Firearms Registry Consultation Open

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

I doubt that any notice will be taken of any submission opposing the register. I doubt it because the Govt. here is following the UN template for small arms control: https://www.un.org/disarmament/wp-co...-2012EV1.0.pdf

"Stopping diversion from civilians. An estimated 75 per cent of small arms are in civilian hands. This encompasses all kinds and categories of arms and owners: security guards' pistols, farmers' shotguns, hunting rifles, collectors' displays, retailers' stocks, gangsters' crime weapons, as well as the many millions of guns sitting in homes and cars around the world for no particular reason or in the general name of security.

Part of this huge private arsenal consists of illegal guns (ie in the hands of people not entitled to possess them) and part consists of legal or semi-legal (grey) guns. Due to lack of data we can only guess at the relative distribution between legal and illegal. We know that many illegal guns came originally from Government stockpiles. Others have come from private owners, either deliberately through trafficking or unintentionally through loss, theft or private transfers. Globally, the private civilian stockpile is less accountable, far less strictly guarded and three times as plentiful as its state counterpart -- all qualities that support easy diversion of weapons to the illegal sector.

The best way to reduce diversion from the civilian stockpile to the illegal market is to reduce the size of the civilian stockpile, slow the arming of the population, and strengthen regulation of civilian ownership. Reducing the number of owners is reducing the number of potential points of diversion. Strengthening controls makes it much harder for guns to migrate into the criminal market. For example, a regulatory framework without firearm registration enables an owner to sell the weapon to a private buyer easily, without having to consider whether the buyer is legally authorized to acquire it. On the other hand, a regime that includes firearms registration necessarily imposes a higher degree of responsibility. The gun is registered in the seller's name with the State; thus the seller cannot transfer the ownership unless the State confirms that the buyer is authorized to acquire the weapon. This measure, firearm registration, is perhaps the single most effective tool in stopping diversion of legal small arms from civilians.

The other provisions are also anti-diversion and anti-trafficking measures, by stopping people from acquiring large numbers of guns and ensuring that the purchase or disposal of a gun is not a decision to be taken lightly. National firearm laws should recognize small arms as a product manufactured for killing, and therefore a product requiring strict control."

---

The key sentence here is in paragraph 3: "Reducing the number of owners"....I recall being told by a Police Arms Officer in the late 1980s that there are "far too many firearms out there, and we will do whatever we can to reduce that number". Fair warning, I would have thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranger 888

The key sentence here is in paragraph 3: "Reducing the number of owners"....I recall being told by a Police Arms Officer in the late 1980s that there are "far too many firearms out there, and we will do whatever we can to reduce that number". Fair warning, I would have thought.

---

Agreed, perhaps the best counter measure is to promote hunting as an ideal activity for young men with the mental health / youth suicide prevention groups. Getting out in the bush, cooking around a campfire, bringing wild food home and the sense of purpose and success this brings. We need to recruit more hunters and not fight the register - leave that to the ballot box

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranger 888

The key sentence here is in paragraph 3: "Reducing the number of owners"....I recall being told by a Police Arms Officer in the late 1980s that there are "far too many firearms out there, and we will do whatever we can to reduce that number". Fair warning, I would have thought.

---

Oh yeah and look who's gonna be leading the charge.

“It’s an important opportunity to set out New Zealand’s continued commitment to the multilateral system and international rules based order (AKA The UN & WEF...) ... international cooperation is more important than ever.”

talking about security , I see that the theft of the records from the old police station in Akl , the one with all the firearms owners details etc , is not being investigated by the police or ipcc(?) as to how it happened the docs were left in the station etc ....:wtfsmilie:

Obviously extremely concerned with security ....

The register IS going to be a shopping list , no doubt , and going by the above do you really think the cops give a rats backside ??

The only "pros" is that if someone stole your firearms and are registered then your insurance company has the evidence and details required for your insurance claim.

I know of one incident where registered firearms were stolen in Northland. A suspicious vehicle was stopped on the same day in North Shore, and firearms discovered. The firearm owner was contacted to say they were been held by the police and later returned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by small_caliber

Perhaps everyone should get organised and log in to update their ammunition at a certain time every day to see if the system can cope.
It just records ammunition bought, not used so at the end of 3 years I could have 10,000 rounds against my name but not actually have any of it.




What about when you move and no Dr's are taking on new patients?
My wife recently wanted to change her Dr as her previous Dr retired and she doesn't like the new Dr, so she thought she would transfer to a clinic that was closer to home, problem is no clinics are taking on new patients.

---

Exactly my point. They need to see the fishhooks so they can a. fix them or b. scrap them so the register is actually manageable
My advice is submit with practical suggestions or real flaws. From experience, out of scope polemics and nit picking are not taken up. Practical suggestions or thoughtful critiques get a second look. Be the second

Sent from my SM-J250G using Tapatalk

Regarding the GP aspect, if I were a doctor I would be extremely concerned. Basically in the license application and subsequently police are requiring you to conduct a psychology assessment (something you are not trained in) of an individual you may only see once a year and then for only 10 minutes.
They then rely on this assessment as a major part of their grant or deny screening.
If someone subsequently goes off the rails will you be liable.
The issue with rural. GPs us extremely valid. I haven't seen the same Dr in 4 years they're all locums before covid 2 of them were tourists paying for their holiday this way.
You may as well ask the postie for all the value it has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusky

The only "pros" is that if someone stole your firearms and are registered then your insurance company has the evidence and details required for your insurance claim.

I know of one incident where registered firearms were stolen in Northland. A suspicious vehicle was stopped on the same day in North Shore, and firearms discovered. The firearm owner was contacted to say they were been held by the police and later returned.

---

Agree, but if my firearms are stolen, police will have make, model, serial number and photos the same day. I'm. Happy to provide the info - when they need it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GDMP

Odd comment.....it was never their job to try and reduce numbers of legally held firearms or legal owners,rather to administer the act impartially.Over the years I have come across Police who were both anti firearms (well,our firearms anyway,not their's) and those who were quite the opposite and were somewhat helpful towards legal owners.

---

GDMP..I think he was implying that if owners of legally held firearms act NAUGHTILY, they would lose their firearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bol Tackshin

Agree, but if my firearms are stolen, police will have make, model, serial number and photos the same day. I'm. Happy to provide the info - when they need it.

---

Some people aren't as organized as you. In fact, the above stolen firearms that were mentioned were reported to police in Whangarei straight away. The paperwork hadn't even been completed before the call from North Shore Police had located them due to the fact they were registered.

Is there anything in the legislation about re stamping numbers? For instance a firearm made from several different SMLE parts which all had different numbers... which have been re marked to make a set

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chilli_Dog

Is there anything in the legislation about re stamping numbers? For instance a firearm made from several different SMLE parts which all had different numbers... which have been re marked to make a set

---

My post 87 in this thread has a link to the UN guidelines. Serial no's and there absence / re-stamping is discussed. The number on the receiver is the reference number according the link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusky

Some people aren't as organized as you. In fact, the above stolen firearms that were mentioned were reported to police in Whangarei straight away. The paperwork hadn't even been completed before the call from North Shore Police had located them due to the fact they were registered.

---

I am far from the most organised bloke on the block... it just takes a few minutes to take a photo of your firearms with your phone, including close-ups of any serial numbers. That way, it just sits on your phone, ready when you need them, or you can download it to an encrypted thumb drive if you don't want the pics available on your phone. You can also email them to yourself. Or, just email yourself the details, so that you have a record. Not difficult, and worth gold when you need it.

HAHAHA and down the rabbit hole we go - I have one action body with four serials on it. In the old times pre and WW1 era the master component was the barrel as the most expensive, time consuming and difficult to make as well as historically the main component in the muzzle loading era. The barrel got the 'legal' serial number on it, and any time a barrel was fitted with a second hand action body, bolt and funiture as a depot-level repair the action body etc were remarked to match the barrel. This presents a problem nowadays, when the action (or receiver) is considered the master part and a lot of barrels aren't serialled at all. No real space to remark the action body after that many numbers so no idea how that's going to work with the majic interegistry.

Put them all in, plus the viewers marks broad arrows, cyphers etc let them see how the system copes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Agreed, perhaps the best counter measure is to promote hunting as an ideal activity for young men with the mental health / youth suicide prevention groups. Getting out in the bush, cooking around a campfire, bringing wild food home and the sense of purpose and success this brings. We need to recruit more hunters and not fight the register - leave that to the ballot box

---

I agree. Been watching this guy's efforts for a while. Put someone like him together with Mike King and you might get some interesting results.

https://www.facebook.com/NickGoldsmith01

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by small_caliber

To me what the police are proposing seems to be complicated, full of irrelevant detail, and a big overreach on their part.

---

Totally agree with this, they are adding undue complexity - and probably cost - to the system. It could open them up to legal action later.

Wonder how much of this is the software company looking to generate more 'fries with that' on the building and maintenance of the database software. The bigger and more convoluted and unweildy the thing, the more maintenance it will need. And ultimately the less accurate and useful...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by small_caliber

The law required the police to build a "Firearm" registry.

To me this is the serial number of the firearm nothing more.

They already have my details, my f/l number, the details of my safe, and everything else that is covered when they do a firearms license application or renewal.

I don't see in the law where all this other detail is required to be collected and stored by the police.

In my opinion the firearm registry should be a separate database with the firearms details in it and no personal details, just an identifier so the f/l holders details can be accessed through another database. This would give some security.

When it comes to caliber, marks on stocks etc, does this mean you have to update the details everytime you change a barrel or put another mark on your stock, have it refinished or fit another stock.

To me what the police are proposing seems to be complicated, full of irrelevant detail, and a big overreach on their part.

---

Been thinking this same thought - separate all details that could identify someone out and align the master record as the F/L number. Against that - the database probably isn't useful then for the 'other agencies' that I have no idea what the use of a registry for them is to be fair. Customs looking at imports and exports - if it's an import it's not yet 'in possession' so not yet on someone's ticket and needing to be entered into the registry so they have no reason to access the database that I can see. All the necessary paperwork will still need to be completed for import checks, so whats the point of that as a access requirement?

This is what the law says must be in the registry, anything else it can be argued is not required by law so shouldn't be included:
94 Content of registry
(1) The following particulars must be recorded in the registry:
(a) the number and date of expiry of every type of licence held by a person under this Act:
(b) every licence holder’s full name, date of birth, and address:
(c) every endorsement on a licence:
(d) every condition on a licence or an endorsement that is additional to conditions imposed by this Act or regulations made under section 74:
(e) the particulars of the make, model, and identifying markings of every firearm, restricted weapon, and prohibited magazine possessed by a licence holder, and of the location of the firearm, restricted weapon, and prohibited magazine, if the particulars are held by the Police:
(f) every particular that regulations made under section 74 require to be recorded in the registry.
(2) The registry may include—
(a) photographs provided under section 34A; and
(b) any other information that the Commissioner considers necessary or desirable—
(i) to ensure that the registry is complete and accurate; or
(ii) for the administration of this Act and regulations made under it; and
(c) any other photographs that the Commissioner considers necessary or desirable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cigar

This is what the law says must be in the registry, anything else it can be argued is not required by law so shouldn't be included:
94 Content of registry
(1) The following particulars must be recorded in the registry:
(a) the number and date of expiry of every type of licence held by a person under this Act:
(b) every licence holder’s full name, date of birth, and address:
(c) every endorsement on a licence:
(d) every condition on a licence or an endorsement that is additional to conditions imposed by this Act or regulations made under section 74:
(e) the particulars of the make, model, and identifying markings of every firearm, restricted weapon, and prohibited magazine possessed by a licence holder, and of the location of the firearm, restricted weapon, and prohibited magazine, if the particulars are held by the Police:
(f) every particular that regulations made under section 74 require to be recorded in the registry.
(2) The registry may include—
(a) photographs provided under section 34A; and
(b) any other information that the Commissioner considers necessary or desirable—
(i) to ensure that the registry is complete and accurate; or
(ii) for the administration of this Act and regulations made under it; and
(c) any other photographs that the Commissioner considers necessary or desirable.

---

Unfortunately 2b means anything they want

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rushy

Unfortunately 2b means anything they want

---

I'd like to see how 2b stacks up with the privacy act

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No.3

Been thinking this same thought - separate all details that could identify someone out and align the master record as the F/L number. Against that - the database probably isn't useful then for the 'other agencies' that I have no idea what the use of a registry for them is to be fair. Customs looking at imports and exports - if it's an import it's not yet 'in possession' so not yet on someone's ticket and needing to be entered into the registry so they have no reason to access the database that I can see. All the necessary paperwork will still need to be completed for import checks, so whats the point of that as a access requirement?

---

It will be useful enough if they are presented with a FAL. It is an official photographic ID and positively identifies the person about whose firearms they are making enquiries.

Here is another one....
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime...ools-customers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bol Tackshin

It will be useful enough if they are presented with a FAL. It is an official photographic ID and positively identifies the person about whose firearms they are making enquiries.

---

In a lot of places F/L isn't considered an acceptable form of photographic evidence - I suspect because it's issued by Police and not by a directly-controlled Govt department. Weirdly enough, a NZDF ID is better than the F/L. The 'accepted' forms of ID are passport, driver's licence, the offical over 18 ID card and stupidly enough as it's not photographic the good old birth cert. My wife argues the marraige license as well, as she's still running into the old name change deal (I suggested she could change it back if she wasn't happy - she told me where to stick it which I found odd considering the cause of the issue).

And another one is the Police taking photo's of young maori for whatever reason I'm not sure. Not allowed under privacy rules, you should have heard that fool Cahill. He's completely convinced Police cannot function without cameras and photo's of everyone - I found his argument a little bizarre to be honest. It's found to be against the law to take and retain photo's of random young people and Cahill wants the report and all the complaints withdrawn and Police to continue taking happy snaps despite it being against the law. I think he believes that because it's Police doing it - it makes it OK for them to break the law because they are trying to prevent others from breaking laws and they want to solve crimes? Weird argument TBH fellow.

I found the targeting of specific ethnic groups (Maori) pretty disgusting - I thought we'd gotten past that sort of shit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vulcannz

I found the targeting of specific ethnic groups (Maori) pretty disgusting - I thought we'd gotten past that sort of shit?

---

Nah mate. If Chris Hipkins showed up at Cabinet without his officials having talked to Maori specifically, Willy Jackson and Mahuta would tell him to go away and come back when he had.

Identify your target beyond doubt, because you never miss and I'll be missed

Not only is Cahill an Oxygen thief, he's one of life's germs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no1_49er

Not only is Cahill an Oxygen thief, he's one of life's germs.

---

Oh come on say what you really mean, the arsehole has a face that screams “punch the fuck out of me” and I would love the opportunity to oblige. At some stage in the news article / interview he said words to the effect that “Police can’t function correctly without using these tools (cameras)”. Well suck it up buttercup, I can’t function correctly in IPSC 3 gun without my AR15 and Typhoon F12 and even though I was not in breach of any law when using them I had to stop the use of them and give them up. Fucking dweeb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No.3

And another one is the Police taking photo's of young maori for whatever reason I'm not sure. Not allowed under privacy rules, you should have heard that fool Cahill. He's completely convinced Police cannot function without cameras and photo's of everyone - I found his argument a little bizarre to be honest. It's found to be against the law to take and retain photo's of random young people and Cahill wants the report and all the complaints withdrawn and Police to continue taking happy snaps despite it being against the law. I think he believes that because it's Police doing it - it makes it OK for them to break the law because they are trying to prevent others from breaking laws and they want to solve crimes? Weird argument TBH fellow.

---

I suspect there is more to this than we have been told about, there are probably some reasonably implications for the facial recognition 'upgrades' that they were looking at a while back. The one that was an extension of an old program so didn't need any input from the human rights peoples

When do they have to have it running by?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muzza

COLFO are conspicuous by their absence with advice , I note....

---

Good point!

BTW There’s an article in today’s Otago Daily Times regarding wife/spouse who is referee for her husband/partner (who is applying for a new/renewal of their FAL) being present while the wife/spouse is being interviewed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doghead

Heaven help us - the amount of information required is detailed.

They expect everyone to update the registry themselves online - I can say "fuck that" - it will be quicker to fill in the forms and make the police update the registry - they then have the responsibilty for keying errors - let them waste their time at the kepboard.

Every temporary transfer of 30 days - well - they best hurry up the licence renewal process or licence holders will be needing to notify thousands of transfers as there licence is not renewed on time. Do that via hardcopy.

The whole exercise looks to be an expensive exercise in time wasting.

Oh - that proposal is not easy reading.

---

I like your thinking, support them, like they’ve supported us!

I think colfo may be employing the keep your mouth shut and appear an idiot rather than open it and remove all doubt principle. I see they will have a statement guide and legal opinion by the 22nd. I'll reserve judgement till then

So the registry legally requires people to enter information kicking off 24 June 2023.... anyone else here with experience with government IT projects think it'll be up and publicly running by then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muzza

COLFO are conspicuous by their absence with advice , I note....

---

Apparantly they are putting out a guide to filling in the survey on the 22-9 once their lawyers have vetted it. Seen it on their Farcebook page. Also N McKee was at Wellington long distance shoot with Police minister at the weekend both competing.

Did you notice that every time you buy or dispose of a firearm you have to relist again all those you have previously listed?
Nearly all of it seems incongruous and repetative. Very onerous for clubs too. I've completed the 40 pages and two hours on I felt disbelief that this extent of attempted change could occur in NZ. It's improperly seeking a lot more than just a register IMO.

one word to describe it all FUSTERCLUCK

they couldnt even get b or c right in rego, how do they expect this to work?

one word to describe how this will work out: Canada !

Another issue I commented on was joint ownership. Just as in law, my wife jointly owns our house car boat lawnmower etc. We are both LFO's and FAL holders as is our daughter. We use whatever suits at the time. Now what?
Also, if I modify or build a new stock or change a scope mount or recoil pad they propose all sorts of applications and change of description etc for their register! Gee, I do this stuff almost weekly!