Thread: Act submission points

I DO NOT WISH MY PERSONAL CONTACT DETAILS TO BE MADE PUBLIC

Hi there, here is my submission on the current arms act:

The suggestion that children cannot safely shoot and learn firearms safety, whilst under direct supervision of a FAL (firearms license holder) is ridiculous. The best time to teach anybody anything is when they are young and 'fresh' (without bad habits etc) Also, the stereotypical father/son bonding (daughter too) that comes with sharing a parents hobby and passion is irreplaceable. I have video of my five year old daughter Rosie shooting a .22 and using the sights properly for the first time. The huge grin and delight on her face when she realised how to do it was nothing short of beautiful.
I am a FAL and have been so for more than 20 years.
Fees for FAL endorsements, import permits and other FAL related processes should be kept to a minimum, they should be no more than the fees for a drivers license or passport etc. Please ask yourself 'how can a FAL fee be justifiably more expensive than a drivers license'? The only reason is 'because it is gun related and maybe we should put the price up to discourage future FAL applications' This is totally wrong and unfair.
At present the Police are trusted to make individual judgements on who is 'fit and proper' and who is not. There is no 'standard' to adhere to, just personal opinion and 'gut feeling' This is fine in an ideological world where Police are perfect. But Police are not perfect, they are human like the rest of us and make mistakes, or worse, certain Police have intentionally abused the process. There absolutely must be guidelines and standards set in stone which clearly define what is and what is not 'fit and proper' These 'standards' will benefit both FAL applicants and future Police reputation.
I strongly oppose restricting what firearms can be legally owned in NZ. If I were to think like the enemy, I would say the next 'Tarrant' could easily repeat what that mongrel Brenton Tarrant did in Christchurch..... Hear me out on this-- Tarrant came here two years prior with the intention to kill those people. He kept his mouth shut and slowly trained and gathered materials and finalised his plan. How then, if the next 'Tarrant' decides to do the same can we ever hope to prevent him? He has two years to source the equipment. There are a few options for him as far as I see it. I will use an AR15 rifle as his choice to prove a point. *He can go through the process of legally acquiring a semiauto AR15. *He can buy one from the black market (this will most likely take quite some time to make the proper contacts and gain trust. But not impossible, and remember that he has two years. *He can steal one from the military or Police, I think taking one from the Police would be relatively straight forward as they regularly have them in their patrol cars (remember this next Tarrant is prepared to kill, so taking a rifle and radio, uniform, taser and pepper spray from a Police officer wouldn't be a moral problem) *He can build his own firearms via 3d printing (the 3D print files are about as hard to regulate and control as anything else on the internet...) *He can build a 9mm sub machine gun with basic bunnings materials and tools. This is no joke, I have read "expedient homemade firearms, the 9mm sub machine gun" by P A Luty. I suggest you watch the review by Ian on 'forgotten weapons' for clarity on just how easily this can be accomplished. *He can import a firearm from the dark web or other foreign source. Basically, what I am saying is that you can do very little to stop determination combined with time and patience. Brenton Tarrant had all of these at his disposal.
There should be no limit on how many firearms a FAL can legally own and possess. To limit the number is a pointless exercise, how many firearms could a person use at once? One effectively. Two if they wish to miss most shots. I understand the ideological justification to limit the number of firearms a person can own, but it is a flawed ideology. It does nothing to make anybody safer.
There should be no limit to caliber size, some argue that certain large calibers are 'sniper rifles' . I put it to you that EVERY murder or mass killing made with firearms has been well within range of any standard hunting rifle. Therefore, by restricting what caliber we may legally own and use only penalises keen shooters and collectors, for the real benefit of absolutely nobody.
I support the return of the 'E' endorsement for semiautomatic centerfire firearms. This system worked very well, it would be beneficial to New Zealand's international competitive shooting community. Also, centerfire semi automatic rifles were enjoyed by many under very safe conditions. Pest control is one area where New Zealand has taken a dramatic backwards step since the restricting (incorrectly labeled prohibition) of semiautomatic centerfire rifles.
I would like to see compensation for the ammunition that was restricted (also incorrectly labeled as prohibited) by the previous government, there was zero compensation for this.
All New Zealanders should be eligible to own firearms, unless considered unfit due to criminal convictions or proven gang associations. As I am aware, currently Police have the power to Veto a FAL application with no justification, this is not acceptable.
And finally, I fully support re-writing the arms act. The act has been tacked onto repeatedly as if it were a leaky old bach in the back sticks of rural New Zealand. It is well time to start fresh and we finally have ministers with real world knowledge on this topic. Bring forward some well thought out and fit for purpose arms laws please.




Please excuse my inexperience with using this word processor thing.......
Thankyou for reading my submission