Thread: The Law - any clarity?

I was out shooting last night with a mate on his lifestyle block (20acres). No issues - but the neighbour came over for a beer afterwards (he heard us even on subsonic .22) and we started to discuss where can you legally shoot or rather not shoot. The law refers to "built up areas" ... what does this really mean? If I'm on 20 acres I'm okay unless I'm beside 2x1 acre house plots. Are there any facts or stats or is it a subjective situation based on basic firearm safety principles.
Any coppers or experts out there willing to share their legal thoughts? Facts please ... cheers Gunzrrr

My in-laws live north of Auckland. A couple of properties up from them, their friends' neighbour fires large calibre rifles every weekend and the reported duration of these sessions is lengthy, so much so that they complained to the police about it several times (they're in their 60s). The properties are large - not sure how many acres exactly but big enough for cows (whatever the black ones are) and sheep.

Apparently the police don't want anything to do with it which is in stark contrast to the NZHS member in Gisborne who was shooting on his property and was visited by the police.

*shrugs*

There is no legal definition I believe. The key thing is not to piss your neighbours off. No angry neighbours = no problem. Angry neighbours = problem.

Originally Posted by Gunzrrr

I was out shooting last night with a mate on his lifestyle block (20acres). No issues - but the neighbour came over for a beer afterwards (he heard us even on subsonic .22) and we started to discuss where can you legally shoot or rather not shoot. The law refers to "built up areas" ... what does this really mean? If I'm on 20 acres I'm okay unless I'm beside 2x1 acre house plots. Are there any facts or stats or is it a subjective situation based on basic firearm safety principles.
Any coppers or experts out there willing to share their legal thoughts? Facts please ... cheers Gunzrrr

I agree, some more clarity around these items would be great.....and a lot of the other grey areas.

Originally Posted by Grunta

There is no legal definition I believe. The key thing is not to piss your neighbours off. No angry neighbours = no problem. Angry neighbours = problem.

That is true. I have a good relationship with my neighbours - who are happy that I'm killing bunnies. They are happy i bought suppressors so my centrefires are not so loud. ( I wanted them anyway so this gave me a reason to buy them ) They're Not happy that their little dog gets upset - but they are happy that I tell them when I'm going out so they can put the mutt away. They're happy I dont shoot all day long - but then I have the privilege of being able to walk out my backdoor with my rifle in my hand , so I dont want to push it ... any extended testing I now go to a far corner away from the houses. Its all about a little bit of give and take without bending over and taking it

Like most things around the Arms Act, it come down to the interpretation of the AO in question. When I thought I was in the right and the AO in the wrong (the matter in question was around the storage of bolts ammo and rifles in 3 seperate locations) I had no hesitancy in contacting the Police Head office for clarification - which came in my favour.

T

A little bit of consideration for neighbours by keeping them informed really does go a long way.

You also may find, that it heavily depends on how far from town the property is, whether you get a town cop or a rural cop responding.
Rural cop is likely to be more understanding and actually discuss the issue and find a resolution, where town cops.... Who knows, we've all heard stories.

Also, OP, sounds like you've been reading the arms code, this isn't legislation but a "code" written by the police to try make the laws more understandable whilst adding in their own interpretations and rules.
For legislation (actual law, not some handbook) please refer to the following:

Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $3,000 or to both who, without reasonable cause, discharges a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near—
(a)a dwellinghouse; or
(b)a public place,—
so as to endanger property or to endanger, annoy, or frighten any person.

I shoot around the houses out here, Bach's mostly. All of the owners are keen for me to do it as I know who is where and when. I use subs and pick up all of the game afterwards, sometimes the property owner may want a rabbit or 2 for what ever reason. I have told all of my clients that I won't come on to their properties if they lay poison for rabbits as I can't afford to loose 1 of my dogs. Obviously using ones brains around how 1 hunts these area's as to not piss people off goes along way.

Originally Posted by Mauser308

There isn't really a definition of 'near', and therein lies the problem when the report from a firearm can travel several Km with the wind... It would be good to clarify that to remove or define 'annoy, or frighten' which is so subjective as to be useless.

Lawyers love that sort of wording, the human race doesn't.

Also does not define what "reasonable cause" is. If you're shooting "near" a house, and being "annoying", but you have a "reasonable cause" for doing so, then the annoyed person in the house can HTFU.

Anyone know of any case law where "reasonable cause" had been established?

You couldn't have chosen a phrase that required a more lengthy response....

if you go with a general english understanding you would be close.... words like justified, legitimate, reasonable, explainable... acceptable all come to mind..

The problem that you have is that the generation of a complaint potentially puts you outside of the meaning almost immediately... particularly when you consider "danger, annoy or frighten" aspect of the legislation.

The short answer is, don't generate complaints... do this by informing your neighbours and be reasonable and careful about how you exercise your firearms.

Suppressors are a good idea in this context.

Originally Posted by stretch

Also does not define what "reasonable cause" is. If you're shooting "near" a house, and being "annoying", but you have a "reasonable cause" for doing so, then the annoyed person in the house can HTFU.

Anyone know of any case law where "reasonable cause" had been established?

Problem is you want to avoid it ever going to court, because it's a huge fucking hassle and no one wants that.
So you really want to think what the police are going to define as reasonable cause,
I'm willing to bet most judges and police would only give you reasonable cause to shoot near a house or public place is to save someone from a dog attack or something alike.
Pest control? Sports shooting, doubt they see it as reasonable cause as we would.

Nah in general there is no problem with either recreational shooting and even less of a problem with pest destruction as reasonable cause. You just have to ensure that you are being safe, and that you have made efforts to mitigate the possibility of frightening and annoying.

Proximity is critical, don't be stupid about that.

Advise and inform your neighbours.... be reasonable about where, how long and minimise noise with suppressors where possible. You don't have to ask permission and if you get a neighbour who is just anti, be very polite and very clear about what will be happening. Advise in writing if necessary, and contact the local police to advise that you have a difficult neighbour and the steps you have taken to mitigate any problems. Do that in writing if it could be an issue.

Make sure that you are perceived as the reasonable person and that the neighbour is seen as the irrational one. Never get upset, and be very sensible about how you interact with neighbours and the police.

It can however be too difficult and it may be smarter make alternative arrangements...

Originally Posted by Sidney

It can however be too difficult and it may be smarter make alternative arrangements...

Originally Posted by Sidney

alternative arrangements...

Sounds like you're suggesting icing the neighbour haha

Originally Posted by Ryan

My in-laws live north of Auckland. A couple of properties up from them, their friends' neighbour fires large calibre rifles every weekend and the reported duration of these sessions is lengthy, so much so that they complained to the police about it several times (they're in their 60s). The properties are large - not sure how many acres exactly but big enough for cows (whatever the black ones are) and sheep.

Apparently the police don't want anything to do with it which is in stark contrast to the NZHS member in Gisborne who was shooting on his property and was visited by the police.

*shrugs*

At 60 your parents should be deaf enough for it not to be a concern, give them ear muffs for xmas?

I think its around the fact of if it is dangerous or alarming to other people.
Causing annoyance or alarm is enough for the Police to charge.
And if the Police think the firing is reckless or dangerous, then even if there is not enough to charge the person, they would likely look to revoke the licence and seize the firearms.

Very dodgy shooting near other houses/properties. all it takes is a complaint and you could loose the licence and guns.