Thread: Firearms Safety Authority

Originally Posted by small_caliber

Talking to a recent recruit they were taught that only the police and army should have firearms.
If Police officers are being taught this what will be the outcome in a few years time?

The outcome will be that the police, army, and criminals will have firearms and 200,000 people that were the most trustworthy part of society will resent the police

Originally Posted by BSA

It is the Pistol Clubs who grant an exemption from the 12 shoots with a legitimate reason such as illness or injury or suchlike. Not the Police. There are going to be big problems with uneducated Firearms Authority staff mis-interpreting regulations.

Please confirm your statement by providing reference to the relevant Act and Regulation.
It's hard to argue the contrary without knowing the specifics of any legislation.

Originally Posted by Rushy

This is a bit out of synch with recent posts in this thread but I thought you might be interested in these excerpts from a recent communication from the compliance office of the Firearms Safety Authority.

“Unfortunately with the new regulations recently passed, (15 December 2022), there is now no way that Police or any other entity can give exemptions to the 12 shoot requirement for a B Category Endorsement holder.“

and ……

“if you don’t think you will be able to make 12 shoots in year ending June XXXX it may be that you should consider surrendering your B Endorsement until such time as you can again meet that 12 shoot requirement”.

My view of the last excerpt is that the language is very weak given the absoluteness of the statement in the first excerpt. It makes me think that the writer is encouraging surrender because there is some doubt about the veracity of the first.

@308 I am interested as to whether you replied to the letter you got and if so whether you have had a subsequent response.

Here you go

Good afternoon Pete,



Thank you for your email and I appreciate your explanation.



I have reviewed the information you have provided below and I advise you that the email sent to you on 30 March 2023 is in relation to the financial year ending June 2022, noting your firearms licence was not current for the entire duration of this year.



As such, I will rescind this notice from your firearms licence and there will be no noting in regard to this. Please note that we base our response solely off what information your respective Pistol Club provides us and with the sheer amount of individuals we receive information of, we must ensure this information is accurate going forward, so I appreciate you informing us on this miscommunication.



If you wish to proceed with a complaint, you may do so by visiting the Te Tari Pureke – Firearms Safety Authority website at the following link: https://www.firearmssafetyauthority..../give-feedback



I apologise for any inconvenience caused and I will ensure this is removed from your firearms licence.



Kind regards,



Ngā mihi



Laura

Compliance and Resolutions Lead
Compliance

That’s a good and just result.

Originally Posted by no1_49er

Please confirm your statement by providing reference to the relevant Act and Regulation.
It's hard to argue the contrary without knowing the specifics of any legislation.

After trawling the Regs I sent an e-mail to PNZ and received this in reply. It clarifies matters clearly...


If a member cannot make the 12, then they need to contact clubs and ranges ASAP, with a reason.

There has never been a dispensation built into the law to allow a person to NOT complete at least 12 activities in a year.

Historically the Police ignored this and gave dispensations based on good reasons.

Now the Police are following the letter of the law.



The likely process from now on will be (this is based on replies seen to date):

· If a member send clubs and ranges a letter asking for dispensation and the reason, as soon as they know they cannot complete the 12.

· The Police will send back a letter indicating they will file the request till the end of the activities year (this being the 1st of July to 30th of June).

· At that stage the club will send in the number completed by the member to clubs and ranges.

· If the member is short of the 12, the Police will send a letter indicating they were short and a reminder they need to complete the 12. The Police will note this against the endorsement on the licence.

· If this happens twice, then the Police may take further action like suspension of the licence pending revocation.



Note: the Police may also decide the situation requires no further action and will not note this against the licence. This is on a case by case basis and will be the Police’s discretion.



Clubs cannot grant leave separate to the process above.

I hope this helps.

Thank you for the clarification, which interpretation is a little different from that which you stated in post #58.

Originally Posted by no1_49er

Thank you for the clarification, which interpretation is a little different from that which you stated in post #58.

It is, I have been a President and Secretary of a Pistol Club and have signed off a number of members at times for various reasons. I was very surprised at that response.

Originally Posted by small_caliber

....The fee is to pay for the vetting process, simple isn't it, the vetting process should take less time for those renewing then a new applicant.
How long does the vetting process take?......

I was interviewed a couple of weeks back for a friend who was renewing his licence. The vetter was a very friendly and knowledgeable, rural lady in her early 30's. She told me that they're expected to get everything done in five hours per file which includes interviewing the applicant, next of kin and unrelated referees and travel time which may be to three different addresses, plus writing up a report on each of the interviews. Said it was hard work and she was often up to 11 p.m. at night completing writing up the days files.

So how does 5 hours equate to the stated cost for renewal if it is on a cost-recovery basis? I very much doubt that they are paying their vetting staff circa $200 an hour!

Originally Posted by No.3

So how does 5 hours equate to the stated cost for renewal if it is on a cost-recovery basis? I very much doubt that they are paying their vetting staff circa $200 an hour!

How do I know? Obviously though, there is a lot more work done on a licence than just the vettors input. There must be background checks, transport and printing and the Arms Officer's salary. You change your address and currently you don't get charged for a vettor to come and inspect your security and write up a report, etc. All the paperwork connected with that and so on. We can only guess at what the new cost of a licence will be. I'm pretty sure it won't be anywhere near what was suggested by the police. Don't hold be to that though.

Originally Posted by No.3

So how does 5 hours equate to the stated cost for renewal if it is on a cost-recovery basis? I very much doubt that they are paying their vetting staff circa $200 an hour!

Firearm license management should not operate on a cost recovery basis. I'm not just against this because I'm a LFO, but it concerns me where does it end. The government already earns a substantial amount of money from the GST (and other duties) on equipment purchases by all firearms users. From rough import figures this with current FAL charges significantly exceeds the cost of running firearms license management.

Originally Posted by vulcannz

Firearm license management should not operate on a cost recovery basis. I'm not just against this because I'm a LFO, but it concerns me where does it end. The government already earns a substantial amount of money from the GST (and other duties) on equipment purchases by all firearms users. From rough import figures this with current FAL charges significantly exceeds the cost of running firearms license management.

Not when you build an empire up from 160 people to 500 people.

Originally Posted by No.3

So how does 5 hours equate to the stated cost for renewal if it is on a cost-recovery basis? I very much doubt that they are paying their vetting staff circa $200 an hour!

There's the hourly rate then the employee's share of corporate services, (HR, Legal, finance) and lease on the building. That's how it works. $200 is still excessive

Identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss (right?) and I'll be missed.

I’ve just renewed my certified supplier ticket and have a invoice from MPI for 1 hour for $265, even though this person is on a salary that is incredibly steep for 1 hour to do their job

Originally Posted by Eat Meater

There's the hourly rate then the employee's share of corporate services, (HR, Legal, finance) and lease on the building. That's how it works. $200 is still excessive

Identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss (right?) and I'll be missed.

There's obviously several costs and people involved, as you say. I don't know where the $200 figure arises from, apart from the suggestion that No.3 seems to think that the firearms vettor is the only person involved in a firearms application.