Thread: Firearms Storage Inspection ....

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.

Originally Posted by Tussock

They assume that no one knows the law. But I'm reading the arms act right now. In the age of the internet you can have a pdf copy in about twenty seconds. So now we all know the law and they do not.

True, Tussock. And in Addition to that they assume that their word will be taken as law !!!

I've downloaded both the 1983 arms act and the 1992 "Arms Regulations" and plan to read them both and know my rights !!

They're actually in reasonably plain english and reasonably readable.

What I have yet to stumble across is any legal standing around the "Arms Code" . It would appear on that basis that its nothing other than the Cops interpretation of the Act and Regulations such as they are ...

As regards my original rant, the Arms Regulations deal with storage in section 19 as follows :

"
the holder, where he or she has both a firearm and ammunition
for it in his or her possession, either—
(i) shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the ammunition
is not stored in such a way that a person
who obtains access to the firearm also obtains access
to the ammunition; or
(ii) shall ensure that, where the ammunition is stored
with the firearm, the firearm is not capable of
being discharged:
"

Tim

I just got a lockable gun safe...with a separate compartment for Ammo. with a separate key but its within the same cabinet.
The funny thing is that the guy who checked it out for my interview, just came in didn't even open to see inside. Just knocked on it with his knuckles and that was it. he walked out.
Even funnier thing was:
1) have you ever thought about taking your own or someones life ? And then he himself answers the questions "of course you will say no", without even letting me respond.
Halerious stuff.

Yes but if people keep pushing their luck and ignoring the Arms Code, eg not storing bolt seperatly because they're to lazy, the Police may decide that they're not "fit and proper" and revoke your licence under sec 27 of the Arms Act. Then you wouldn't even be able to possess an air rifle.

If you follow the Arms Code then they could never argue that you aren't "fit and proper", if you ignore it because it isn't law then you may be giving them grounds to revoke your licence. Some small minor things just aren't worth the hassle.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Yes but if people keep pushing their luck and ignoring the Arms Code, eg not storing bolt seperatly because they're to lazy, the Police may decide that they're not "fit and proper" and revoke your licence under sec 27 of the Arms Act. Then you wouldn't even be able to possess an air rifle.

If you follow the Arms Code then they could never argue that you aren't "fit and proper", if you ignore it because it isn't law then you may be giving them grounds to revoke your licence. Some small minor things just aren't worth the hassle.

The argument was that the bolt had to be seperate from the firearm AND seperated from the ammunition ... 3 seperate places

Are you saying that the Arms code says that that (3 seperate locations) should be the case ?

I was given "the latest" version of the arms code last night and I cant see that in there.



Tim

Originally Posted by kiwi39

The argument was that the bolt had to be seperate from the firearm AND seperated from the ammunition ... 3 seperate places

Are you saying that the Arms code says that that (3 seperate locations) should be the case ?

I was given "the latest" version of the arms code last night and I cant see that in there.



Tim

I was speaking in a broader sense where people keep saying "but the arms code isn't law". I think that if you follow the arms code and use common sense then you should be fine.

Originally Posted by Savage1

I was speaking in a broader sense where people keep saying "but the arms code isn't law". I think that if you follow the arms code and use common sense then you should be fine.

Savage1, I'm one of those. And I will keep repeating it.

The police merely enforce the law, they do not make it. Most of the time, there is no problem. You would however be naive in the extreme to think that police forces around the world do not use some of their powers for their own benefit or for other motives.

I like to keep an open mind. For the most part, I think the arms code is perfectly fine. There are some small parts that I think are just plain stupid, out-dated or illogical - and should be changed.

As we have seen quite clearly in this and other discussions, the issue is further compounded by varying interpretations of the same arms code document by different AOs.

Bottom line is that I would rather be an informed citizen, well aware of my rights, and not rely on the police or someone else to tell me what my rights are...

Originally Posted by ebf

Savage1, I'm one of those. And I will keep repeating it.

The police merely enforce the law, they do not make it. Most of the time, there is no problem. You would however be naive in the extreme to think that police forces around the world do not use some of their powers for their own benefit or for other motives.

I like to keep an open mind. For the most part, I think the arms code is perfectly fine. There are some small parts that I think are just plain stupid, out-dated or illogical - and should be changed.

As we have seen quite clearly in this and other discussions, the issue is further compounded by varying interpretations of the same arms code document by different AOs.

Bottom line is that I would rather be an informed citizen, well aware of my rights, and not rely on the police or someone else to tell me what my rights are...

What would Polices "own benefit" be? Enforcing the law and protecting the citizens I would presume, I'm unaware of anything else they would have to gain, they aren't a business, there are no profits.

The Polices job is not only to enforce the Arms Act etc but they are also the licencing agency who decides whether or not a person is fit and proper enough to hold a licence, so what they say goes, it is written in the Arms Act.

Argueing that you don't have to do what is recommended in the Arms Code as it isn't law with the AO probably wouldn't be in your best interest.

I pretty much agree with your post though.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Yes but if people keep pushing their luck and ignoring the Arms Code, eg not storing bolt seperatly because they're to lazy, the Police may decide that they're not "fit and proper" and revoke your licence under sec 27 of the Arms Act. Then you wouldn't even be able to possess an air rifle.

If you follow the Arms Code then they could never argue that you aren't "fit and proper", if you ignore it because it isn't law then you may be giving them grounds to revoke your licence. Some small minor things just aren't worth the hassle.

They can't argue you're not fit and proper because you don't follow some guidelines that you don't have to.

Originally Posted by Toby

They can't argue you're not fit and proper because you don't follow some guidelines that you don't have to.

well Toby, they can.

whether it stands up in court if you decide to appeal and it gets in front of a judge is another story.

Originally Posted by Toby

They can't argue you're not fit and proper because you don't follow some guidelines that you don't have to.

eg, There is nothing in law that says you can't walk through town holding a loaded and actioned rifle in your hands in plain sight if you are on your way to go shoot tin cans at a mates place, but it isn't something a fit and proper person would do. A fit and proper person would at least have it unloaded and in a bag.

Originally Posted by Savage1

eg, There is nothing in law that says you can't walk through town holding a loaded and actioned rifle in your hands in plain sight if you are on your way to go shoot tin cans at a mates place, but it isn't something a fit and proper person would do. A fit and proper person would at least have it unloaded and in a bag.

Yeah I get what you mean, I guess it depends on the situation.

Originally Posted by Savage1

eg, There is nothing in law that says you can't walk through town holding a loaded and actioned rifle in your hands in plain sight if you are on your way to go shoot tin cans at a mates place, but it isn't something a fit and proper person would do. A fit and proper person would at least have it unloaded and in a bag.

The Q is what is considered a reasonable action. Funnily enough I had just this discusion last night, its almost like smokers who are now considered unclean and need to hide away in a quite out of sight corner.

For instance,

When you look at the guy who shot the Austrian/Hungrian aire that resulted in WW1, he apparently undertook pistol practice with others in a public park and that was a non-event or a normal thing to do circa 100 years ago. Theses days some ppl think guns are wrong no matter what and if they see them they will fill their underpants and ring the police. Or that 100 years ago a target shooting event was considered a great social event to be attended.

Or the recent condemnation by some of someone humanely killing a cat or dog to eat, or selling thier pelt yet no one bats an eye over a pig, chicken or cow (well ok except vegans) and wearing leather shoes is perfectly normal.

doh....

So my point is we are starting to talk about social norms and not (necessarily) law. Now sure if I walk down the street with a loaded gun over my shoulder its going to end badly for me but is that really my fault or the fault of the ppl who see me and need an underwear change?

Originally Posted by steven

The Q is what is considered a reasonable action. Funnily enough I had just this discusion last night, its almost like smokers who are now considered unclean and need to hide away in a quite out of sight corner.

For instance,

When you look at the guy who shot the Austrian/Hungrian aire that resulted in WW1, he apparently undertook pistol practice with others in a public park and that was a non-event or a normal thing to do circa 100 years ago. Theses days some ppl think guns are wrong no matter what and if they see them they will fill their underpants and ring the police. Or that 100 years ago a target shooting event was considered a great social event to be attended.

Or the recent condemnation by some of someone humanely killing a cat or dog to eat, or selling thier pelt yet no one bats an eye over a pig, chicken or cow (well ok except vegans) and wearing leather shoes is perfectly normal.

doh....

So my point is we are starting to talk about social norms and not (necessarily) law. Now sure if I walk down the street with a loaded gun over my shoulder its going to end badly for me but is that really my fault or the fault of the ppl who see me and need an underwear change?

Nope it would be your fault as you could reasonably see the consequences of your actions but decided to carry on anyway. I understand what you're saying and agree in part with it but society has changed and we must adapt with it, irrational or not. Actually you could probably call that example disorderly behaviour or breach of the peace.

On a lighter note, I've walked across that bridge where Franz Ferdinand was shot. One hell of an eye opener walking through that city with a local.

I think you'll find the law says that if you endanger frighten or annoy any person, you will be deemed to be breaking the law. Ie, you can legally pot a cat with a 22 in your backyard, if you don't endanger, frighten or annoy anyone else, so it would depend on the circumstances, I wouldn't be walking through town with a loaded firearm, I think you'd have some pretty serious explaining to do.
...this is in response to the poster who claimed he could legally walk down town with a loaded gun..