Thread: Arms Act 2025 consultation submissions

Wasn’t there some data that come out recently about the licensing fees being diverted to fund other projects?
I wish I’d saved these things when I came across them.

Originally Posted by Ben Waimata

Nicole's fb post 7hrs ago shows that the dicussion document has only been accessed 587 times! 3 of those were me! Does no one care about firearms law? 250,000 licensed shooters, one month left for submissions, and the discussion document detailing possible future of shooting in NZ has only been looked at 587 times, including GCNZ and cronies. I am actually shocked, disillusioned, and disappointed.

I am hoping a lot are waiting for COLFO's guidance document due out any day to use as a Template for their submission. As I said "Hoping" being the key word.

Originally Posted by BSA

I am hoping a lot are waiting for COLFO's guidance document due out any day to use as a Template for their submission. As I said "Hoping" being the key word.

I hope this is not the case, it would be far better if we all made our own submissions without sounding like we're all saying the same things in the same words. I did mine last night, it will be all my own words and thoughts.

I for one would like to see COLFOs info before submitting so I don’t overlook any key issues. No need to use their language or format, just be aware of all the issues that need addressing

https://www.colfo.org/

COLFO and our lawyers are thoroughly reviewing the extensive documentation and will publish a submission guideline early in February. Click the link and sign up for free alerts to receive this guide as soon as it goes live.

I read the submission from gun control NZ, in which they are pushing for "Increasing the minimum age for holding a firearms licence to 18 and prohibit children under the age of 10 from using firearms"

crazy

Basically that's trying to cut the flow of new shooters into the sport - a direct attack on the recruitment of young people into healthy outdoor sports. It's a city-dweller one size fits all 'we don't care or even want to understand any other point of view' approach to rural sports, it shows the ethos of the people behind gun control NZ who effectively are not interested in promoting the traditional outdoor-centric NZ 'traditional' lifestyle in favour of a city-centric 'supermarket hunter' lifestyle.

Sad really, how good health outcomes can be ignored to further what they are claiming is a better public health outcome but which in reality is the opposite and founded on ignorance. Stats are starting to show that this approach will do nothing to improve gun crime stats and if anything, make them worse and also result in worse health outcomes for people which increases costs to the health sector. Guess we all need to push this in submissions...

My submission will focus on the plethora of new requirements we need to satisfy... especially with the registration of firearms. If you miss a step or submit something that isn't 100% correct, it's an offence and you can lose your license. If you fail to get a WoF, the penalty isn't losing your drivers licence as a result, even though your actions / negligence puts other road users at risk of injury or death. I'd also like to see clear legislation about when a firearm or ammunition is no longer such, as far as deactivated wall hangers go, and rounds for display or collection that can't be fired. And just so we are all clear on things, words matter, and definitions that are clear and unambiguous keep the courts from overflowing.

Yet there

Originally Posted by No.3

Basically that's trying to cut the flow of new shooters into the sport - a direct attack on the recruitment of young people into healthy outdoor sports. It's a city-dweller one size fits all 'we don't care or even want to understand any other point of view' approach to rural sports, it shows the ethos of the people behind gun control NZ who effectively are not interested in promoting the traditional outdoor-centric NZ 'traditional' lifestyle in favour of a city-centric 'supermarket hunter' lifestyle.

Sad really, how good health outcomes can be ignored to further what they are claiming is a better public health outcome but which in reality is the opposite and founded on ignorance. Stats are starting to show that this approach will do nothing to improve gun crime stats and if anything, make them worse and also result in worse health outcomes for people which increases costs to the health sector. Guess we all need to push this in submissions...

Well, it ain't working. It appears lots of new shooters coming in. At least anecdotally.

Originally Posted by D@n

I read the submission from gun control NZ, in which they are pushing for "Increasing the minimum age for holding a firearms licence to 18 and prohibit children under the age of 10 from using firearms"

crazy

I actually think the 18 age has some merit, perhaps with exemptions for people under that age in full time employment requiring firearms. I have seen some 16 and 17 year olds doing stupid things with firearms. 18 is the voting age, and you can't get a full driving licence at 16 any more either.

Originally Posted by Ben Waimata

I actually think the 18 age has some merit, perhaps with exemptions for people under that age in full time employment requiring firearms. I have seen some 16 and 17 year olds doing stupid things with firearms. 18 is the voting age, and you can't get a full driving licence at 16 any more either.

I don't think you can place an age limit on stupidity unfortunately... 16 as it is currently is fine from my estimation as it relies on character reference, training of a form, background inspection and vetting, and face to face interaction with the assessment staff which is the same for all age people wanting a licence. 18 is the age for owning airguns without a licence, so the age indication is already in place and you get a two-year benefit for going in and being vetted and sitting your licence. It's completely different to car licences and more like aviation in how stringent it is.

Originally Posted by Bol Tackshin

My submission will focus on the plethora of new requirements we need to satisfy... especially with the registration of firearms. If you miss a step or submit something that isn't 100% correct, it's an offence and you can lose your license. If you fail to get a WoF, the penalty isn't losing your drivers licence as a result, even though your actions / negligence puts other road users at risk of injury or death. I'd also like to see clear legislation about when a firearm or ammunition is no longer such, as far as deactivated wall hangers go, and rounds for display or collection that can't be fired. And just so we are all clear on things, words matter, and definitions that are clear and unambiguous keep the courts from overflowing.

Yet there

I think your looking a bit deep in the pot there, I know of others, and myself included who have had to ring up and amend serials due to partial, incomplete/illegible or none present at the time of registration, one rifle I picked up that was grungy had a 3 in the serial, I was 100% confident it was 3 when I rung up, and after giving it a scrub and stripping back the rust and gunk a few hours later, turns out it was an 8.

They were more than happy to correctly alter the details when I called to let them know there had been a cock up and happy days, no issue to have that fixed.

Bet you there’s plenty of old buggers who have had to alter and change details due to eyesight or other factors, and I’m sure there will be plenty more.

“Knowingly providing false or misleading information” IIRC

Certainly doesn’t meet the criteria of “knowingly” being a few didgits or characters out with a valid reason.

They aren’t going to come and scoop you up in a black Nissan patrol and take your licence for making a mistake., doing it with intent, as they specify, is another story.

This is a 'highly political' topic where weight of numbers will be very important in achieving a good outcome.

I would encourage you all to make a submission, but not 'pro forma' (cut and paste).

Originally Posted by Billymavs

I think your looking a bit deep in the pot there, I know of others, and myself included who have had to ring up and amend serials due to partial, incomplete/illegible or none present at the time of registration, one rifle I picked up that was grungy had a 3 in the serial, I was 100% confident it was 3 when I rung up, and after giving it a scrub and stripping back the rust and gunk a few hours later, turns out it was an 8.

They were more than happy to correctly alter the details when I called to let them know there had been a cock up and happy days, no issue to have that fixed.

Bet you there’s plenty of old buggers who have had to alter and change details due to eyesight or other factors, and I’m sure there will be plenty more.

“Knowingly providing false or misleading information” IIRC

Certainly doesn’t meet the criteria of “knowingly” being a few didgits or characters out with a valid reason.

They aren’t going to come and scoop you up in a black Nissan patrol and take your licence for making a mistake., doing it with intent, as they specify, is another story.

More likely a white Landcruiser with black tinted windows

this p[rocess is like elephants rooting -its carried out at a high level ,lotsa lotsa noise and will take bloody ages to see any result.the cynic in me says lots of vested interests want it to fail!