Thread: Firearms Storage Inspection ....

So we moved house a couple of months ago, and notified the Police as you're supposed to.

Letter arrives shortly thereafter saying they're going to reinspect my firearms storage.

When the officer gets here and inspects, she tells me that the storage has to have three seperate lockable storage spaces.
1) For the Arms
2) for the ammunition
3) for the bolts.

I had her up on this - asking if this is something that has changed, as my safe passed inspection the first time.

She says no, its always been like this ...

The joke is , she give me a copy of the arms code .. NO REQUIREMENT in there .. only that arms are stored seperately to the bolt + Ammo

Opinions ?
1) How do you store yours ?
2) Whats the word of law ?

This whole arms act being open to interpretation is just a complete joke.

... Tim.

She's wrong. Go above her.

Originally Posted by JoshC

She's wrong. Go above her.

Or behind her and change her mind!!

This shit is really getting silly

I hasten to add : She didn't insist .... although who knows what she's going to write on her report ...

T.

i have no lockable compartments in my gun safe. just a six mil steel door with heavy duty locks. i keep the amo at a different location. what more do they want. i am moving house soon as well. i not getting another safe just to make them happy thats for sure, cant afford it

Must be something in the water in Taupo. I have never had any dramas with security inspections, people asking for serial numbers etc

Yeah, I've heard from a Mate that the AO up there is a good bloke.

Yup Tim, that's definitely not the correct interpretation.

Becoming a bit of a bugbear for me. I would like to see some clear answers, and a lot more consistency as far as how AOs are interpreting things.

lol i moved a year and a half ago rung Mr Plod the day i moved he said will see you next week 3 months later rang him again yip ill be round soon and still no sign of him i give up ive done my bit

I notified three times. 3 1/2 years later I get a call for inspection. So no worries I say, come out. They did, ticked it off, now I'm moving to a new place. Haha. Wonder I'd they'll take another 3-4 years. Thankfully the guys that did mine were cops who enjoyed hunting so were more than happy with my set up and for a yarn as well. Good guys.

My AO (Wellington, same guy inspected my old place in Hataitai and new one in Jville) was fine with a cord/packlock jobbie for rifle only. Not interested in a safe or lock box for bolt or ammo. Didn't even ask where/how I store them.

I was at my folks place when they turned up for my brothers inspection.

The guy tried to tell him a 6mm safe was needed and when I stepped in and said "sorry where are you getting that number from? Because its not in the arms code" he looked at me then carried on. The safe got passed as it should have.

I don't understand the benefit to them to try to make rules like that up. Do they do it on purpose or are they so lazy they don't bother to learn the rules that we are supposed to?

for legislation go to:New Zealand Legislation

for NZ case law go to NZLII Document Collections

Remember that it's the Case Law that is important - this is where Judges have created precedent, and a specific interpretation, or meaning to a section of law has been reached.

In other words, whilst it's brilliant that we're all dashing off to 'learn' our copy of the Act, it's that background understanding of relevant case law (in particular the arguments both FOR and AGAINST) that we need to be mindful of.

A trap for young players is to read a section of an Act and apply 'your' interpretation, or meaning to that section. Case Law can be quite different - it can be fascinating - or scary depending on your case.

That's the whole point of a trail process - it allows the arguments for meaning and interpretation to be heard, and the Judge eventually decides who'se argument was strongest.

Sorry if that sounds patronising guys - I've faced-off far too often to Law Students who think they know it all, and in reality only know the bones of an Act with no Case Law background.

What confuses the whole thing for non-legals is strict, or absolute-liability offences. For example speeding. Either you're doing 11kph over the limit, or you're not. Guilty. Even an ignorance defence might not stack up.

Firearms law is a a wonderful mixture - and because we're accustomed to often having the 'law' presented to us by a Police Officer, they are quite naturally inclined to present it as a strict liabilty offence. That's why you guys are correct in saying but, but, but.

but - the argument will be likely won only if presented as a true Case-Law based argument, as opposed to an opinion, or interpretation based argument.

The Judge has the last word! We have to think the way he/she might think!

FFS this is getting anal. Cat A is purely about stopping casual access and theft. The gun can be stored complete as long as the ammo is seperate or the gun is disabled with a trigger lock ($25) or similar. So also you could also store the bolt and mag seperately and have the remains of the gun and ammo together as long as the gun really is disabled, ie you cant just lock the mag elsewhere and the gun is still capable of single shot.

"Ammunition must be stored separately or the firearm
made incapable of firing.
– If possible, remove the bolt and magazine and lock away
separately from the firearm."

Arms Code (Firearms) | New Zealand Police

rule 6, page 11~12

The bad thing is same page (11) says its up to the AO, but she has to be reasonable.

Personally I'd tell her you dont agree show her the above code page(s) and ask her to supply her thoughts in writing to you rejecting your setup and that you want to take the issue to her commissioned officer to discuss further.