Thread: $590 for a permit to import

Originally Posted by tac a1

What I'm say is that if the court says they are innocent, then that should be the end of the matter.

In a normal job if you make a mistake do you go to jail? lose your job? Risk your families welfare?

I wouldn't think so.

morality and legality are two different things
they get a ton of warnings and moved around before any dismissals

Originally Posted by HG Man

I'm not against user pays, but how it be anything like cost recovery for that price. It would take 5 minutes to look at the permit, pull up the computer file, check that they are allowed to have whatever part, digitally stamp it and send it off to Customs?

$590 = $7K an hour. Fuck that noise.

Ms McKee is being disingenuous with her argument. The options in the discussion document are for a flat fee or a fee based on the size of the item plus a base fee of $45 etc. In a sense though, she's right the charges are ridiculous. It's a Hobson's choice between an OTT charge or a smaller one that is still too high for what it is. Even using $45 for the base proposed alternative fee is too high, and would be $540 an hour for the 5 minutes @HG Man estimates. Submit everyone. The proposal is not giving realistic options

Identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss (right?) and I'll be missed.

Originally Posted by Wingman

So many people blinded by the small details of the small picture here.. NZ is following the UNs plan of total civilian disarmament. We are actually behind many other countries such as Aussie and the UK etc in this process..
It is a case of death by 1000 cuts.
The only way of stopping this process would be to have a total change of government structure and remove all involvement from the UN.
It is laughable that people think this process will change if the vote for the next puppet in line such as national or act.
While I like seeing Nichole fight the small fights it does nothing to change the big battle.

Removing Semi autos, banning kids from shooting clubs, demonizing firearms and owners in the media, active shooter training in pre schools and primary schools, registration of existing arms, upping licencing related fees etc is all aimed at making it unattractive and unaffordable to the next generation of "would be" recreational shooters.

Enjoy our sport and recreation while we can because it is only a matter of time and it will all be gone.

I'm all for user pays but I also think it needs to go to a tender of private companies just like the crown recommended. Paying more for the same cop to do the same job we already pay him for just seems a little off IMO. I bet if it was tendered privately removing all government department involvement you would see cost come down drastically.

Got to laugh about the new name of the existing police firearms regulation department..
cant help but think Waikato Tainui were having a laugh too...

Attachment 212760

Attachment 212761

Attachment 212762

I believe thats where its at too. Sadly, a lot of shooters will just get bogged down in the detail n not look at the big picture.....smoke n mirrors comes to mind.

Sent from my SM-A135F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by GDMP

A look around other commonwealth countries costings, shows that currently NZ firearms licensing services are not particularly cheap and are comparable to elsewhere.I suppose with time and inflation there will inevitably be increases but there is no justification for the increases being proposed here, they would have to be way over the actual cost of delivery.

The police have just become another tax collection wing of govt .

Originally Posted by Eat Meater

Submit everyone. The proposal is not giving realistic options

I'm going to submit, but I'm still gathering thoughts on it. I've got it marked in my calender 2 days prior to when it closes, so I have the most time to get all relevant points that I can.

I'll also be asking to speak, in person, to my submission. I've done it before and as a mark of taking part in our democracy, I think its massively underestimated.

I've just put in an OIA as to the amount of GST collected from ammunition and firearms in the past 5 years, so we'll see how that gets on.

Originally Posted by HG Man

I'm going to submit, but I'm still gathering thoughts on it. I've got it marked in my calender 2 days prior to when it closes, so I have the most time to get all relevant points that I can.

I'll also be asking to speak, in person, to my submission. I've done it before and as a mark of taking part in our democracy, I think its massively underestimated.

I've just put in an OIA as to the amount of GST collected from ammunition and firearms in the past 5 years, so we'll see how that gets on.

I doubt they'll take oral submissions - it's a regulations consultation, not a Bill.

Identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss (right?) and I'll be missed.

Originally Posted by HG Man

I'm going to submit, but I'm still gathering thoughts on it. I've got it marked in my calender 2 days prior to when it closes, so I have the most time to get all relevant points that I can.

I'll also be asking to speak, in person, to my submission. I've done it before and as a mark of taking part in our democracy, I think its massively underestimated.

I've just put in an OIA as to the amount of GST collected from ammunition and firearms in the past 5 years, so we'll see how that gets on.

Good on ya

I like the point raised earlier about how the law oversees alcohol licenses for a smaller fee and yet alcohol does much more harm to society than firearms - if you want to add that in I reckon it's a good one

The document that we are being asked for feedback on promulgates, in essence, solutions looking for a problem.

My own archives, which are not particularly extensive has, for example, five iterations since Nov 2018 till Nov 2022 of a document "Secure storage guidance for firearms", grown from 18 pages to 25 with a file size increasing from 715 KB to 6.4 MB
Then, along comes the 'Shooting Range Manual'. Another solution looking for a problem.

There are minions within NZ Police creating this stuff, and now they want us to pay for it under the guise of "user pays". Only problem is, we have not asked for any of it! If it's purpose is to create "public safety" then it must be argued that "the public pays" through the general tax take, not an isolated segment of the public.

The hierarchy of NZ Police, no doubt at the behest of the pollies have, and continue to, created an unwieldy empire the aim of which, as has been pointed out, is to discourage anybody from owning firearms.
Can my assertion be justified? Just take a look at Appendix 4: -

Public safety (contribute to safety outcomes)
Fees are not intended to be direct contributors to public safety in themselves but they may reduce the demand for and use of firearms. emphasis added

Control use of firearms and ammunition
Full cost recovery does not directly control the use of firearms. Current licence holders have no incentive to change their behaviour with fire-arms if fees increase. emphasis added

The biggest challenge that our society faces (not just the firearm owning fraternity) is the insidious creep of various forms of control inflicted on societies, world-wide, by alphabet agencies such as U.N., W.E.F., W.H.O., etc., etc.

I had thought, perhaps mistakenly, that NZ is a sovereign nation that, through the will of its citizens, is master of its own destiny.
Maybe I'm deluded, or a conspiracy theorist!

Certainly one could submit that in allowing their agenda to leak into the draft document (discouraging firearm ownership) then police have committed overreach of their obligation to oversee the firearms laws impartially and hence they should be sent back to the drawing board

Originally Posted by OGM

And why is that a problem? Do you think there should be a double standard?

Anyone else would be protected under the double jepardy laws.