Thread: Shooting place in Ohakune area?

That is a hardcase interpretation - if you were shooting a cardboard box you are in breach of the requirement to have a (temporary) range permit, but if you shot a rabbit next to the box no issue.

Hmmmmmm..... what if you stapled a target to a rabbit? It would only be inanimate after the bullet hit, so as long as you used a live rabbit each time you'd be ok. Of course you would have to be careful that unnecessary suffering was avoided, wouldn't want to run foul of some other act. Possibly sticky tape rather than staples.

@longshot - I am not supporting the Police interpretation just pointing out that is their interpretation and intimating that likely it will take a judicial review / interpretation or a precedence to be set in court to dissuade the Police to the common interpretation of "primary" land use or if the land needs to be a "facility".
@XR500 - the cows are primarily using the land for grazing or farming, "the landowner and his three mates" are using the land for shooting at an inanimate object at the time they are shooting... temporary range... See section 10...
@Ross Nolan - I attempted to raise that exact point with Police some time ago and was basically told "Parliament have decided... Police and just implementing...". Was I shooting at a cow shit on the hill (inanimate object) or was I missing a shot on a rabbit... I don't believe Police will be focusing their range certification efforts on such a small scale hence Section 10 of the Police range manual versus the exact definition of range shooting included in the Act.

@Ross Nolan - I attempted to raise that exact point with Police some time ago and was basically told "Parliament have decided... Police and just implementing...". Was I shooting at a cow shit on the hill (inanimate object) or was I missing a shot on a rabbit... I don't believe Police will be focusing their range certification efforts on such a small scale hence Section 10 of the Police range manual versus the exact definition of range shooting included in the Act.[/QUOTE]


I have considered the matter a little more, and decided the sport of earthworm hunting needs to be revived.
Traditionally this was done by placing a piece of paper, cardboard or similar on the ground and shooting at the worms behind the paper, cardboard or similar. Over time it became customary to decorate the piece of paper, cardboard or similar with various geometric patterns and shapes as a way of propitiating the gods and spirits in charge of both shooting and earthworms.
A lot of people have lost this understanding, and believe that shooting the paper is the entirety of the process.
This is, of course, not so - and an important piece of our culture needs to be brought back to the forefront of this modern world.

Seriously, this is the sort of nonsense and/or unnecessary legislation that leads to the Police being placed in the position of being forced to use discretion - with the potential for uneven application of the law that results. Of course, all of the potential negative effects from target shooting - injury, breach of the peace, damage to property etc are already covered by other legislation. There is no need for this at all other than as a means of control over a sport that has no history of causing harm.

Originally Posted by longshot

Thanks for clearing that one up @Gillie.

The wording is a little opaque but I always thought that the moment someone sets up a target and shoots it, it would be very hard for them to argue that they weren’t operating a shooting range, in the event that they were accused or charged with doing so.

My interpretation is if no equipment, ie Targets, Shooting benches etc, are permanent, meaning removed completely at end of shooting/use then it is not a Range but a paddock or whatever it's primary use is. So a few mates set up a target in the back paddock, sight in rifles or whatever and then remove everything it is a paddock not a range.

Originally Posted by BSA

My interpretation is if no equipment, ie Targets, Shooting benches etc, are permanent, meaning removed completely at end of shooting/use then it is not a Range but a paddock or whatever it's primary use is. So a few mates set up a target in the back paddock, sight in rifles or whatever and then remove everything...

This is basically what the Police have defined as a temporary range not requiring certification in Section 10 of the NZ Police Range Manual (currently draft awaiting regulations).

Originally Posted by Gillie

This is basically what the Police have defined as a temporary range not requiring certification in Section 10 of the NZ Police Range Manual (currently draft awaiting regulations).

Doesn't it require a temporary permit though?

Edit to add

I read the wrong section. S10 talks about an ad hoc range, and seems to cover the informal (not a club) zeroing and similar shooting that happens in a paddock.