Thread: Bolt security

The wording of required security refers to "firearm" .
But many owners,like me, feel that a rifle without the bolt is not dangerous and may warrant few security precautions.

In particular, preventing a firearm from being stolen from a vehicle while popping in to pay for petrol or at the public convenience could be achieved 100% by taking the bolt with you. Yet somehow I feel the police may not be sympathetic.

Is a person guilty of incorrect storage if an unsecured rifle is stolen but not the bolt ?

Notwithstanding that a rifle without a bolt is just an odd shaped cricket bat, I think people tend to over think the whole rifle in the car while They fill up with petrol or take a piss thing. As long as the vehicle is locked and the vehicle is under surveillance (e.g. by the CCTV cameras at a service station) and the period of time away from the vehicle is reasonably limited then I don't see why any member of the Police would take exception (that is if they even knew there was a firearm in the vehicle). I have left a firearm in a vehicle under these circumstances literally hundreds of times over the years and most frequently by the air hose between the BP and Burger King in Rotorua.

Originally Posted by Bagheera

The wording of required security refers to "firearm" .
But many owners,like me, feel that a rifle without the bolt is not dangerous and may warrant few security precautions.

In particular, preventing a firearm from being stolen from a vehicle while popping in to pay for petrol or at the public convenience could be achieved 100% by taking the bolt with you. Yet somehow I feel the police may not be sympathetic.


Is a person guilty of incorrect storage if an unsecured rifle is stolen but not the bolt ?

Yes. Because a firearm is still a firearm even if it doesn't have the bolt in it. Read the Arms Act.

Originally Posted by Rushy

Notwithstanding that a rifle without a bolt is just an odd shaped cricket bat, I think people tend to over think the whole rifle in the car while They fill up with petrol or take a piss thing. As long as the vehicle is locked and the vehicle is under surveillance (e.g. by the CCTV cameras at a service station) and the period of time away from the vehicle is reasonably limited then I don't see why any member of the Police would take exception (that is if they even knew there was a firearm in the vehicle). I have left a firearm in a vehicle under these circumstances literally hundreds of times over the years and most frequently by the air hose between the BP and Burger King in Rotorua.

is that you there rushy

Thanks for that systolic:

Arms act 1983:

firearm—
(a) means anything from which any shot, bullet, missile, or other projectile
can be discharged by force of explosive; and
(b) includes—
anything that has been adapted so that it can be used to discharge a shot, bullet, missile, or other projectile by force of explosive; and
anything which is not for the time being capable of discharging any shot, bullet, missile, or other projectile but which, by its com- pletion or the replacement of any component part or parts or the correction or repair of any defect or defects, would be a firearm within the meaning of paragraph (a) or subparagraph (i); and
anything (being a firearm within the meaning of paragraph (a) or subparagraph (i)) which is for the time being dismantled or parti- ally dismantled; and
any specially dangerous airgun

Since a replacement bolt often can be obtained, even if it's an expensive and long winded process, removing the bolt is, in principle, only a temporary means of inactivating a firearm.

Sorted.

Originally Posted by MSL

is that you there rushy

The picture quality is not that great but the colour indicates that it could very well be. Take a drive down there and check. If there is a fat old bugger that answers to the name Rushy and he will sell you his grandmother for a double BK with cheese then I reckon it is highly likely. If there is a box of Waikato on the back seat then Bazinga.

So, looking at the value of a few different precautions we might take:

Locked hard case = C
Remove bolt = B
Gunsafe = S

Safety
Prevent accident or self harm by others
C 4/5; B 4/5; S 5/5

Security
Precaution against theft and criminal use
C 2/5; B 3/5; S 4/5

Legal
Compliance with law
C 0/5; B 0/5; S 5/5

Mechanical
Protection from accidental damage
C 4/5; B 0/5; S 4/5

So, according to 'the letter of the Law', a Timney-trigger, in its wrapper, in the glove-box,...is an unsecured firearm, as it only requires its' other component-parts, to be operational.It would be no-less a firearm part, than say; a shotgun barrel, a shotgun rear-stock and action etc. There appears to be NO discretionary allowance ? Systolic ? I ask, because I often take only my u/o barrels with me, when I pop down to the nearest town (15min). I dont want a shotgun in my vehicle, my "safe" is a bitch to access, and at this time of the year I use said U/O daily...and i KNOW crims Havent got spare barrels for my vintage and very-specific U/O....

Complements of the season to you all. How I feel is that it's gone too far, time that there was a bit more deterrent when the thieving scumbags steel firearms etc. Don't have any stickers on my vehicle advertising I hunt. Have changed from a ute with dog box to SUV. Why do we have to take these measures, what we do is legal.

Tetawa that’s a very good idea. I am very “paranoid” when it comes to people I don’t trust knowing that I have firearms in my possession. If the right “bad guy” knows that you could have a firearms, i guarantee your house will be a higher priority target for him.
As for the law and the police, it all depends on the cop that shows up on the day.
Some of them are firearm owners, hunters and shooters just like we are. Some of them are just he opposite and will throw the boom at you.
Count it a blessing that there are some good ones out there still and the whole system hasn’t been taken over by this new age style of government and policing.

I don't think anyone would try to rob a bank or anyone else with just a trigger, whereas a rifle without a bolt could be used for this purpose.

Yeah that’s right 10-ring they definately can use rifles without the ability to fire a round to rob places and extort people

At times the law is an ass.

So you're on a long trip with your firearms.
You need to go to lunch, for fuel, to the bank.
You can't leave your firearms in the car so you take them in with you.

Somehow they seem to be taking a long time to serve you.
Nek minut it is the AOS who arrive.

I take the pragmatic approach.
Firearms secured and hidden in vehicle separately from ammunition.
Bolts in a backpack that goes with me.
Breaking the law - Yes. Being reasonable - Yes.


Reminds me of a time 3 or 4 years ago when travelling to Picton with my son.
A news report said the police in the area where chasing someone with a "sniper" rifle and 30 rounds of ammo.
We had 3 target rifles capable out to 1000 yards and 1200+ rounds of ammo.
We looked at each other and laughed - as we passed an armed policeman - no need to look here sir.

I can sort of imagine that a bolt might be "completed" by the replacement of a bolt less stolen rifle and the person who supplied it may be prosecuted but, without being a lawyer, it seems probable that " component" would be interpreted as a smaller, removeable, replaceable part, like a trigger.

Provided you somehow lock your weapon to your vehicle (easier in a hard case) then the main risk is that someone steals the whole vehicle. That is why it is the right thing to take your bolt with you into the cafe, even better than leaving it locked into your car.

Has anyone heard of a case where a firearm owner was prosecuted for having it stolen from / with a vahicle ? Next question is whether there was any leniency because the bolt wasn't with it.

Never heard of the either scenarios Chris.

Of course, on many rifles the bolt is not easily removed such as on a semi, lever or pump action and there is no bolt as such on some single shot rifles like the Thompson contender.