Thread: Discussion Document regarding Arms Act

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.

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

Originally Posted by Friwi

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

Great ideas @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.

@Growlybear quit your moaning and actually contribute something meaningful to the thread.

Originally Posted by stug

@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.

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.

Originally Posted by Tentman

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.

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.

Originally Posted by inglishill

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.

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.
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.

Originally Posted by longshot

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.
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.

Yeah, I accept that.

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.

Originally Posted by inglishill

Yeah, I accept that.

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.

In previous consultations on firearms law reform submissions weren't read by the select committee.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Beavis

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, sure.

What alternative do you suggest?