZ Police. I have great respect for the difficult and often thankless job you do. I just demand that the NZ Police are held accountable and operate under the legislative system that governs us all.

Making secret submissions to the Select Committee and lying to the media does not inspire trust though.