Thread: New range laws and shooting on unregistered ranges

Hey Micky Duck ,
Honestly , the 303 has stayed in the gun cabinet . I have not fired it since I have had it apart.
I will hold off until after duck shooting , as the brother in laws pond is on the farm and he is pretty anal about me hunting or firing loud guns at this time of year.

I am looking forward to shooting up some paper and seeing how it is grouping now.

Originally Posted by Daniel Kwon

Yeah, I was one of them. I'm just trying to raise awareness of how to submit and how important of a process it is. It's a nuanced system that could do with some clarity, which is what I'm trying to bring. At the end of the day it's up to you to decide if you want to submit or not, but don't be surprised if our majoritarian system of governance doesn't work in your favor because we failed to be heard.

I wrote a six pager during the pistol grip saga. This is just as important to me, as it is to you. I'm trying to help.

When it is claimed that the submission are read at a rate of 1000 an hour for 24 hours straight, I don't believe it.

Just like when colfo sent out a template for an opposing submission and they were counted as a single submission, but when a north shore councilor sent out a supporting submission template on Facebook, they were individually counted.

90% of submissions opposed the legislation change. The submission process is a consultation box ticking exercise. The decision has already been made.

Originally Posted by Danger Mouse

90% of submissions opposed the legislation change. The submission process is a consultation box ticking exercise. The decision has already been made.

A submission process isn't simply about the number of submissions, it should be about the quality of the submissions.

It isn't good or sufficient simply to oppose a proposal (or legislation).
Well reasoned and logical arguments are a vital part of a submission.

A select committee (or a council committee or hearing panel) need to be able to understand the reasons underpinning and supporting a submission.

A well reasoned, well argued submission has a much greater chance of success.

A submission process isn't a referendum. A majority of votes (in favour or against) doesn't mean anything. It isn't just a numbers game.

Originally Posted by Cyclops

A submission process isn't simply about the number of submissions, it should be about the quality of the submissions.

It isn't good or sufficient simply to oppose a proposal (or legislation).
Well reasoned and logical arguments are a vital part of a submission.

A select committee (or a council committee or hearing panel) need to be able to understand the reasons underpinning and supporting a submission.

A well reasoned, well argued submission has a much greater chance of success.

A submission process isn't a referendum. A majority of votes (in favour or against) doesn't mean anything. It isn't just a numbers game.

True, I watched several submitters spout off conspiracy theories and wild claims, only for MPs from all parties to visibly disengage.

But when the members of the governing party on a select committee pretty much ignore all the points made from one side, you need to start questioning the functioning of "democracy". Having been through the process myself, I doubt if I would bother again in future...

Originally Posted by ebf

True, I watched several submitters spout off conspiracy theories and wild claims, only for MPs from all parties to visibly disengage.

But when the members of the governing party on a select committee pretty much ignore all the points made from one side, you need to start questioning the functioning of "democracy". Having been through the process myself, I doubt if I would bother again in future...

when i took the time off work to do it on the second round I got the distinct impression of this.

https://youtu.be/bi7V_RoUW3k

whenever anyone added something useful or brought up inconvenient facts.

Originally Posted by Cyclops

A submission process isn't simply about the number of submissions, it should be about the quality of the submissions.

It isn't good or sufficient simply to oppose a proposal (or legislation).
Well reasoned and logical arguments are a vital part of a submission.

A select committee (or a council committee or hearing panel) need to be able to understand the reasons underpinning and supporting a submission.

A well reasoned, well argued submission has a much greater chance of success.

A submission process isn't a referendum. A majority of votes (in favour or against) doesn't mean anything. It isn't just a numbers game.

True, but when you see them more or less ignore very well reasoned and well argued submissions (including well qualified experts in the field, and the likes of the law society and the human rights commission) because they've already made up their minds in advance... lets just say its difficult to have much faith in the system.

Originally Posted by Jusepy

So you are saying I cannot go down the back of the sister in laws farm( I live on the farm and do pest control ) , with the brother in law and his mate and blast some clays , preparing for duck shooting...... ?
Or
Put my target gong up and shoot it from 100 yards to sight in for deer hunting and familiarizing myself with my 303 and 308 ?
What utter fucking shit.

The way you have worded it here would meet the current Police definition of "ad hoc" and would not need certification.

https://www.police.govt.nz/advice-se...o-clubs-ranges

Originally Posted by Krameranzac

https://www.police.govt.nz/advice-se...o-clubs-ranges

Was there any issues or problems with the existing ranges and or the way they were run?

Or is this just a new law because ‘somebody’ thought we needed one ?

Originally Posted by Finnwolf

Was there any issues or problems with the existing ranges and or the way they were run?

Or is this just a new law because ‘somebody’ thought we needed one ?

This, someone had to appear to fix a problem that was not there to cover up their cock up which resulted in a lot of people getting hurt and worse.

Thanks for posting this @Krameranzac... I admit I had done none of my own research on this.

Sorry if I'm going over old ground here, and I get people's caution/healthy cynicism on real-life interpretation, but the wording is actually pretty clear.

Taking Jusepy's example of blasting some clays or sighting in on a family/friends farm, which will hopefully apply to me very soon:

While you are undertaking shooting activities ("using a firearm... for the purpose of shooting at inanimate targets..."), you are not doing it as part of a shooting club, or as a member of public, or on an area of designated land used... for the primary purpose of shooting at inanimate targets.

Does anyone else read/interpret that differently?


Section 38, Parts 6 and 7 (https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/...LMS256768.html)
shooting activities—
(a)
means activities that are carried out using a firearm or an airgun for the purpose of shooting at inanimate targets (whether fixed or moving); but
(b)
excludes—
(i)
paintball shooting; and
(ii)
airsoft shooting
shooting club means a voluntary association of people who—
(a)
act in accordance with a set of written rules; and
(b)
participate in, or intend to participate in, shooting activities on a regular basis
shooting range—
(a)
means a facility (whether indoor or outdoor), or a designated area of land, used by a shooting club or members of the public for the primary purpose of carrying out shooting activities; and
(b)
includes any defence area (as that term is defined in section 2(1) of the Defence Act 1990) used by a shooting club.

Originally Posted by CBH Australia

It already applies in Australia.

We are allowed to "sight in" on private property.

If you want a private range it's going to have regulations.

Be sensible about it and hope the police implement the laws with commonsense. It should not affect the majority or make it impossible. At least I don't think that's the intention.
Use common sense and good judgement you should be ok.
Load development (sighting in different loads)

Might apply to New South Wales but not to Victoria we can do as much shooting as we like over 3-hours.
As Long as theres less than 10 people only thing we're not allowed to do is have permanent infrastructure .

Originally Posted by yeah_na_missed

means a facility (whether indoor or outdoor), or a designated area of land, used by a shooting club or members of the public for the primary purpose of carrying out shooting activities;

@yeah_na_missed,
I think the Police interpretation is based upon that there is a comma after the word "land" and the fact there is not one after the word "public".

So by their interpretation "used by a shooting club or members of the public for the primary purpose of carrying out shooting activities" has nothing to do with the primary land use - it has to do with for what primary purpose do "a shooting club or members of the public" use the land for. If they use the land for shooting then Police will considered it a range.

Originally Posted by Gillie

@yeah_na_missed,
I think the Police interpretation is based upon that there is a comma after the word "land" and the fact there is not one after the word "public".

So by their interpretation "used by a shooting club or members of the public for the primary purpose of carrying out shooting activities" has nothing to do with the primary land use - it has to do with for what primary purpose do "a shooting club or members of the public" use the land for.

Primarily use it for a BBQ and secondarily use it for sighting in, understood.

Don't forget to read other sections of the new proposals and provide feedback. Some of the wording in section 3.2.2 around those under 16 years old for example. Their recommendation is to completely stop those under 16 shooting on a range. Other option is they can shoot but not compete. Then if you can and read the question they ask that aligns with this, its wording can be interpreted that only children of Licences are eligible.

There are some very poorly worded pieces in these regulations.

Sent from my M2011K2G using Tapatalk