Thread: Act submission points

Here's some of the brief bullet points I've thought about for the consultation. I have deliberately not written them out in full here and omitted some things/changed my language because you'll have to put your submission in your own words. Please make a submission!!!!!!!!! Please add anything you think is a good general point that I've missed.

Go here - https://consultations.justice.govt.n.../consultation/

Have this list open, COLFO submission guide open, and consider your answer to each question with the points below & from COLFO. Especially think about the definitions - should a bolt action rifle that is 700m long if you take the suppressor off but 850mm long with the suppressor on it be considered a pistol? Should you have to read 6 paragraphs of defining what isn't a prohibited firearm to work out what is ?


What do you consider the main principles and purposes of the Act should be?*

Regulating the persons that possess and use firearms.
The public risk arises from an improper/unfit person possessing any firearm. Focus should be on controlling the people not the items

In your view does the Act define a ‘firearm’ well?*

No. Ok for complete guns. Doesn't define which "part" is the firearm if not assembled. Major Part defined in regs - a bit of a dogs breakfast. Act should clearly identify what is "the firearm" - probably the action part with a serial number.

Ability in the Act for the governor general to add extra definitions under regulations has made things confusing - get rid of that. Not needed - definitions were functional from 1983 until changed in 2019

In your view, is the focus on regulating firearms (and associated products) based on the risk profile of each product an appropriate approach to the maintenance of public safety?

Yes. The risk from different types of firearms being mis-used is clearly different. A licensing system that allows people access to different types of firearm with more vetting makes sense. Stratify by function not appearance

What product definitions outlined in Appendix 5 do you think need to be reviewed and what changes would you recommend?

All the definitions need reviewed. Too many definitions, too much overlap. I suggest changing to -
- A Category firearms - anything that isn't in another category - no definition at the moment
- parts - should be separated to "functional parts" and "other parts".
- Pistols - any firearm intended to be fired without being supported on the shoulder. 400m OAL limit, with the parts it's used with attached. The 762mm OAL limit is too long and doesn't just include actual pistols. there should just be one category of pistols, scrap the divisions between them i.e. some are currently restricted weapons. Any pistol is just a pistol.
- restricted weapons should be divided into 2 different categories, one for automatic firearms and then the other restricted weapons like explosives, nerve gas etc.
- prohibited firearms - definition should be just centrefire semi-auto rifles and shotguns. Exclude rimfires. 10 round limit for shotguns and centrefire rifles.
- prohibited magazines - exclude rimfire magazines and shotgun tube mags - impossible to define shotgun tube mags due to the different lengths of shell
- prohibited part - should be restricted to only the functional parts of prohibited semi-auto rifles - any other part that "can" go on a p cat rifle shouldn't be prohibited if it can also go on any other a cat firearm




Should there be options to support people to surrender, dispose or modify firearm products that the licence holder can no longer legally use? If so, what should these be?

Yes. Should be able to surrender to police, modify to comply, or sell to an endorsed person. Should be a permanent option not expiring in the act. If people can't comply by modifying, or sell, they may not comply at all if they risk losing items/money

What are your views on the length of time a firearms licence is issued for?

It should stay 10 years - police haven't been able to keep up with license renewals as it is, any shorter and they'll struggle. No evidence that shorter licenses are needed. Shorter license periods drives up costs.

Do you have any other comments on firearms licences?

once someone has had a license for several years without any problems they're clearly a low risk and it should be easier to get the license renewed than a new application. A license should continue once expired if you've applied for a new one but it hasn't been granted yet (this is in the act now and should be kept)

What are your views on the fit and proper person test? What are your views on the minimum age? Do you have any other comments on the fit and proper person test?

The fit and proper person test is fine, the minimum age shouldn't change - young people should be able to get into hunting/shooting lawfully and safely

What are your views on people with a standard firearms licence being able to manufacture products for their own use, including the use of 3D printing?

Anyone with any kind of firearms license should be able to manufacture anything they can legally hold with their license. 3d printing is just another tool.

Do you think specific requirements are needed for the manufacture of ammunition and firearm parts?

No there is no evidence that there is a problem and it's a low risk. Reloading ammo is manufacturing ammo and a high percentage of shooters reload to get cheaper & better ammunition. Any restrictions would increase costs and difficulty for this and it is already difficult at times to get components with global shortages etc. No additional requirements for manufacturing firearm parts either. the requirement for a dealer license to manufacture parts has made it hard for small businesses and some have stopped manufacturing e.g. SG gunstocks. Making it harder for license holders to participate in the sport doesn't make NZ safer

Do you think the Act provides appropriate controls on manufacturing of firearms and related products?

Shouldn't need a dealers license to manufacture firearm parts, just actual firearms

What role should the FSA play in ensuring licence holders follow the rules relating to firearms possession?

Issuing licenses, education and guidance

What are your views on licence compliance?

Most license holders are compliant or try to be in good faith, focus on unlicensed possession by criminals and making sure vetting is good to prevent unfit people obtaining licenses

What are your views on the FSA checking of security and storage?

Should be checked when applying for or renewing a license or changing address, no need to check otherwise

What are your views on the role of health practitioners in the licensing process?

There shouldn't be any further requirements placed on health practitioners than there are now, they already have a huge amount of detail to remember and it's unlikely that more complicated requirements under the arms act will be followed correctly, likely to just cause confusion and problems

What are your views on rules relating to unlicenced use?

unlicensed people should be able to shoot under supervision, it's the safe way to introduce people to the sport without being too hard for new hunters/shooters. Should be able to shoot pistols (already can - keep this) and p cats under supervision.

What are your views on the regulation of airguns?

Treat high-powered airguns as firearms, keep the rules for other low-powered airguns the same as they are - low risk doesn't justify any further regulation. Use a pellet weight/velocity matrix by calibre to determine if high powered or not. Define it in the Act

What are your views on the processes for visitor’s licences?

Should be required to meet some kind of minimum standard that matches what NZers have to meet.

What are your views on endorsements relating to pistols, prohibited firearms and restricted weapons?

Keep the same sort of structure but make it clearer. Right now you can get a pistol carbine conversion on your B endorsement to shoot for sport shooting, this is the exactly the same as a 9mm semi-auto rifle functionally so they should be allowed and all just lumped into P cat. Pistol endorsement to allow you to have/use pistols, prohibited endorsement for pest control or sport shooting allows you to have p cat guns for pest control or sport shooting, collectors license for collecting - allows you to have pistols, prohibited or restricted guns. Pistols should be allowed to be used in wider circumstances for example hunting with large cal revolvers. Remove the requirement to participate in 12 club events per year. There isn't any reason to restrict that, if a licenseholder is fit and proper enough to shoot on a range they should be able to hunt with it also or just shoot for fun at a pistol range. It's an ineffective control for public safety. Should be able to shoot restricted weapons on a collectors license (obviously not explosives, etc.) Issue them as separate categories of licenses rather than "endorsements to a license" which is confusing. The wording around issuing endorsements should be changed to "must make endorsement" rather than "may make endorsement" if the applicant meets the requirements. P cat requirements for pest control should be less specific.

What are your views on the requirements for approved ammunition sellers?

Maintaining records of ammunition sales could be a bit burdensome. Overall seems ok, no extra regulation needed.

What are your views on the permit to possess system, and how it interacts with endorsements?

It's confusing how it works, where a permit is issued to get the item and it only lasts 30 days then doesn't exist anymore and the item is then "on your endorsement". Anyone with an endorsement should be able to buy anything they're endorsed to own/use without having to get a permit. Permits are inefficient to apply for and get processed and just used to keep records of endorsed items, these all have to go in the registry now so it's redundant. Should get rid of them.

In your view, are there any areas that would benefit from having more guidance/education?

Arms officers should be provided better training to give clear and consistent interpretation of the law as it's highly variable & they often try push things that aren't actually required in law (e.g. storing bolt action rifles without the bolts in them). Anything that changes in the law in the rewrite will need good education to the public. The list in the act is appropriate

What are your views on standard licence holders’ ability to sell privately?

The act is about possession so buying and selling isn't the right terminology. It's transferring possession. Absolutely should continue to be allowed to transfer possession privately without having to get a permit or go through a dealer. That's not practical and just adds extra admin/costs for license holders and FSA. Everything has to go in the registry so there will be visibility over transfers happening.

What are your views on the types of activities that require a person to hold a dealer’s licence?

Shouldn't need a dealers license to sell firearm parts or manufacture firearm parts

Do you have views on any other matters relating to dealers?

Dealer are essential to have a safe and functional firearm system. Too much regulation makes it hard for dealers to operatte. Consider less admin e.g longer periods for dealer licenses

What are your views on the fit and proper person tests applied to ascertain the suitability of dealer licence applicants?

Seems reasonable at this stage

Do you have any other views on the rules for licensing dealers?

No - see comment re: other matters on dealers

What are your views on the dealer licence endorsement and permits system?

Same as above for the permits system, scrap permit to possess. Dealers should be able to get in anything they're allowed to sell without having to get permits. See permits to import feedback too

What are your views on licensing requirements for employees?

Seems reasonable at this stage

What are your views on the rule that only dealers are able to manufacture and supply some firearm items?

Shouldn't need a dealers license to manufacture or sell firearm parts, just actual firearms. Most parts are just inert pieces of wood/carbon/plastic/aluminium that aren't any risk to the public without being regulated. Regulation just increases costs and makes it harder for license holders to get things they need

Do you have any other comments on dealers and controls on manufacturing?

No

Do you consider the rise of 3D printing requires specific rules to control it? If so, what should these be?

No, it's the same as any other manufacturing process - should be able to make anything you're licensed to have

What are your views on the current rules for a permit to import?

The act states that the police "must" grant a permit if satisfied of the matters etc… this should continue rather than being "may" grant a permit. Permits should allow multiple consignments or longer timeframes, it is often impractical or impossible to get multiple items that are on one permit shipped & through customs on a single consignment or within 30 days, it just increases paperwork applying for multiple permits.

If you are a licence holder, what has been your experience with understanding your legal obligations in the Act?

It's complicated especially with all the changes in the last few years. The act is really hard to follow - simplify & clarify the Act and regulations

Do you think current offences and penalties are contributing to public safety? If yes, how?

Improvement notices are a good option for if a license holder has unintentionally not complied, these should be kept as a compliance option. Doesn't waste resources penalising license holders trying to comply. Target offences at the people that are really causing public harm

What are your views on the current offences and penalty levels in the Act? Are they too high? Too low?

Penalties for serious breaches of the act like possessing a firearm without a license are relatively low and should be higher, especially if in combination with other offending

Do you think there are other ways we could encourage compliance?

Make things simpler and it will be easier for people to comply

Do you have any other views on the offences and penalties regime in the Act?

None

What are your views on how fees are set or processed?

The restriction of firearms is for the benefit of the country/oublic as a whole and imposes restrictions on the freedoms of license holders, so it is appropriate for the public to partially subsidise the system. A lot of costs seem to come from excessive bureaucracy and inefficient processes like permits to possess, mail order forms, excessive licensing processes for renewals, short licensing periods etc so these should be looked at to reduce the cost of the system. Take suggestions from deliery staff in the FSA on what is inefficient and seems pointless and get rid of that.

Do you think any changes are required?

No changes required to fees - changes to the system to make it more cost-effective

What are your views on the role of the Minister’s Arms Advisory Group?

Should require a minimum level of technical expertise for membership to provide useful guidance to the minister

What are your views on the FSA’s roles and responsibilities? Are there any changes that you would recommend?



What education and guidance should the FSA provide to help people understand risks associated with possession and use of firearms products and best practices?



What are your views on the role of the Firearms Community Advisory Forum and the Arms Engagement Group?

Should be kept so police/FSA are in touch with the views of the licensed firearms user community

Do you think the FSA has been successful in reaching members of the firearms community with its education and compliance work?



Which roles and responsibilities do you think should be retained by the Police within its law enforcement role?



Are there roles and responsibilities which should be shared between the FSA and Police?



Are there any matters related to the firearms regulatory system that have not been covered in this document that are not out of scope that you have views on?

Mail order forms for firearm parts is an excessive level of admin for items that present low public risk. Shouldn't be required.

That is for posting this. It’s good to see everyone’s comments in advance of making a submission.

Am I missing something in terms of COLFOs comments on:
"What are your views on endorsements relating to pistols, prohibited firearms and restricted
weapons"

COLFO make no mention of the need for a further endorsement similar to the B endorsement to enable the controlled use of Semi Automatic Centrefire rifles through a regulated system for target shooting.

Does anyone know what Pistol NZ are saying about this and are they going to circulate their submission to clubs?

Sorry Gimp the first line of my post meant to say “thanks for posting this”.

The thing that stands out to me for P endorsements is there's a convoluted system to get a B endorsement for a pistol carbine conversion kit. It's functionally a pistol cartridge chambered rifle. Just allow those for sport shooting on a P license.

The whole endorsement system is a mess. One example I always bring up around it - if you have a semi automatic rifle on a Collector P endorsement, you have to store a vital part at a separate address. If you have exactly the same gun, with an auto sear, held on a C endorsement, you just need to remove the vital part, you don't have to store it at a separate address. Because public safety or something.

Originally Posted by Beavis

The whole endorsement system is a mess. One example I always bring up around it - if you have a semi automatic rifle on a Collector P endorsement, you have to store a vital part at a separate address. If you have exactly the same gun, with an auto sear, held on a C endorsement, you just need to remove the vital part, you don't have to store it at a separate address. Because public safety or something.

It needs rebuilding from first principles

Thanks @gimp, mirrors many of my own thoughts & concerns which I’ve got drafted. Really helpful info on permits etc which I haven’t had to deal with yet. I’ll include similar thoughts in my submission

Thanks @gimp
Used a version of this in my submission

thank you for sharing!

some excellent points that i will gladly incorporate.

Just a couple of point I may add ( and I will in my submission):
Regarding visitors licences, it used to take only 1 month for a visitor to get a licence, it now takes 4months, which refrain a lot of foreigners to come and hunt and spend a lot of their money here.

Regarding Dealers licences, once a person had a dealers licence for more than 2 years ( 2 years is quite often the time to test the viability of a new business), the renewal should be every 3 or 5 years. This will significantly reduce the administrative burden for both the dealers and the controlling authority every year for every single dealer in the country currently.

I think there would be merit for different licenses for “dealer” (= retail buy/sell firearms) vs a “gunsmith” licence where engineering skills/expertise and work are required to manufacture or assemble a firearm (eg fit new barrel, chamber and fit blank, chop bbl, rechamber bbl, etc). Those involved in these commercial activities would be able to comment better as to how to define both. In both cases licenses should be 5yrs minimum. And I don’t think anyone making or selling stocks, muzzle brakes or suppressors should be subject to any license requirements

I am interested in this point:

In your view, is the focus on regulating firearms (and associated products) based on the risk profile of each product an appropriate approach to the maintenance of public safety?

Yes. The risk from different types of firearms being mis-used is clearly different. A licensing system that allows people access to different types of firearm with more vetting makes sense. Stratify by function not appearance

-------------

There as been a fair bit of discussion on this in the past - the most people suffering injuries in NZ have been from rimfire and shotgun firearms, and a lot of people put forward in the past that the actual type/caliber of firearm is less important that the situation and background of the person using a firearm unlawfully. Noting with the CHCH atrocity, the terrorist there had lever action, semi and shotgun firearms types as an example. We have a category of airgun "especially dangerous" as another...

Question I have on it is how do you define the "risk profile" of a firearm in such a way that the law cannot be used as we have seen overseas to justify further confiscation (we have seen it done on the basis that anything over a certain muzzle energy is unnecessary for hunting but can be used to defeat body armour - when it reality just about any centerfire caliber can do this under the right circumstances). My concern with it is that it is potentially a pathway towards much harsher limits on private ownership.

Is the licensing of the owner and user not a better focus, combined with the scaled "endorsement" system and not focusing on the "risk profile" as this is a way for people to make the system more convoluted which seems to suit certain agendas?

The reason for this question isn't to create an argument, I'm actually seeing both sides of it and am struggling to decide on how to frame an answer to this question...

@gimp quick question Is the regsitration system part of the scope of this review?

And thank you for the guide. I am working throungh my submission now....

It ( the register) is stated as “ not in scope”, but I am including comments on it in my submission as it very directly relates to firearms safety & risks and is ridiculously expensive to set up and run (for very little real benefit).

nice man stole a few of your fancy words to add into mine,
mine was along the lines of its over-complicated too much red tape, criminals should have larger punishments
much simpler endorsement system not so much in how to to get them but in what you can and can't do when you are endorsed and they should go back to more focus on the person not the activities.

Like if you have your B cat you shouldn't have to shoot 12 times a year to keep it