Thread: Getting ahead of new range rules

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

yes we definately should be safe and do thing in safe manner....the point Im making is this.....if its not a proper qualified range WHY stick up signage to say its being used as a range....by all means put up sign saying firearms being used safely,move on nothing to see here,do not enter......the same as controlled burn signs but by putting up range sign you are opening your self up for beurocrap to demand you comply with thier agenda(anyone else notice how similar that is to jacinda).
I intend to put a few shots through a couple of rifles next week....on land I have permission to shoot on...behind a locked gate....I cant see the difference between firing those say 10 shots at paper or rabbits.IF I need to put up signage or indeed prior warn police I m going to shoot paper...then I need to do the same for rabbits......

I only put the sign up, when I shoot. Then I have done everything I can. Watch the youtube vid MD and report back. I thought I was doing ok until I watched it.

Greetings All,
I think we all need to wait for the Regulations before we get too excited. A quick read through the Act gave me the impression that it is aimed at Shooting Clubs and the Rifle Ranges that they and the public have access to. In some cases these ranges are already certified and the Shooting Clubs Incorporated so for them changes are likely to be minor. For non certified ranges used by a loosely organised group of people the changes could be considerable. For a landowner with a private range on their property who would know at this stage, lets just wait and see.
I have copies of both the New Zealand Police Range Manual 2005 and the earlier New Zealand Firearms Range Manual 1998 that was put out by the Police and Mountain Safety Council and replaced by the former. The NZ Firearms Range Manual gives a better idea of the danger areas required where the more recent manual leaves this to specific design. I will have a look at Moa Hunters U tube tomorrow to see how this compares with the two above.
Regards Grandpamac.

Assuming it is a paddock or something that you have sheep or animals graze on, you are not organised as a club and range is not it's "primary use" you should be all good. You really don't want to be going for certification as this is where it's going to get interesting to what level bar's are raised to.
This is probably a backdoor approach for them to basically ban 338's and other "sniper calibres"(they call them) by not approving any ranges of their use, bar the odd high country setup.

Originally Posted by Mauser308

No that isn't totally correct, the usual limit is muzzle energy which is usually expressed in joules. For example the local NZDA range to me has a 9000joules muzzle energy limit - this allows for such things as most of the common african calibers, some 12g slug and most of the magnums. .338LM is knocking on the door with some 300gr loads for example. Honestly, it doesn't take that much to get up to that amount of muzzle energy, if the range's limit is much lower you'll be finding that virtually all of the common belted magnums are out which takes out anything you'd use for chamois and thar for example.

That's your NZDA system, is it currently a NZ Police approved range? Do you think they will stick with same certification criteria? One would hope so but I doubt it. Pistol ranges are the only ones certified currently aren't they?

Here will be the twist in the Police Certification-All ranges will need to have local body resource consent's and approval to operate as that activity. This is where they have been putting a bit of thought in the background how to really screw shooting sports.

Greetings All,
I watched the U Tube Video posted by Moa Hunter this morning. There was some good stuff in there but I suspect that his operation is the type that would be eliminated by the NZ law changes. The other area that was addressed but glossed over was Range Danger Areas often called Range Templates. These cover a considerable area for centre fire cartridges unless reduced by an appropriate backstop. Assuming the new law does not cover small private ranges the owner will still need to consider how safety is managed in their use.
Regards Grandpamac.

Originally Posted by grandpamac

Greetings All,
I watched the U Tube Video posted by Moa Hunter this morning. There was some good stuff in there but I suspect that his operation is the type that would be eliminated by the NZ law changes. The other area that was addressed but glossed over was Range Danger Areas often called Range Templates. These cover a considerable area for centre fire cartridges unless reduced by an appropriate backstop. Assuming the new law does not cover small private ranges the owner will still need to consider how safety is managed in their use.
Regards Grandpamac.

Here comes the problem, as soon as you start to put some appropriate range safety features in say your "casual range" that is also a farm paddock you have now created a "range" that needs Police certification and all appropriate local body consents to operate. Currently most ranges operate under allowed activities.

This is actually the worst law change out of the two tranches but not many people have realised this...yet.

When I made a submission against this section I did some research with the two territorial authorities district and regional.
The district council felt that a range was a discretionary rather than a permitted activity and therefore need to be notified in order to get a certificate of compliance.
Assuming the range had been started before the introduction of the rma in 1990 under section 10 an existing right use could be issued if it falls within the district plans requirements.
The regional council disagree that an existing use exemption could be granted as the operation involves discharge of contaminants to soil, air and potentially water, however neither had been involved in consenting anything goes like this.
The president has been set by the wairarapa gun club and the Waiuku pistol clubs consent battles.
A bit over 10 years ago Waiuku spent $130,000 on consenting a site they had occupied since the 1980s, driven by a council rule change and a vexatious neighbor
Wairarapa in 2017 coughed up over $100,000 fighting both the neighbors and a hostile regional council to establish their new grounds.
This is going to turn into a shit fight where the police or whoever is administering this at the time can turn and say it's the councils that are closing ranges not us.
I only hope that 2 years is enough time for some sense to be brought to the table.

Originally Posted by Marty Henry

When I made a submission against this section I did some research with the two territorial authorities district and regional.
The district council felt that a range was a discretionary rather than a permitted activity and therefore need to be notified in order to get a certificate of compliance.
Assuming the range had been started before the introduction of the rma in 1990 under section 10 an existing right use could be issued if it falls within the district plans requirements.
The regional council disagree that an existing use exemption could be granted as the operation involves discharge of contaminants to soil, air and potentially water, however neither had been involved in consenting anything goes like this.
The president has been set by the wairarapa gun club and the Waiuku pistol clubs consent battles.
A bit over 10 years ago Waiuku spent $130,000 on consenting a site they had occupied since the 1980s, driven by a council rule change and a vexatious neighbor
Wairarapa in 2017 coughed up over $100,000 fighting both the neighbors and a hostile regional council to establish their new grounds.
This is going to turn into a shit fight where the police or whoever is administering this at the time can turn and say it's the councils that are closing ranges not us.
I only hope that 2 years is enough time for some sense to be brought to the table.

Yip its going to be dam minefield. Clubs fighting bureaucrats in both Police and Council with Lawyers on tap at ratepayer and taxpayers expense to impede.
I cynically believe this is slipped in 2nd tranche to particularly target a certain range in Auckland and get rid of it, as they haven't been able to.

I believe there are only a handful of PNZ ranges that would currently comply if read law to the letter.

Originally Posted by jackson21

Assuming it is a paddock or something that you have sheep or animals graze on, you are not organised as a club and range is not it's "primary use" you should be all good. You really don't want to be going for certification as this is where it's going to get interesting to what level bar's are raised to.
This is probably a backdoor approach for them to basically ban 338's and other "sniper calibres"(they call them) by not approving any ranges of their use, bar the odd high country setup.

I foresee this creating the biggest pain in the arse for the police, DOC and regional councils that look after rivers.

The Hawkes Bay was lacking a range that hunters/shooters could access to sight in/develop loads and practice shooting at. For years there was always continual issues with reports of shooting in river beds etc, this caused the police and the regional council fella that manages the river ways big problems as you could imagine.

The regional council chap that looks after the rivers ended up putting in a casual 400 yd range, with pretty good dirt banks and backstops etc, benches every 100 yrds to 400. A booking system managed by a local sports shop and it all run pretty well. It has become extremely popular and since it has been in existence the issues for the council and police have all but ended.

I can see that under these new regulations we will likely lose this facility, and it will be back to people having no where to go and shoot. People will go back to shooting in river beds and likely will setup makeshift ranges on the edge of public land to sight in before going for a hunt.

Ask yourself, what is safer?

What a total shambles.....but all in the name of progress and making the streets safer. What a joke! Hopefully, commonsense will prevail, but i highly doubt that.

Originally Posted by GWH

I foresee this creating the biggest pain in the arse for the police, DOC and regional councils that look after rivers.

The Hawkes Bay was lacking a range that hunters/shooters could access to sight in/develop loads and practice shooting at. For years there was always continual issues with reports of shooting in river beds etc, this caused the police and the regional council fella that manages the river ways big problems as you could imagine.

The regional council chap that looks after the rivers ended up putting in a casual 400 yd range, with pretty good dirt banks and backstops etc, benches every 100 yrds to 400. A booking system managed by a local sports shop and it all run pretty well. It has become extremely popular and since it has been in existence the issues for the council and police have all but ended.

I can see that under these new regulations we will likely lose this facility, and it will be back to people having no where to go and shoot. People will go back to shooting in river beds and likely will setup makeshift ranges on the edge of public land to sight in before going for a hunt.

Ask yourself, what is safer?

What a total shambles.....but all in the name of progress and making the streets safer. What a joke! Hopefully, commonsense will prevail, but i highly doubt that.

Greetings,
It is exactly this sort of range that is at risk. It is ideally located next to a noisy gravel extraction plant and well away from houses but it will probably be lost unless there is some organisation prepared to take it over and manage it as required by the new legislation. Hawkes Bay lost a real asset when the Roy's Hill Range closed,
Regards Grandpamac.

My own experience with having an officer turn up after 'reports of gunfire' is likely to be repeated elsewhere. I am relaxed about having my informal range checked with its locked gate and warning sign, but from the youtube link I see that I need to make some improvements - like a safety plan and first aid on site at the covered bench.

A few years ago I set up an airgun range in my suburban back yard, based on the NZ Police range manual. It came out remarkably similar to what that American You Tube Guy did, with a set of written range procedures just for myself, even to a section of "Medevac" planning. There must be quite a convergence of thinking due to common sense or perhaps some shared range safety culture.

For now, shooting an airgun at home is still legal, providing you don't "annoy, endanger or frighten".
A home made document for a personal range may not be much defence if something goes wrong but it made me think ahead of time about my own set up, eg:
Danger of ricochets - cover all concrete, use paper and soft plastics targets only, wood planks cover steel garage corner
Neighbors - no hearing protection to be used in order to maintain social awareness whether anyone is on the other side of the fence
Lead exposure - standard operating procedure for maintaining the pellet trap.
Stray shots - check the guest (and myself too) can hit a 6cm target from 10m first before moving back to 20m.
A small amount of effort to prevent incidents will be more helpful than a lot of butt covering afterwards.

Items I might add now would be:
Formal briefing for guests (if any)
Instructions for wording to use when communicating with emergency services
Photo/video only by prior agreement - Social media coverage has increased in recent years and we need to always talk and act as if what we do will appear online tomorrow.

Always good to have some solid safety procedure for your personal range, however if the lands primary purpose is not a shooting range then by law you are not subject to any inspections or any of the standing range rules.

Going to be Interesting to see how it works with nzda ranges like here in tauranga. Hopefully we can continue to have free access. As a weekend worker I won't be able to shoot otherwise

Greetings Again All,
A few notes as I see things. First the current larger rifle ranges, like the ones at Taupo, Tokaroa and Tauranga are either already registered or will become so. Some of the Clubs using those ranges may need to become Incorporated Societies if they are not already. The use of the ranges is likely to be more tightly controlled by the clubs with a range officer present when shooting is taking place. There will remain some problems with zoning and noise as at present.
Second the small occasional range on private property, used only by the landowner and family should continue. These ranges are subject to health and safety requirements at present which will continue. Problems with noise as above will continue.
Last there are the semi official ranges like the Gravel Pit here in Hawkes Bay or small ranges used by small groups of the public. Few if any of these are registered and many are on land owned or controlled by others. These are the ones at risk.
Just My Thoughts. Grandpamac.

Originally Posted by grandpamac

Greetings Again All,
A few notes as I see things. First the current larger rifle ranges, like the ones at Taupo, Tokaroa and Tauranga are either already registered or will become so. Some of the Clubs using those ranges may need to become Incorporated Societies if they are not already. The use of the ranges is likely to be more tightly controlled by the clubs with a range officer present when shooting is taking place. There will remain some problems with zoning and noise as at present.
Second the small occasional range on private property, used only by the landowner and family should continue. These ranges are subject to health and safety requirements at present which will continue. Problems with noise as above will continue.
Last there are the semi official ranges like the Gravel Pit here in Hawkes Bay or small ranges used by small groups of the public. Few if any of these are registered and many are on land owned or controlled by others. These are the ones at risk.
Just My Thoughts. Grandpamac.

I wouldn't consider anything safe at present..... if a range or use is challenged, it will be costly to challenge....and will end up shut down (same result - and that's exactly what idiot Nash wants....)