When the submissions open for the Discussion around how the new Arms Act will look is a good time to put your point forward
https://www.colfo.org/post/its-happening
https://www.facebook.com/share/1BMye...ibextid=wwXIfr
Printable View
When the submissions open for the Discussion around how the new Arms Act will look is a good time to put your point forward
https://www.colfo.org/post/its-happening
https://www.facebook.com/share/1BMye...ibextid=wwXIfr
I would be keen to have an alternate link for those of us not on Facebook
Have added a COLFO link that’s not on FaceacheQuote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
Don’t you idiots go getting another thread locked.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-...irearms-reform
As per this link, this is going to be the final phase of the firearms reform.
I wonder when they expect to get an outcome on phases 2 and 3, I would’ve thought they would complete the previous phase before starting the next one, but seems like they are trying to get it all sorted out as fast as they can.
Nice to see they are actually trying to get stuff done, rather than just spend 3 years talking about it.
Next time I delete a post from this thread I will lock or delete it.
@stug
If it does go sideways could you just lock it please not delete it.
So we can find the links easily.
Topics like this should have a little bit of leeway regarding the politics rule.
@7mmwsm that will all depend on what people decide to post.
The removed posts weren't political, they were just small minded. I'd rather see people removed than Threads when it comes to topics like this, especially repeat offendersQuote:
Originally Posted by 7mmwsm
Let's see how this thread goes.
My opinion. This thread isn't for anyone to spout their personal opinions/values, there is ample opportunity for that via the submission process. This thread is an information source for those considering making a submission that consolidates the links and such in one handy place
Last time this topic was covered I personally got the most out of people putting forward posts that said things like "in my submission I covered x case and y situation"
I'll definitely be submitting on this bill and I find it really helpful when people cover areas of their expertise , especially pointing out silly loopholes that need fixing
Looking forward to next week
Well worded !Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty Henry
This thread can be such a resource for others.
While I get the bit about politics, this stuff is actually vital for all of us. And, let's face it, it was politics that brought us to this situation. If we can't discus it here, on a shooting forum, any suggestions where else? Because I'm interested.
Totally agree @308. This will be a very useful resource. The current Arms Act is a tad convoluted with a multitude of amendments but at its core, it’s still a simple commonsense piece of legislation. A lot of the current Act pertains to dealers, restricted endorsements, pistol clubs etc. Pare back all the fluffy extras, modernise a tiny amount and we’ll be back to having the best in the world.
Some general points that I’ve been thinking about so far:
1: Remove the Police from any involvement firearms management, in writing their own policies and rules on the fly. Their sole role is to administer law not create it. Independence is key.
2: Get back to E cat endorsements or something similar. Why do we need to make pest destruction a business just to allow us the right tools for the job not to mention what happened to the competition crowd etc
3: Don’t mind a probationary period for new licence holders but unless there is a compelling reason for not renewing someone’s FAL, we shouldn’t have to keep reapplying. It’s a costly and largely a pointless exercise. Do it on a case by case basis, if need be, but if it is kept, then pare it back to the essentials. Currently, it’s really no different to getting a new license.
4: The legislation must fair and equitable across all stack holders. My thinking is a bit vague on this at the moment but the law changes post ChCh saw a lot of self interest amongst various firearms entities from what I read in the past.
5: There has to be a greater emphasis on consequences for firearms offences. This will be mean pressure also needs to be applied to the judiciary and will also go a long way to appeasing the anti gun lobby without costing us anything.
6: If I’m an approved FAL holder, this means that I’ve been judged a fit and proper person. The criteria for ceasing to be needs definition. Not subject to opinion or vague interpretation. The avenue for appeal must also be accessible and timely.
7: Why do I need Police consent form to post a piece of wood, etc. This thought covers a few areas but is generally all bureaucratic nonsense, achieves nothing and is time wasting and costly. I think it’s just a form of stamping authority and control.
8: Storage and transport of firearms needs the KISS principle applied. Too much opinion has crept in over the last few years from the ill-informed and uneducated.
9: Keep the change of address requirement as it has been. No need for security checks (this was never a legislated requirement, just another made up policy) Security is on you as a responsible FAL holder. Take it seriously.
Anyway, that’s a few things rolling about in my brain at the moment. Spend some time going through the current Act, it’s not particularly large, just messy. I’m sure there’s part/parts that relate to your own experiences and if you want to make a submission, it doesn’t have to be on the entire Act, just pick one section and make a concise, rational argument on that.
Looking forward to reading some enlightening posts over the next few weeks. Cheers all.
,
Another thing that could be addressed is that you do not need to show a F/A licence in order to buy component parts for reloading. Surely this is a loophole that could be tightened up. We show a F/A for everything else. The idea that we need to have the ammunition we buy recorded, presumably to find 'straw buyers', is simply a waste of time when just about anyone can buy the pieces needed and treat it like a DIY. I am aware of the restrictions on powder and primers, but a DG licence can sort that out no issue. I am not in favour of more regulation and oversight but this is another thing that could be looked at.
If people could control themselves when talking politics then I am sure we could talk politicsQuote:
Originally Posted by Growlybear
Unfortunately this is not the case
hence the no politics or religion rule
In the same way that all of us are stuck driving behind the slowest users of a one-lane road, all of us are bound by the behaviours of the most retarded*
So, because people are people (and therefore as dumb as fuck) it is easier to have a rule that the retarded can understand which is, you guessed it, simple as fuck
ergo, no politics or religion
It ain't fair but if you are here then you have agreed to abide by it
If you don't want to abide by it or agree with it then you don't have to be here
If you want somewhere to talk politics, might I suggest Farcebook?
*Note i am also retarded on many occasions
On the contrary , that should stay as it is.( regarding current reloading components requirements)
- we need to no longer have a form to fill when buying or selling an A-cat stock, barrel and trigger and mag.
- we have a good number of passionate and skilled guys who have sharpen their skills at either stock work ( shaping , finishing , bedding , checkering, ….) , metal work and finish , carbon stock making, cerakoting …etc. But because of the current law, there is requirement for any of those guys who would like to make their passion a business to have a full dealer licence .
All the burdens that one has to navigate through to even get started when you don’t even know if it will be slightly profitable kind of kill the chicken in the egg.
I feel that there should be some sort of intermediate licence or just a simple form to fill where an A cat licence holder who would like to start engaging in this sort of business , specifically part time, could do so with out having the burden of having a gun dealer licence .
- when we, Fal holders,are travelling abroad with our firearm, we should not have to apply for a permit to import upon our re entry, specially if our firearms are already registered .
- reduce the time to generate an import permit for foreign hunters back to a month or under as it used to be. NZ needs the money of those American trophy hunters who spend largely here.
These are a few of the things that will be in my submission
I don't want to talk politics, necessarily, but sometimes, whether we like it or not, it has become part and parcel of the subject. But thanks for your kind words of encouragement and demonstration of polite discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by 308
@Growlybear quit your moaning and actually contribute something meaningful to the thread.
I will. Thanks for the template.Might I suggest, in the meantime, you have a cuppa and a lie down.Quote:
Originally Posted by stug
Great ideas @Friwi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Friwi
Common sense didn't have a lot to do with the changes. Most gun friendly experts and their advice werent included.
Their experts didn't want to make it easy anyway.
The idea about making it easier to bring your own firearms back into the country is a great idea.
None of it was done to make it easy but that was probably some of the point.
It's interesting to hear a viewpoint like yours partly from a business perspective.
I would be very keen to see submission templates and suggestions for what others have been submitting, as one of the things I've found is a lot of submissions have good points but they are worded in a way that makes the point confused or slightly ambiguous and the effect is lost.
I recently had a situation where my submission was critiqued and the advice was drop all the 'editorializing' as I'm not writing it for money meaning stick to short quick factual statements and drop all of the emotive fluff. The next point was write it like it's going to the executives of your work, they don't read 30 pages and if the first page doesn't grab them you've probably wasted your time...
A quick guide to writing a submission.
https://www.parliament.nz/media/6340...submission.pdf
One of the big things in this will be how any changes are "framed" for the public and media.
There was an excellent example right in the first few posts to the linked Facebook thread.
Instead of saying "we should have semi auto centrefires back" we "frame" this as "the current regime for semi auto centrefires - the P endorsement - should be widened to allow suitably vetted persons to possess semi auto centrefires for x purposes"
I'm sure Colfo etc will be onto this sort of thing but we all need to be saying similar things to the wider public we interact with.
Sure, but it is a submission. What do you then follow that up with? Most statements like that will be disregarded by a panel because you have no evidence to back up what you are proposing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tentman
To be fair, it should most probably read, "the current regime for semi auto centrefires - the P endorsement - should be widened to allow suitably vetted persons to possess semi auto centrefires for x purposes" - This should then be followed by a qualification of the statement. I realise the statement says 'for x purposes' but the most important part of the submission is not only the 'why' but the 'the data from the trusted source tells us that the outcomes are net positive if this were to happen as evidenced by scenario y'.
No 3 alluded to this above, I was just fleshing it out within the discussion.
I think @Tentman's point still stands, and it is that how an argument is framed is important. As firearms users, where our own assertions may make sense to us, they may not make sense to someone who lacks technical knowledge of the subject. In the same vein, we may find media articles featuring negative themes around firearms, much less alarming than someone with lack of contextual knowledge of the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by inglishill
This is where it is important to shape advocacy to the audience, which here, is not the rest of us, but the wider public, who probably aren't prepared to do the intellectual heavy lifting needed to understand the deeper complexities of the landscape. I know I am not prepared or just don't have the time to do the same on many other things.
Granted, supporting statements with data is also crucial, but for best results, both of these approaches in tandem. Framing it the wrong way will just make valid assertions appear self serving or disconnected, which makes them easy to dismiss.
The questions the FSA ask for a firearms renewal are absolutely ridiculous, it makes me think its all too far gone.
The whole system needs to go back to pre chch and the processes to be followed correctly
I've been thinking that we should suggest doing away with the mail order form system. It's 2025. There's got to be a better way of validating someone's license and identity remotely. It's such a ballache having to find time to go to the local police station, during the narrow hours that the arms officer is available, to get him to sign a form saying I can buy something that I am already legally entitled to.
It has definitely had a chilling effect on purchasing items from local retailers, especially since they added firearm parts to it.
Yeah, I accept that.Quote:
Originally Posted by longshot
We are not talking about advocacy although, we are talking about submissions to a panel/committee whatever it is.
If you want your submission to carry weight then you need to do it in the prescribed manner.
Yeah, sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
What alternative do you suggest?
Strip the requirement back to: Ammunition, receivers, complete firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by inglishill
Use realme and run it through a portal where the buyer and seller can confirm each other's license validity by matching tokens.
Much like the existing license checker, but with more steps.
The paper option can still be done by those who don't do computers.
Good ideaQuote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
Excellent, make sure that is in your submission :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
Good point, if you can can be trusted to enter details into the register without having to get a signature at the police station, then you should be trusted to conduct other aspects of firearms administration using the same credentials.
In previous consultations on firearms law reform submissions weren't read by the select committee.Quote:
Originally Posted by inglishill
The select committee got a summary of submissions prepared by parliamentary staff.
The process of summarising submissions is open to challenge on the basis of those preparing the summary aren't technically skilled in the subject matter, bring a bias to the summary and frankly are inept.
If we submit a large volume of low quality submissions then the submission summary process will happen again.
The only way to ensure your submission is read is to personally front up to the select committee to present your submission and answer questions.