:roll::roll::roll::roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Friwi
Act, with their announcements on Treaty issues, will struggle to be a member of any government.
If you want to vote for an opposition party, and you think that's going to help, go for it.
Printable View
:roll::roll::roll::roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Friwi
Act, with their announcements on Treaty issues, will struggle to be a member of any government.
If you want to vote for an opposition party, and you think that's going to help, go for it.
@Gillie, keen to get your view on Section 10 - Ad-hoc Sighting-in from the doc above.
This probably covers most of the previous "what about my situation" comments above... I read that and felt pretty comfortable that I would get arrested sighting in a rifle on a mate's/family members farm... but you seem to have a better understanding of what they say vs. what they mean. What were your thoughts? Thanks!
I would tend to differ...it seems to me,a 27th generation Kiwi.....that they are making perfect sense.... the treaty was never about co-governance infact if I CAN BE SO BOLD...the very idea of co-governance reeks to high heaven of apartied ..you know the thing every one got so upset about in the 80s???Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
people have different rules because of the colour of thier bum or who their granddady is said to be....also reeks of old school elitism .....
like it or not NZ is a country with population made up of many many different people from many different places around the globe...for the majority of my 50 years on this earth we as a country have tried to live together as one people..... to try and seperate it is madness on a grand scale.
Just make up a patched jacket and shoot on the farm. Whilst wearing said patch.
Cops won't even bother
@yeah_na_missed, From the Police Shooting Range Manual Rev 1 (2022-03-03):Quote:
Originally Posted by yeah_na_missed
In discussion with the Inspector running the Police Shooting Clubs and Ranges team:Quote:
Areas set up for and routinely used by the public for sighting-in will need to be certified as a range. However, sighting-in that is conducted as an ad-hoc or occasional shooting activity does not require the use of a certified range, if it can be carried out safely, whether on private or public land, for example:
- it is done by an individual or a small group of individuals (but not a shooting club); and
- they are doing sighting-in as an ad-hoc or occasional activity (such as, prior to a hunting trip, or pre-duck shooting season); and
- the public (or a club) do not access and use that area for sighting-in (for example, there are no established targets, or other indications that the area is used for shooting activities).
If the area is used regularly for sighting in (within every couple or three months), if there are targets left at the location, etc. then it is considered a range and subject to certification.
I have asked Police to clarify "sighting in" because this section doesn't say anything about practicing, recreational shooting, plinking, etc.
If you take your kids down on to the farm with a few targets for some fun every few months (and you do it safely, and there is not a complaint) then i don't see Police having anythign to do with that. If you leave the targets up "permanently" and are down there every month then i can see Police wanting certification.
In writing, I think the Police are trying to align with their interpretation of the definitions of a Range in the Act while appreciating that certifying every instance of anyone shooting at an inanimate object is practically impossible. In practice, i can't see Police arresting and prosecuting people for sighting in unless you were doing it in an unsafe way and there was a complaint. If you were sighting in safely and there was a complaint (and you weren't a dick about it) then i think Police would take an "educational" approach and either be happy or simply advise you to apply for range certification.
So regarding, Section 10 - i think Police have given themselves enough of a vague definition such that they can apply some judgement in practice.
In @Peteforskeet example - i think Police would interpret that as needing certification because it sounds like a bit of an organsied event for his family / friends.
Shooting 'at' not 'from' an inanimate object is the difference I believeQuote:
Originally Posted by 7mmwsm
Awesome, thanks @Gillie, good to get your interpretation of it!
I guess that "no complaint" point is a big one... be nice to your neighbours, and keep any neighbours who might not like loud noises well supplied with meat!
and pick up the pizza box after you have poked holes in it.... the lake lyndon fiasco a few years back is classic WHY this is on the cards...if you wanted to find a REASON to change things,thats about as good as can get.
Now dont go giving them ideas:O_O:Quote:
Originally Posted by 7mmwsm
Letting the police use their 'judgement' is a bad idea in my books.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gillie
They have proven many times to be pricks when dealing with firearms.
Although, there are good cops out there I believe the majority will be horrible to deal with regarding shooting.
In saying this, I think the law is an ass and if it is enforced to the letter as it stands we are screwed.
What a crappy situation.
Does anyone have an idea what certification will cost for a private range? and any annual costs etc?
It's all in the discussion document $830 per range and $500 for a "special event" range even if it's only a one off organised shoot. There's a lot more in there and submissions close 4 may.
It would be nice to have the established national bodies get a set of guidelines out so people can formulate their own replies. A copy n paste template is no good.
Don't forget, that that cost is the estimated Police Cost Recovery, the Shooting Range Inspector may also have costs associated as they will likely need travel to get on-site for the inspection and spend time actually doing their part and the write up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Henry
All I see is my range that cost me a lot of time and money going up in smoke because those swine bastards at PNHQ think they know how to think.
What am I supposed to do when I want to shoot some targets? I cannot afford to buy their bullshit 'approval' I will be forced to shoot at different locations every time so there is no set range.
The neighbors are going to fucking love that.
You bastards at PNHQ reading this? Get a real job.
I'd really like to see a justification from PNHQ on the value of this, a balanced scorecard on how these specific changes will "make us safer", reduce harm and crime in the community and identify specific cases where had this legislation been in place, a crime would have been prevented, failing that, an accident or injury would have been prevented. But not something related to human factors like a ND which could just as easily happen on a "certified range"Quote:
Originally Posted by 40mm
I'd like somewhere comfortable to wait though.
It's not about making us safer. It's about making it difficult so you give up and do something elseQuote:
Originally Posted by imaca
What he said.
Don't get lost in the minutia of the proposed regulations. Look at the big picture. There was no problem prior to the Police incompetence that permitted an Aussie psycho to get one of our FAL. None of the proposed changes stand up to a robust cost-benefit analysis, as incidents by licenced FAL holders have been very few and far between. This is all part of a much bigger push to make the average Kiwi citizen more pliable and compliant to forthcoming social engineering. Oh...but if you are a gang member...none of this applies to you.
My take: there's going to be an awful lot of 'pest control' being undertaken by mates of farmers on their private property.
How many people have been killed on a NRA or NZDA range - think of a number smaller than 1.
What was the problem again?
If there are no permanent structures present it is not a range. Mobile shooting bench/targets. I'm sure we will see some very clever bits of kit contrived to stay within the numbskull regulations we all know will be implemented.
But I like shooting targets.Quote:
Originally Posted by XR500
I don't want to be setting gongs and cans up every time I shoot.
Seems like road ends/quarries/river beds etc are going to get a lot messier in the pursuit of "safety".
so dont...have steel sculptures set up in strategically pleasing to the eye positions around the show...... steampunk is all the rage dont you know....Quote:
Originally Posted by 40mm
Good idea. But I have grown fond of shooting cans filled with water. I have a wheely bin full of empties to shoot, and a contraption to fill 20 at a time, and a small trough with ballcock etc for filling.
Put a bit of effort into it, and for what?
Not happy is what.
Just spent around 4 hours filling out the discussion document for public consultation. Not much time left to get yours in. Cant help feeling I am wasting my time, but I live in hope that some sense will prevail
Currently clay bird shooting at the local club and pleasing to see a large group from the local high school out here. All potential future shooters and some potential Olympic shooters.
Unfortunately under the new rules they wont be able to return if passed.
Even the ladies on the committee that cook the sausages will need a license dispite the fact they have no interest in shooting.
It would seem quite funny if it weren't so bloody serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by 40mm
Agreed.. the questionnaire was more about the shape the regulation will take rather than the need for the regulation in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by chindit
That's because it's just ticking the consultation box. They aren't interested in the response as the decision has already been madeQuote:
Originally Posted by LBD
Morons. Doesnt seem to include the junior shooters (clay bird) like my good mate Ben that need a couple of years of competition before representing NZ
Cancel culture and political correctness over-ride some of the old methods where responsible firearms training was a valued thing.
Oops sorry forgot we are roped in with nutters and crims but are low hanging fruit.
As a modern day risk assessment would ultimately shoe, how for you eliminate the risk, remove all firearms.
Just a stepping stone in the ultimate directive.
Conspiracy theory would also suggest the govt wouldn't want the public having a means to get snarky if they get a bit of inspiration from the book 1984
Unfortunately this will end the school clay shooting and small bore rifle competitions which are the the feeders of our top national and international teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by csmiffy
It will also put an end to junior class NZDA type competition and restrict HUNTS courses to the over 16 who have a license.
Unfortunately this will end the school clay shooting and small bore rifle competitions which are the the feeders of our top national and international teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by csmiffy
It will also put an end to junior class NZDA type competitions including local club family xmas shoots that have a junior class and restrict HUNTS courses to the over 16 who have a license.
If the same approach was applied to other sports there'd be no rugby, no motorsport, cycling would be heavily restricted.
yip make it law it has to apply to rugby....and golf.
One to keep an eye on.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-dai...uel-over-noise
Phillips must be planning a subdivisionQuote:
Originally Posted by Ned
western springs in dorkland was home to motorsport and outdoor concerts, then it got built up etc..........
There are multiple pieces of legislation, regulation and mandatory design manual that cover what we will be able to do when shooting at inanimate objects!
The Arms Legislation Act 2020 is now law and this Act defines what activities are defined as shooting clubs and shooting ranges. This has been covered in some of the posts above
The Police have prepared a new Shooting Range Design Manual (Draft version released prior to the pending new regulations on the 2020 Act), which has the following paragraph:
"10.1 Sighting-in is a shooting activity and can be conducted on a certified range (provided it complies with that range’s standing orders). Areas set up for and routinely used by the public for sighting-in will need to be certified as a range. However, sighting-in that is conducted as an ad-hoc or occasional shooting activity does not require the use of a certified range, if it can be carried out safely, whether on private or public land, for example:
a. it is done by an individual or a small group of individuals (but not a shooting club); and
b. they are doing sighting-in as an ad-hoc or occasional activity (such as, prior to a hunting trip, or pre-duck shooting season); and
c. the public (or a club) do not access and use that area for sighting-in (for example, there are no established targets, or other indications that the area is used for shooting activities)."
The Police have issued a consultation document for the new regulations that will cover ranges and it does not say any more than the design manual on this point, however when the new regulations do come out (supposed to be in December this yr), they could well have some additional rules and requirements.
Wont really know where we stand until the new regulations come out at the end of this yr
Thank you for that summary, very informative.Quote:
Originally Posted by NZVarminter
At the moment looking at 10.1 a,b and c above it seems like heading to my local friendly farmers paddock and sighting in will not be changed.
Probably the only good bit of the legislation.