Took me a couple of nights to get through it but done finally.
Not holding my breath for any substantial changes but not submitting only helps the anti gun fruit loops.
Printable View
Took me a couple of nights to get through it but done finally.
Not holding my breath for any substantial changes but not submitting only helps the anti gun fruit loops.
Yes this is correct. If you provide shotguns for a tourist type of have a go clay shoot you must have a dealers licence. I have a dealers licence because i am a theatrical armourer and sometime provide a MG or the like for a reenactment event. I am also forced to obtain the same endorsements on my dealers licence that i hold on my personal licence.Quote:
Originally Posted by whanahuia
My submission sent.
Done
Thanks @gimp@ for the bare bones format, it helped although I couldn't resist referring to the current Act as a gallimaufry
also thanks @XR500@ for the word doc/cut n paste idea - worked well
Right I now have a license to grumble
I added that the rule about Doctors grassing up their patients who are FAL owners has caused several men of my acquaintance to stop seeing Doctors altogether which is definitely an unintended consequence
currently it is difficult to send firearms via courier/postal service from one private individual to another. an informal system of shipping dealer-to-dealer has arisen to get around this, but it is still inconvenient, dealers charge arbitrary amounts, and even though the firearm is being dropped off and picked up in person by a license holder, the dealers require S43A forms to facilitate the transaction
Does anyone have a neat way of suggesting a policy solution to this?
^ The basis of my submission was to radically simplify the "information regime" around fitearms by focussing on the "fit and proper person" approach, and a non statutory framework arround the whole firearms public safety thing. The use of paperwork such as the #43 is simply a vain effort by police to collect information that they hope might turn into intelligence - it doesnt work. I dont hold any hope of chanhing the narrative as my suggested approach wont cut it politically but I had to try . . .
Sighted by a license holder at each end and held for less than a month by the transport person = no form requiredQuote:
Originally Posted by gimp
Worth a try
In my personal submission I put in that there should be an online system where a dealer can verify a license holders details remotely, without the need for FSA interaction, thereby making mail order forms unnecessary for purchasing from a dealer
I completed a personal submission earlier.
But also with incoming information, The farm has just done one representing our interests as well. Will post it below for interest sake and because it's still not too late to submit and is easy.
[QUOTE]Firearms act submission.
On behalf of farm partnership
The family farm is a dairy and beef unit consisting of 400 hectares on the west coast of the south island. It employs 4 family members full time and two additional staff full time. Firearms are both important work and recreational tool’s.
Currently two members of the family hold firearms licences, but we encourage staff to do so too, as it shares workload and allows more flexibility. Farm firearm uses consist’s of humane dispatch of injured animals. Home slaughter of animals for food. Control of wild animals that damage tree plantations and crops. Control of pests that threaten native plant and animal species.
As such sections of the current law are too restrictive and don’t fit the requirements on the ground in day to day farm use.
The main principles
The main principle of the firearms act should be firstly to ensure the persons using firearms are fit and proper. Secondly to promote safe use and compliance through clear education and easy and clear application processes.
Firearm regulation process
It is fair to require more vetting and regulation based on risk profile. However its not adequate to restrict certain categories solely too current employment uses. people change jobs too frequently. And not all pest control is viable on a commercial scale. We rely on recreational hunters that we trust through our own vetting to help control pest species. They and we, would benefit from a return to an E category of firearms open to non commercial licence holders. However the current level of vetting and safety compliance is acceptable.
The E category was proven to work and we believe had a high level of compliance with no history of misuse.
Firearm definitions
It needs to be simple and clear.
A category -for all sporting firearms Hunting and target that hold 10 shots or less.
E category - For all firearms with either fixed or removable magazines that can hold more than 10 shots. This includes possession of a magazine capable of such.
B category - Pistols. No change needed. Collector category- No change needed
Options to surrender
There should be an open door policy re communication and ability to surrender firearms at any stage without fear of legal repercussion with time given once notified for sale or surrender of any such firearm. Presuming the firearm has not been used in a crime.
Fit and proper person test
The current test and vetting is appropriate. The age is appropriate. Firearms use is something that is best learnt under supervision of others under a range of conditions. It greatly helps to have young people out and participating and being able to handle and use firearms under supervision.
Ammunition and parts manufacture
There is no evidence that there is any problem in this regard. Reloading is a valuable tool for economically ensuring a reasonable supply of ammunition as well as smoothing out supply issues due to worldwide supply issues that crop up. Also many small town gunshop’s can not afford to stock the volumes of ammunition often needed for 12 months on farm use. There is no issue existing with the manufacture or supply of gun parts. What needs to be ensured is that compliance costs don’t make it unduly restrictive for small businesses to compete with imported products.
A dealers licence should not be required to manufacture parts. Just whole firearms.
Ammunition purchases
Currently members on farm who hold licences, own differing types and calibres of firearms utilising differing cartridges for a range of purposes. Any restriction on what ammunition any individual can purchase would mean an added difficulty in combining farm use purchases where multiply types of ammunition is ordered or bought at once by an individual member of the farm.
There is no need to restrict ability to purchase, too firearm calibers owned, as the fit and proper testing of all individuals is suitable for any ammunition available in New Zealand. At times on farm we also buy ammunition for recreational hunters who are doing pest control on our behalf.
Other issues
Currently our local gunships servicing the west coast struggle to be able to comply with onsite storage rules due too their size and floorspace options. this has seen my closest store stop supplying ammunition and others severely reduce stocks. A workable solution that allows small stores to be able to trade should be looked at.
Thank you.
family Partnership./QUOTE]
I'm all done now, thanks to some points from this thread. cheers
Ok,alright,stop your nagging,I did it too.
Three submissions from my household done and submitted.
[QUOTE=whanahuia;1661337]I completed a personal submission earlier.
But also with incoming information, The farm has just done one representing our interests as well. Will post it below for interest sake and because it's still not too late to submit and is easy.
This is really good.Quote:
Firearms act submission.
On behalf of farm partnership
The family farm is a dairy and beef unit consisting of 400 hectares on the west coast of the south island. It employs 4 family members full time and two additional staff full time. Firearms are both important work and recreational tool’s.
Currently two members of the family hold firearms licences, but we encourage staff to do so too, as it shares workload and allows more flexibility. Farm firearm uses consist’s of humane dispatch of injured animals. Home slaughter of animals for food. Control of wild animals that damage tree plantations and crops. Control of pests that threaten native plant and animal species.
As such sections of the current law are too restrictive and don’t fit the requirements on the ground in day to day farm use.
The main principles
The main principle of the firearms act should be firstly to ensure the persons using firearms are fit and proper. Secondly to promote safe use and compliance through clear education and easy and clear application processes.
Firearm regulation process
It is fair to require more vetting and regulation based on risk profile. However its not adequate to restrict certain categories solely too current employment uses. people change jobs too frequently. And not all pest control is viable on a commercial scale. We rely on recreational hunters that we trust through our own vetting to help control pest species. They and we, would benefit from a return to an E category of firearms open to non commercial licence holders. However the current level of vetting and safety compliance is acceptable.
The E category was proven to work and we believe had a high level of compliance with no history of misuse.
Firearm definitions
It needs to be simple and clear.
A category -for all sporting firearms Hunting and target that hold 10 shots or less.
E category - For all firearms with either fixed or removable magazines that can hold more than 10 shots. This includes possession of a magazine capable of such.
B category - Pistols. No change needed. Collector category- No change needed
Options to surrender
There should be an open door policy re communication and ability to surrender firearms at any stage without fear of legal repercussion with time given once notified for sale or surrender of any such firearm. Presuming the firearm has not been used in a crime.
Fit and proper person test
The current test and vetting is appropriate. The age is appropriate. Firearms use is something that is best learnt under supervision of others under a range of conditions. It greatly helps to have young people out and participating and being able to handle and use firearms under supervision.
Ammunition and parts manufacture
There is no evidence that there is any problem in this regard. Reloading is a valuable tool for economically ensuring a reasonable supply of ammunition as well as smoothing out supply issues due to worldwide supply issues that crop up. Also many small town gunshop’s can not afford to stock the volumes of ammunition often needed for 12 months on farm use. There is no issue existing with the manufacture or supply of gun parts. What needs to be ensured is that compliance costs don’t make it unduly restrictive for small businesses to compete with imported products.
A dealers licence should not be required to manufacture parts. Just whole firearms.
Ammunition purchases
Currently members on farm who hold licences, own differing types and calibres of firearms utilising differing cartridges for a range of purposes. Any restriction on what ammunition any individual can purchase would mean an added difficulty in combining farm use purchases where multiply types of ammunition is ordered or bought at once by an individual member of the farm.
There is no need to restrict ability to purchase, too firearm calibers owned, as the fit and proper testing of all individuals is suitable for any ammunition available in New Zealand. At times on farm we also buy ammunition for recreational hunters who are doing pest control on our behalf.
Other issues
Currently our local gunships servicing the west coast struggle to be able to comply with onsite storage rules due too their size and floorspace options. this has seen my closest store stop supplying ammunition and others severely reduce stocks. A workable solution that allows small stores to be able to trade should be looked at.
Thank you.
family Partnership./QUOTE]
Had an interesting discussion today talking about the items they put in the submission form, and I mentioned that the wording about it being a privilege to hold a firearms licence etc etc was in there. The person I was talking to has a legal background, and made a really interesting comment in that they might have made an error with describing it as a privilege.
He said that if it was in fact a privilege, the regulator could grant and then remove a firearms licence at will with no right of appeal. In actual fact, there are only certain reasons in the Arms Act by which they can currently revoke a licence and those sections of the Act also contain 'rights of appeal' which allow you lawful process to challenge the revocation. In the legal definitions he mentioned (big word in one ear, straight through out the other for me) that describe what is a privilege and what is a right, that fits more correctly with the right than the privilege. He also mentioned it drops into the discussion about the constitutional rights - which touches on a lot of other stuff that is going on at the moment including the treaty bill (he's just come back from speaking to the subcommittee regarding the submission he made on that bill and also another one).
It's an academic discussion, but I thought that it was really interesting from the standpoint of what was done to the firearms community with the last amendment and if it fact it was actually lawful.
Technically speaking you have a right to be issued a licenve if fit and proper (amongst other things) yes. The "It's a privilege" thing is a bullshit talking point. I said it should be removed
Done. Thanks for your points gimp, I used them where my knowledge of the current system is lacking.
[QUOTE=whanahuia;1661337]I completed a personal submission earlier.
But also with incoming information, The farm has just done one representing our interests as well. Will post it below for interest sake and because it's still not too late to submit and is easy.
Similar on many points to mine and I also pointed out the onerous cost of a dealer's license throttling the profitability of a local gun shop which would leave us with only Gun City and Humping and Fisting as retailers - a situation analogous to only having Progressive and Foodstuffs running supermarkets in this country so why on earth would you want to artificially push the market towards a duopoly?Quote:
Firearms act submission.
On behalf of farm partnership
The family farm is a dairy and beef unit consisting of 400 hectares on the west coast of the south island. It employs 4 family members full time and two additional staff full time. Firearms are both important work and recreational tool’s.
Currently two members of the family hold firearms licences, but we encourage staff to do so too, as it shares workload and allows more flexibility. Farm firearm uses consist’s of humane dispatch of injured animals. Home slaughter of animals for food. Control of wild animals that damage tree plantations and crops. Control of pests that threaten native plant and animal species.
As such sections of the current law are too restrictive and don’t fit the requirements on the ground in day to day farm use.
The main principles
The main principle of the firearms act should be firstly to ensure the persons using firearms are fit and proper. Secondly to promote safe use and compliance through clear education and easy and clear application processes.
Firearm regulation process
It is fair to require more vetting and regulation based on risk profile. However its not adequate to restrict certain categories solely too current employment uses. people change jobs too frequently. And not all pest control is viable on a commercial scale. We rely on recreational hunters that we trust through our own vetting to help control pest species. They and we, would benefit from a return to an E category of firearms open to non commercial licence holders. However the current level of vetting and safety compliance is acceptable.
The E category was proven to work and we believe had a high level of compliance with no history of misuse.
Firearm definitions
It needs to be simple and clear.
A category -for all sporting firearms Hunting and target that hold 10 shots or less.
E category - For all firearms with either fixed or removable magazines that can hold more than 10 shots. This includes possession of a magazine capable of such.
B category - Pistols. No change needed. Collector category- No change needed
Options to surrender
There should be an open door policy re communication and ability to surrender firearms at any stage without fear of legal repercussion with time given once notified for sale or surrender of any such firearm. Presuming the firearm has not been used in a crime.
Fit and proper person test
The current test and vetting is appropriate. The age is appropriate. Firearms use is something that is best learnt under supervision of others under a range of conditions. It greatly helps to have young people out and participating and being able to handle and use firearms under supervision.
Ammunition and parts manufacture
There is no evidence that there is any problem in this regard. Reloading is a valuable tool for economically ensuring a reasonable supply of ammunition as well as smoothing out supply issues due to worldwide supply issues that crop up. Also many small town gunshop’s can not afford to stock the volumes of ammunition often needed for 12 months on farm use. There is no issue existing with the manufacture or supply of gun parts. What needs to be ensured is that compliance costs don’t make it unduly restrictive for small businesses to compete with imported products.
A dealers licence should not be required to manufacture parts. Just whole firearms.
Ammunition purchases
Currently members on farm who hold licences, own differing types and calibres of firearms utilising differing cartridges for a range of purposes. Any restriction on what ammunition any individual can purchase would mean an added difficulty in combining farm use purchases where multiply types of ammunition is ordered or bought at once by an individual member of the farm.
There is no need to restrict ability to purchase, too firearm calibers owned, as the fit and proper testing of all individuals is suitable for any ammunition available in New Zealand. At times on farm we also buy ammunition for recreational hunters who are doing pest control on our behalf.
Other issues
Currently our local gunships servicing the west coast struggle to be able to comply with onsite storage rules due too their size and floorspace options. this has seen my closest store stop supplying ammunition and others severely reduce stocks. A workable solution that allows small stores to be able to trade should be looked at.
Thank you.
family Partnership./QUOTE]
Thanks for all the posts in here, they certainly helped me to cover some of the points I wanted to but couldn't quite figure out how to articulate.
[QUOTE=whanahuia;1661337]I completed a personal submission earlier.
But also with incoming information, The farm has just done one representing our interests as well. Will post it below for interest sake and because it's still not too late to submit and is easy.
I overlooked the potential for submitting on behalf of the farm business. That's another one for the win!Quote:
Firearms act submission.
On behalf of farm partnership
The family farm is a dairy and beef unit consisting of 400 hectares on the west coast of the south island. It employs 4 family members full time and two additional staff full time. Firearms are both important work and recreational tool’s.
Currently two members of the family hold firearms licences, but we encourage staff to do so too, as it shares workload and allows more flexibility. Farm firearm uses consist’s of humane dispatch of injured animals. Home slaughter of animals for food. Control of wild animals that damage tree plantations and crops. Control of pests that threaten native plant and animal species.
As such sections of the current law are too restrictive and don’t fit the requirements on the ground in day to day farm use.
The main principles
The main principle of the firearms act should be firstly to ensure the persons using firearms are fit and proper. Secondly to promote safe use and compliance through clear education and easy and clear application processes.
Firearm regulation process
It is fair to require more vetting and regulation based on risk profile. However its not adequate to restrict certain categories solely too current employment uses. people change jobs too frequently. And not all pest control is viable on a commercial scale. We rely on recreational hunters that we trust through our own vetting to help control pest species. They and we, would benefit from a return to an E category of firearms open to non commercial licence holders. However the current level of vetting and safety compliance is acceptable.
The E category was proven to work and we believe had a high level of compliance with no history of misuse.
Firearm definitions
It needs to be simple and clear.
A category -for all sporting firearms Hunting and target that hold 10 shots or less.
E category - For all firearms with either fixed or removable magazines that can hold more than 10 shots. This includes possession of a magazine capable of such.
B category - Pistols. No change needed. Collector category- No change needed
Options to surrender
There should be an open door policy re communication and ability to surrender firearms at any stage without fear of legal repercussion with time given once notified for sale or surrender of any such firearm. Presuming the firearm has not been used in a crime.
Fit and proper person test
The current test and vetting is appropriate. The age is appropriate. Firearms use is something that is best learnt under supervision of others under a range of conditions. It greatly helps to have young people out and participating and being able to handle and use firearms under supervision.
Ammunition and parts manufacture
There is no evidence that there is any problem in this regard. Reloading is a valuable tool for economically ensuring a reasonable supply of ammunition as well as smoothing out supply issues due to worldwide supply issues that crop up. Also many small town gunshop’s can not afford to stock the volumes of ammunition often needed for 12 months on farm use. There is no issue existing with the manufacture or supply of gun parts. What needs to be ensured is that compliance costs don’t make it unduly restrictive for small businesses to compete with imported products.
A dealers licence should not be required to manufacture parts. Just whole firearms.
Ammunition purchases
Currently members on farm who hold licences, own differing types and calibres of firearms utilising differing cartridges for a range of purposes. Any restriction on what ammunition any individual can purchase would mean an added difficulty in combining farm use purchases where multiply types of ammunition is ordered or bought at once by an individual member of the farm.
There is no need to restrict ability to purchase, too firearm calibers owned, as the fit and proper testing of all individuals is suitable for any ammunition available in New Zealand. At times on farm we also buy ammunition for recreational hunters who are doing pest control on our behalf.
Other issues
Currently our local gunships servicing the west coast struggle to be able to comply with onsite storage rules due too their size and floorspace options. this has seen my closest store stop supplying ammunition and others severely reduce stocks. A workable solution that allows small stores to be able to trade should be looked at.
Thank you.
family Partnership./QUOTE]
I agree with your approach I went a little further and even suggested bringing back the old Mountain Safety Instructors - ( 25 years one myself) I reckon that worked - locals vetting locals - yes dont know exactly who would run it but suggested that Police only be involved in policing offences - I am okay with a register provided its sensible - stuck up for bringing back some semi auto centerfires as many destroyed were never military style i.e Browning BAR not likely to happen but had to do it - emphasis on fit and proper person - some military style centerfire allowed for specific target shooting disciplines as we used to have - again not holding any hope but had to do it -Quote:
Originally Posted by Tentman
Yes, the Mountain Safety training system was better. I think the Police's problem with it was that in some areas personalities became an issue (probably for good reason though) and the 'lack of control' of various things like funding and cost were made into bigger issues than they needed to be.
I don't think the online test is a good substitute - we see it at the range occasionally where a newly licenced owner turns up with a brand new firearm and running on no practical experience and a few theories imparted by Youtube.
I added that FSA issued arms code or reccomendations should reference the relevent section of the arms act so that there is traceability to the act and to prevent opinion or wants becoming requirements on LFOs.
Anyway, submitted to the best of my ability with help from Colfo, @gimp and everyone here.
Cheers
Im yet to submit mine, but there is a bit to go through, I dont know if its necessary to answer all the questions, but there are a few thoughts I want to share at the end that are probably out of scope.
The NZAHAA sent out this:
Antique Arms Assoc Suggested submission topics
How to submit:
Send an email to: firearms@justice.govt.nz with the following details, you
need the following details and you must include the privacy statement to
prevent your details being published or OIA’ed
Add or delete anything under firearms involvement
Please cut and paste the following on your email as a heading
Name
Address
Firearms License holder: YES
I am making this submission on behalf of myself as an individual.
Club memberships:
Firearms involvement: Collector, Hunter, Farmer, Range shooter, pest
control
PRIVACY STATEMENT: I object to my personal information
being released as part of an Official Information Act request.
My details are to be kept private because of my concerns about security
Topics to submit on – add your own thoughts
Antique (we need to all submit on this as our association is the only body that
advocates for antiques)
Antiques as follows:
All rim fire firearms other than those chambered in 22 rimfire (ie greater than 22 cal)
and manufactured on or before the year 1899 1899 greater then .22LR calibre are
antique. No license required.
All original muzzle loading firearms are No license required
Scale Model cannons are still outside the scope of the Arms Act
NOTE: Shooting an Antique Firearm or Scale Model Cannon STILL requires a
firearms licence.
Firearms need to be strictly defined in the act for example “fire” and “arm”
refer to the fact that firearms can be held by a person to operate
Artillery pieces eg bofors, oerlikon, howitzers and other guns outside RSA’s
museums are not firearms and are not part of the Arms Act
Firearms licenses are a right not a privilege (similar to drivers licenses)
In other words pass the safety course pass the firearms test, pass the fit and proper
interview then you are granted a license
-New licensee 5 years
-Renewals 10 years
Firearms license holder’s GP or medical information cannot be routinely accessed .
Firearms License holders must have the right to remain silent restored
Firearms licence applicants who are refused must have the right of mediation *
To remove/revoke a firearms license police must present their evidence before a
judge with representation from the firearms licensee present. Only a judge may
revoke a firearms license, not police, not FSA
Fit and Proper
The current definition of fit and proper needs to be more clearly defined
Section “24a Fit and proper” says that being charged with any offense in the list (not
convicted) will make you ineligible for a firearms license. Remove “Charged with” so
that they have to actually convict you. Otherwise they can charge you with no
evidence and then drop charges or lose in court, and you’d still be ineligible to have
a license.
Current Arms Act refers to the Commissioner for changes/updates. We
propose a body of individuals elected from firearms clubs to oversee the new arms
act
Gun shows and Auctions
Remove the Gun show or Auction approval process
Provided:
Gun show/ Auction is held by a recognised club or body or business
Gun show/Auction has a security plan
Gun show /Auction has controlled entry
Local Police informed
Permits for the transfer of Pistols and restricted firearms
Add a special class of dealers license to enable dealers to issue and complete
permits to transfer firearms between two persons who are shown to hold the correct
licenses and endorsements.
Gunsmiths need only have a dealer license for repairs and they have 30 days to
work on an item eg pistol or restricted item before they need to obtain a permit to
transfer. All details must be recorded in their dealer book.
New license categories
A license (standard license)
All Manual operated centrefire firearms that hold a maximum of 10 rounds of the
cartridge they are marked for. Detachable or non-detachable.
Semi Auto Shotguns with non-detachable magazines that can hold a maximum of 10
rounds of the cartridge they are marked for.
NEW E endorsement
made up from B Pistol and Prohibited 6 and Prohibited 7 (captures all semi
automatic centrefire firearms with magazines)
NOW a B pistol is any pistol held on an E endorsement by a pistol club member on a
pistol range, regardless of barrel length.
There is no longer a minimum number of shoots/events to be considered a pistol
shooter.
E endorsement now covers owning ALL centrefire Semi Automatic firearms and
Pistols including small semi automatic pistols with a barrel under 4 inches
C or collectors endorsement = No changes bar pistols under 4 inches can be held
on either E or C endorsement.
REMOVE parts storage at a different address for what is currently P cat. Collectors
currently store restricted weapons parts separately at their home and for semi autos
there should be no difference
S endorsement to be added which is a Shooting licence.*
Shooting licence requires attending a safety training course every 10 years in line
with the term of this licence. This licence allows you to shoot E endorsement semi
automatics and C category restricted firearms on the appropriate approved range
S endorsement training shall be conducted regularly across the country and the
license shall be granted on completion of the course. S endorsement license holders
may supervise other non-endorsed individuals when shooting endorsed firearms
(Excludes rocket launchers, and any firing of HE)
Carry
Firearms owners may transport their firearms to and from clubs, ranges, hunting
grounds and other destinations where the owner has lawful purpose
Dealer licenses new term 5 years
Two types of dealers licenses
Standard dealers license
Transferring dealer license: To enable dealers to transfer firearms between two
persons who hold the correct licenses and endorsements
Dealer Licenses Removed from fishing boat charters that offer clay bird shooting
Dealer Licenses Removed from business offering paintball entertainment
Dealer Licenses Removed from businesses offering air rifle range shooting
Dealer Licenses Removed from businesses offering airsoft entertainment
Dealer Licenses Removed from RSA businesses
Dealer Licenses Removed from proprietors of Bona fide Museums
A Standard firearms license is required by the supervisor(s) of these activities
License terms
-Dealers license 5 years
-A cat 10 years (renewals)
-E cat 10 years
-C cat 10 years
-S cat 10 years
Range Safety and procedures should be managed by the Clubs/Owners.
External FSA approved consultants can be engaged to review range safety every 10
years. Range Owners or Club Executives are responsible to Worksafe under the
Health and Safety Act. They must be able to demonstrate that they have taken all
reasonable precautions to manage range safety. If there is an incident these
inspectors are unlikely to be held accountable with much higher fines anyway.
Remove magazine registration: Hi capacity centrefire magazines can be held by a
license holder with the appropriate endorsement.
A License holders can hold magazines for .22 or .17HMR rim fire rifles with 25
rounds capacity
Remove Import permits for Flare guns, magazines, ALL firearms parts that are Non
pressure bearing parts (eg grips, stocks, triggers, bolt handles extractors, screws
woodwork). Pressure bearing are defined as receivers bolts, bolt heads, and finished
barrels
-Firearms license still required to uplift parts from customs.
Dealers can be granted permits to import C category firearms in their own right
Remove the category of prohibited ammunition
Costs
The Arms Act is promoted “to keep society safe” as such society should pay for the
costs of administration. The users (firearms owners) comply with the law and should
not bear the costs to keep society safe
Firearms Licence cost to be linked with Drivers licenses and only adjusted in
line with increases in Drivers licenses and not more than the official inflation
rate.
My copy of the PDF was just one big block of text and I do not have the time to format it. I wouldn't inflict that on anyone.
I threw in several plugs for not making dealer's licenses any more expensive or hard to get than they already are and especially took umbrage at the 1500 dollar fee proposed for taking a firearm to a gun show
I also pointed out that if they made centrefire semiautos legal to fire at ranges, they might bring back in from the cold those estimated 83% of them which didn't get picked up in the confiscation
Along the lines of - well you guys fucked up and if you want to minimise the black market then you'd better start chucking out more carrots than sticks if you want your law to work and be accepted
Also as noted in other threads, DOC have stuck this idea out of charging for public land access and floated charging for hunt licenses/ $57 a night for a bivvy, you get the drift
Link here
https://www.doc.govt.nz/get-involved...ervation-land/
I got this from a mate and hadn't heard anything - he linked to NZDA doing a submission, link here
https://www.deerstalkers.org.nz/reso...ervation-land/
The price of democracy is constant vigilance
I enclose my rough answers below, I'm sure many of you can do better
What type of submitter are you?: Individual
Name of organsation:
Would you like any part of your submission kept confidential: Yes
Selection of parts of submission to keep private: Name and personal information
Reason to keep confidential:
Reasons and grounds under OIA:
Part 3: Do you want to submit on section: Yes
Q1: Agree
Q1 comment:
Q2: No comment
Q2 comment:
Q2b:
Part 4: Do you want to submit on section: Yes
Q3a: Oppose
Q3b comment: I do not wish to pay to have access to the public estate
Q3c:
Q4: No comment
Q4 comment:
Q5: Disagree
Q5 comment: I hate to walk into a wilderness area and have a bunch of fat arse Americans land a chopper smack in the middle of where I'm hunting
Part 5: Do you want to submit on section: Yes
Q6a: Strongly oppose
Q6a comment:
Q6b: Strongly oppose
Q6b comment:
Q6c: Neutral
Q6c comment:
Q7a: Yes
Q7a comment: They should look deep into their soul and keep their hands out of my wallet
Q7b: No comment
Q7b comment:
Part 6: Do you want to submit on section: Yes
Q8a: Strongly disagree
Q8b comment:
Q9a.: Strongly disagree
Q9a comment:
Q9b: Yes
9b comment: The fact that public land has been paid for by taxpayers already and we collectively own it
Q10: Yes
Q10 comment: If it is public land
Q11: Strongly oppose
Q11 comment: I pay over $$30k a year in taxes I don't care if track quality degrades due to lack of funding I vehemently oppose this double dipping of being charged twice for something we have already paid for
Part 7: Do you want to submit on section: Yes
Q12a: Neutral
Q12a comment: Neutral as I oppose such charges in the first place
Q12b: Neutral
Q12b comment: Neutral as I oppose such charges in the first place
Q12c: Neutral
Q12c comment: Neutral as I oppose such charges in the first place
Q12d: See above
Q13: No comment
Q13 comment:
Part 8: Do you want to submit on section: Yes
Q14: How about Govt don't hand a conservation park over to Tuhoe when they burn down half the huts?
Part 9: Do you want to submit on section: Yes
Q15: Strongly disagree
Q15 comment: Public land is not theirs to charge access to in the first place - absolute horseshit
That really needs addressing but a lot of it is Aussie companies with stupid attitudes to firearms and the health and safety issues with dodgy staff. Its a right royal PIA moving rifles around the country now. I usually have to resort to finding a LFO who is travelling to carry the item to its destination.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
I can see a business opportunity in this. If only there was sufficient and frequent volume. Rushy’s Reliable Rifles on Roads has a good ring to it. Ha ha ha haQuote:
Originally Posted by HiTop
Submission done, only 2 hours using the online form and COLFO's cheat sheet.
Now onto something useful like reloading some .308 ammunition.
Done.
No snark, no F bombs. I'm proud of me.
Also done.
Some of the provided guidance was helpful. At times it felt like I didn't know enough about the matters in question to make an informed comment. As a personal interest area, I'd like to see development of the fit and proper person 'test', in accordance with relevant risk-factors (i.e. from research), that are best correlated with actual risk of firearm harm/misuse. Seems a weak area to me at present.
Now I'd suggest everyone print their submission and book an appointment with their MP.
That's my plan.
Face to face gets attention.
I might be a bit lucky though, my MP is a country girls who speaks the lingo.
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
Bloody good ideaQuote:
Originally Posted by 7mmwsm
Now that all of the submissions have been lodged, is there a web link to view them?
Heard Nicole speak last night. About 3900 submissions at that point. They will be summarized up ( by the team at Justice, of whom she spoke highly) and then we will get to see what they have raised.