Thread: Could we do more

Originally Posted by stumpy

I have always wondered what the problem with the serial number of any weapon/firearm being logged against a person is ..
if your the owner , when you buy a firearm , why cant it go ,against your FL ?
are people worried about the info leaking into the wrong hands?
or being charged per firearm you own in some sort of registration scheme , like some on here all my firearms are of the endorsed type , I don't own any "A" cat firearms ... don't get pissy and come back in a rant , I am genuinely interested in the why not .
I realise now that to get all of NZ to come up with the number on all their guns and get checked etc would fail ... but it has to start somewhere ... maybe from jan 2017 all weapons bought , new and used must be registred , and I think that a cop at a scrotes house who finds a stolen firearm , if he has a serial number and a previous owner who was burgled then they could tie that crim into that crime , the more he/she is charged with the more they go away for (hopefully ) I personally cant see the harm in it ... but im sure others will .
cheers blair

Stumpy,

People are concerned that registration of all firearms provides a "shopping list" for police in the event that they implement a buyback policy. This is how the buyback worked in Australia. One year they asked for registration, then all law abiding owners complied, and the next year they changed the law and had the buy back. Conveniently, due to registration, they could track down the firearms they wanted.

The other argument that people tote, is that registration, historically, has provided little benefit in terms of solving crimes. As with the Canadian registry, the main reason it was abandoned is that it had minimal statistical impact on the number of crimes solved. Although this is sometime held in contention.

EDIT: These are the two cases that I am familiar with, there are other examples of firearms registration schemes worldwide which work in different ways and may/may not provide benefits in terms of solving crimes. In summary, there are three reasons firearms owners in New Zealand seem opposed to general registration.
1) Possibility of a buyback - firearms owners view registration as a precursor to this.
2) Administrative and financial burden on police services
3) Data security concerns

Historically (mid-60's), I got my 'first' FAL.
Wanted to get a cutdown milsurp 303, had to get a 'Permit to Procure', pay and collect rifle.
Take said purchase, PTP and FAL to local station for registration within 72 hours (I think).
At the station, the sergeant recorded all the above information and checked that I actually knew how to strip and reassemble the rifle.
A few questions to make sure I had an understanding of safe firearms use (some of the 7 principles were hammered very hard back then).
'Off you go son - if you get something, you know where the 'cop shop' is' - nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.
After a shot of 'common sense' in the Beehive, the single page license disappeared and the 'little red book' came into existence.
Go to private seller/retailer, show your red book, record the details in the back (in front of the seller), he'd record your red book number in his red book and cross that rifle off his list of firearms (in the back of his red book).
While very 'manual', the system worked really well and all was roses.
We decided that the future held more promise in Aus., so sold all the rifles, using the above system (still have my little red book - changed I used to think because of the link to a certain Asian country's leader and his political leanings).
On our return recently - lo and behold - despite working for 15 years, IRD couldn't find my tax file number - so had to get a new one.
Drivers license - same result.
Applied for a new FAL - records kept and cost increased by $100 over a 'new application', as the old FAL was lapsed and only needed the MSC course to get it back - new number of course.
So records are useful, when applied 'intelligently'.

Originally Posted by Daggers_187

3) Data security concerns

This one for me. Particularly when not long ago one of their members was working with gangs.

Originally Posted by Kscott

I had a similar chat with a work colleague over the weekend. My question which I repeated over and over - what exactly will Police knowing what the serial number is, achieve ?

It won't stop burglary.
It won't stop idiots who don't secure their firearms.
It won't stop those who are already in illegal possession of a firearm.
It will create a massive workload on an under-resourced department.

Was that Heather?

I have no issues with numbers been logged as I have nothing to hide however it is only the “good guys” who would submit their numbers.
Rural firearms are a way of life. They won’t go into Fort Knox everytime there is a rabbit, possum or Magpie out the back door then put it back after
The drug growers, cooks and dealers have illegal firearms for their own protection against their own kind.
For a system to work it has to start sometime

Yes we could be doing more especially in the area of storage. Most people I know have just put a lock on a cupboard door and called that good where really you could put your foot though most of them. Changes need to come from the top and be clear cut and uniform across the whole country without impeding on the rights we have currently, possibly even doing away with some of the more useless laws. Basically streamlining the arms act and making it easier for everyone to understand while tightening up on the issue of criminals getting guns. Pretty much what all the other guys have said.

Originally Posted by sako75

Was that Heather?

??? no, the lady in question, her name is Kimberly.

ive got photos of all mine, on the back of them is info on them inc serial number. no way would i ever trust a govt department with this info, they employ too many civilians who could give this info to criminals.

I have good security-the worst of it has passed endorsed standards and keep very good records with photos of the guns and the serial numbers (including all the places those numbers are marked) alarms cameras and soon dye sprayers. But I'll leave the bolts in thanks-taking them out is only practical on some guns(bit of a pain for semis) and opens up way to much chance of loss or mix up.

I think the current minimum for "A" category is a joke and that the cops struggle to keep track of the endorsed guns so have no faith in their ability to track all of them-and would point to Canada to show that even if they had more funding they probably still couldn't do it in a way that would help dove crime any more than private people keeping there own details to pass on in case of theft.

It has been mentions in the past that extra controls on ammo wouldn't really help as crims don't use much of it.

I personally don't have an issue with police having a registration. I have an endorsed firearm as well as filling out mail order forms the police all ready know 3/4 of my safe.
how ever i think the budget for firearm registration is much better spent on front line police staff.

If they could solve more burglaries than I have no doubt it would have a big effect on black market firearms especially if there was larger penalties just look at that kid who stabbed the rugby player he had something like 15 burglary chargers and he was only 17.

I do agree that firearms should be stored at least in a safe and personally I would like to see it to the current E cat level.

Originally Posted by 199p

I personally don't have an issue with police having a registration. I have an endorsed firearm as well as filling out mail order forms the police all ready know 3/4 of my safe.
how ever i think the budget for firearm registration is much better spent on front line police staff.

If they could solve more burglaries than I have no doubt it would have a big effect on black market firearms especially if there was larger penalties just look at that kid who stabbed the rugby player he had something like 15 burglary chargers and he was only 17.

I do agree that firearms should be stored at least in a safe and personally I would like to see it to the current E cat level.

I agree with all of this except making everyone have an e cat. For Those that are renting or move a lot it would be a pain in The arse.

I had the bare minimum security when I first got my FAL (a lock on a cupboard, didn't have a rifle there as my flat mates refuted it).

When I got my first rifle, I had a gun rack. Easy to take with me when moving flats but still didn't let me sleep well at night.

Saved up and got a safe. Seriously don't understand why anyone who owned a home wouldn't get one. I think the minimum security is a joke and I was very uncomfortable storing firearms that way.

I'd like to see a much more secure minimum standard brought in, but understand the challenges of administration of enforcement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's go back to what was suggested, I think, in the 70s by the polies and put them all in armouries and you can book em out and put em back when you have finished. That's the real control they would like!

Originally Posted by 223nut

I agree with all of this except making everyone have an e cat. For Those that are renting or move a lot it would be a pain in The arse.

That is a valid point. I do think the bar has to be raised with a lot of the converted locker safes that i personally know of 3 or 4 people using them.

I assume you all know that there is a register of all firearms sold from a dealer, new or S/H so I cannot understand what you are all complaining about, ok private sales are not recorded, but that maybe on the way, mainly due to gun owners selling or lending guns to people without licenses. It will take years for the records to catch up if ever.
As to recording your serial number for your own use, common sense really if you ever want to make a claim on your insurance.

So I bought a rifle from a gun shop yesterday, everything recorded, sold it today at a profit to a bonifide person, I do not keep records, what's the point?