And it stayed on topic :)
Printable View
And it stayed on topic :)
and woods223 is getting us some awnsers hopefully
News to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by cambo
Was not mentioned when my dealers licence renewal interview was done a couple of weeks ago.
Yep, some guys still think buying ammo is a triggering event...........will be June 2025Quote:
Originally Posted by DPT
Theres even gang members who arent aware of the rego as well....
People don't seem to understand that the FSA can't "rule" anything. It's all in the Arms Act. Everything you want to know has already been written down in law and you can freely look it up.
Whoever the gunsmith was the OP was talking to, I wouldn't send him a rifle to fix.
Well, there are things in the Arms Act that have been unilaterally overruled in the past, one example being insufficient resources to meet the statutory timeframes so the timeframe being extended. It might be in the law, but...
If its in the law, then it is self-correcting. If they push something that is not in law, when you go to court you will win.
The point I am making is that the FSA cannot dictate whatever they want; they are a regulatary body bound by the Arms Act.
Yeah, but they are relying on the fact that you either can't afford to take it to court, aren't knowledgeable enough to realise you are being led around by your nose or the final option you just can't be arsed with the hassle... Calling it self-correcting is sort of right, but then on the other hand if it costs you 50x the issue to take them with the risk that you won't get cost awarded to you or the award only covers a percentage of the costs ("let the costs fall where they sit" is one I've heard recently) then you aren't exactly winning.
Those that allow timidity or temporary financial expense to rule their decisions when principle or freedom is at stake will forever be victims.
Freedom comes at a price - you have to ask yourself - are you prepared to pay that price?
Well , I received an answer from FSA regarding this today. Brief, but an answer. Copied below.
Hi,
Thank you for your query.
There is no provision for either of those rumours in the Act.
A gunsmith who owns a business operates on a Dealer licence and must be able to provide secure storage as per these requirements.
https://www.firearmssafetyauthority....-means-dealers
Ngā mihi | Kind regards,
Victoria VMAZ41
Te Tari Pūreke | Firearms Safety Authority
E MyFirearms.support@police.govt.nz
Please note: Te Tari Pūreke will never send you an email asking you to confirm, update, or disclose personal or confidential details via email. If you receive a suspicious email, do not respond to it, or follow any links. If you do not recognise this activity on your account, please contact us immediately.
You can report scam emails to cert.govt.nz. For general information on avoiding scams visit netsafe.org.nz.
The information contained in this email message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this message or any of its contents. Also note, the views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect those of New Zealand Police. If you have received this message in error, please email or telephone the sender immediately.
Original Message. I have omitted copying some additional questions I had.
Sent: Sunday, 9 June 2024 10:47 am
To: Myfirearms.support <Myfirearms.support@police.govt.nz>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gunsmiths and firearms dealers.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Is it correct that the FSA has ruled that gunsmiths may only have one firearm on premises at any time and that same condition will apply to retailers from 1 April 2025. There are rumours circulating this is the case. If true, under which section of the arms act is this being put in place. Personally I find this a massive overreach of power under any part of said act.
So basically it would appear either the OP or Gunsmith? have got the wrong end of the stick.
Mate thanks for taking the time to get the info from the horses mouth for us. Saves speculating and getting wound up over rumours.
Now if only Stuffs journos could follow your lead..
Or half the people posting on the forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeyMod
Fact checking saves everyone time
Sent from my SM-S916B using Tapatalk
True, 100% true. But, in all honesty you can't fight every govt department and state owned enterprise and they are all as bad as each other it seems at the moment. It seems to just be too expensive to obey their own laws...Quote:
Originally Posted by gundoc
As long as it hasn't dragged you away from housework, Fee Knicks..Quote:
Originally Posted by Fee Knicks
Yes dear .....
Cheers Woods. I suspected as much.
I have always known that there was a push to only have one rifle on your bench to be worked on at any time. Originally from a good housekeeping viewpoint, but someone somewhere thought it would be good to get it into law, but its never taken off though.
Still a stupid idea - considering a request to shift a scope and rings between rifles or some other minor task. By the time you stripped the gear off one, walked it back to the security setup, secured it, got the next one, resecured the security setup, got back onto your bench, got diverted by a couple of phone calls and a customer it's add 500 hours to your day. What a pain in the arse...
a trade in required to be able to buy, and sell that to the next customer. I think my wife submitted that idea to the FSA!Quote:
Originally Posted by No.3
Is she still your wife?Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch73
Wtf so how does someone new legally get into the sportQuote:
Originally Posted by Butch73
Find someone agreeable to making one gun into two, by cutting a SxS in half lengthways, would take a bit of skill to get the kink right in the cut at the triggers, certainly not as easy as it would be to do sideways cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by blip
Not sure how a gunsmith would cope with that scenario if they were only allowed to have one firearm in play at any given moment, if that rule were in play, that idea probably wouldn't work.
How do you get on with something like a Rossi that has interchangeable barrels? They originally shipped with 3 options.
Is it the Mauser that has barrel and bolt setups that are serial numbered and the receiver (aka the "master part") isn't numbered at all? That one has created kittens for a few people so far.
It's the Blasers. They are nightmares as they don't follow the standard trend of the receiver being the serialised part but rather the barrel. It's just a big mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by No.3
A mess that was not created by us, but by "people" who seem to think they know everything about firearms. NOT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coop
When going through the registration process recently, I explained I had several rifles with multiple barrels (various calibres). The dude on the phone had to go and get it clarified, but stated to register it with the barrel “that is the most powerful calibre”. They would make a note of the other calibres in the details of that firearm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Jack
Quote:
Originally Posted by gqhoon
That makes me wonder if there's a plan to ban the more powerful calibres at a later date like in some parts of OZ. Maybe in that instance register the rifle with the smallest calibre barrel so if the biggest calibre gets banned only the barrel gets taken.
They probably still ship with three barrels everywhere else, price gouging NZ import and retail just separate them out. LolQuote:
Originally Posted by Happy Jack
Maybe they fear some fal holders are better equiped than the police or armed forces