I'm happy that Mr Slater is out there making noise about the absurdities facing FAL holders. The MSM won't objectively cover issues with the new register or the law changes, so at least he offers another perspective. His blog has a surprisingly large reach.
Slater isn't very credible. Hardly the voice I want to hear on our issues.
Likely appeals to a small segment of the pros and to none of the antis.
Are you credible enough to explain what in his recent articles about firearms isn't credible?
Credibility is attached to past behaviour and conduct, not what he says on some specific issues. He might be quite correct on some issues. But he is a bad voice for us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Slater
I would wager my left nut that his assertion that Police are duplicating the FSA register data into the NIA is pure fantasy and made mention of by him for reasons of sensationalist attention grabbing.
You might be right. There might also be a perfectly legal and valid reason the police is doing this too. Or not, I would be interested to know what the truth of the matter is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
He's not a voice for all FAL holders. He's an independent blogger who posts his opinion on things. He doesn't represent any firearms organisation that I'm aware of and no one in the MSM goes to him for comment. He is as entitled anyone else to post a blog with his opinions online.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
I thought we weren't allowed to do POLITICS!?
we're allowed until the admins say we aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Shields
Not being B or C enabled (have the interest to do it but also have the procrastination power to never have!) - I am a little surprised that a check in on B and C peoples wasn't like the first thing done. My impression was any regulatory interest like that would trigger an activating event requiring them to enter their stuff into the new register which (and I admit this is likely a deeply flawed logic haha) would make the old database inaccurate and no longer required.
Maybe I'm seriously underthinking that one.
Attachment 260306
As an operator of several "non-club affiliated" rifle ranges, and having had a bunch of input to a bunch of other range's certification applications I see this "enrollment" as an improvement but the devil will be in the detail. I am quite disappointed the "Repeal of Section 6" has not come to pass, as was promised pre-election.
The wording of the Act is vague at best and I suspect we won't see any detail until we see the wording of the Regulations. For example there isn't any detail in the bill as to what "information and documents that are prescribed" means. And the Commissioner may still "make whatever inquiries the Commissioner considers necessary" and request the applicant "provide any further information"...
The Department of Justice Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) lines up non-pistol shooting ranges to be certified by the "Regulator" or by a "Governing Body" but doesn't go further into the definition of a "governing body". At first impression my guess is that "governing body" is meant to refer to one of the national shooting organisations (e.g. Pistol NZ, NRA, NZDA, TSNZ, Clay Target NZ, etc.). The RIS also doesn't go into any further detail about what regulations may be imposed on these "governing bodies" - for example it will be interesting to see if the range manuals for a governing body will have to be approved by the "regulator", and if they do then will those new range manuals have to meet the current FSA/Police Range Manual...
Lastly, a minor point... but if I have submitted a range certification application but have not yet received my certificate by the time the act is ammended will I get a refund? And then I can pay the separate (possibly less fee for "enrollment"? If I have a currently certified range, will I still have to pay the enrollment fee?
Whatever you think of him personally he's past the 'fit and proper' sniff test administered by the NZ Police to hold a C cat firearms licence for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
Greetings all,
I am pleasantly surprised that I can still post to this thread but here goes.
If anybody has missed it we are in the early part of a process that will decide how we use and enjoy owning and using firearms for both hunting and on the range for the foreseeable future. Currently the ball is in the shooting ranges area but at the beginning. The really interesting part is when the Regulations appear which will give us a better understanding of the where what and how for rifle ranges. The current draft act may remove the requirement of registration or enrolment for temporary ranges. There is a section in the current Police Shooting Manual on the requirements for temporary ranges so it will be interesting to see what happens to those.
There is a section in the Manual for sighting in not done on a range. Does this come under the Arms Act?
There are a large number of people that contribute to the Forum with a lot of knowledge in this area so can we please stick to rifle ranges and leave comments on what some blogger has said to other threads.
Regards Grandpamac.
im pleas4ntly surprised at mckees well thought at taKEdown of the polices interference in er work.
not suprised the people who allowed the cockups are blaming the one sent to help sort them out tho.
