Thread: New Firearms Licence Practical Training

I will be going for my firearms license next year, and I am wondering about the new practical training. Does anyone know about what it will involve? Also will we have to cover all types of firearms (I am only wanting to get a .22 rifle). And how much does it cost?

No idea what the practical training might involve, but most basic questions, including how much it will cost, can be answered here:

Firearms and Safety | New Zealand Police

I see there are ads out with MSC to become an instructor.

Some info here buried in the news section

-------------------------

Police gearing up for new firearms safety training for first time licence applicants

[23 May 2018] From 1 July firearms safety training is changing.

Police has been working with the firearms community to improve safety outcomes by delivering an enhanced firearms safety training programme for first-time firearms licence applicants.

“Much like the process for obtaining a driver licence, first-time applicants will need to pass a theory test and undergo practical training to obtain a firearms licence,” says Acting Superintendent Mike McIlraith.

“For many years the current theory-only programme has provided new firearms users with a solid start. But over recent years Police and the firearms community identified the opportunity to build on this and provide first-time applicants with a practical hands-on component to complement the theoretical.”

The theory test is a computer-based multi-choice test which will be delivered by Police using the same system used for computerised driver licence theory tests. Firearm licence applicants will be able to sit the firearms theory test at all Automobile Association (AA) driver licensing outlets; including all AA Centres, AA Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agents and the AA’s Rural Mobile Units, as well as all Vehicle Testing New Zealand branches that offer driver licensing throughout the country.

Applicants must pass the theory test before they can attend the firearms practical training course.

The practical course and training on safe-handling of firearms will be delivered by firearms instructors from the Mountain Safety Council across the country.

Police is also working with Fire and Emergency New Zealand around the potential use of volunteer fire stations in some locations. In addition, the Whakatupato course will continue to provide firearms safety training in remote and isolated communities.

The firearms theory test and practical training require applicants to show that they have a strong understanding of the Arms Code and how to stay safe with firearms.

“As pleased as Police is to deliver the new firearms safety programme, new firearms users will still need to gain experience using firearms safely in a variety of settings.

“Tapping into clubs with experienced firearms users who can pass on that valuable knowledge and experience is a vital part of being a responsible firearms user.

“We want the firearms community to continue to support new firearms users. Police is seeking help from firearms clubs, and the volunteer instructors from the programme ending 30 June, to provide community-based mentoring and to partner with new firearms users.

“Imagine a person getting their firearms licence because they want to go hunting but they don’t know any hunters. Clubs play a vital role in bringing new firearms users together with experienced users.

“Having a new practical component and a community of people keen to coach and mentor new firearms users will contribute significantly to improved safety outcomes. And that is what Police wants.”



Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

Where is the data to support this move? It SEEMS common sense that we should have a practical component to the test, but will there be a cost to this service?

Are newly licenced FAL holders more likely than anyone else to injure or kill others through their inexperience and/or negligence? I asked MSC if they have this data (since they authored A Hunter's Tale https://mountainsafety.org.nz/insights/a-hunters-tale/), and they said they don't have that data.

I can see a future where everyone is required to pass a practical refresher upon every licence renewal. When hunter-on-hunter shootings still happen at their low rate, Police will scratch their heads and push for club membership to be a compulsory requirement for retaining a FAL.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by stretch

Where is the data to support this move? It SEEMS common sense that we should have a practical component to the test, but will there be a cost to this service?

Are newly licenced FAL holders more likely than anyone else to injure or kill others through their inexperience and/or negligence? I asked MSC if they have this data (since they authored A Hunter's Tale https://mountainsafety.org.nz/insights/a-hunters-tale/), and they said they don't have that data.

I can see a future where everyone is required to pass a practical refresher upon every licence renewal. When hunter-on-hunter shootings still happen at their low rate, Police will scratch their heads and push for club membership to be a compulsory requirement for retaining a FAL.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Yup, as the police and MSC admit themselves though, middle aged white males (50+) perpetrate the large majority of accidental shootings in the bush with all having many years experience hunting in the bush.
Perceived problems often perceived by the people mentioned above seem to always get the most attention. The police however are happy to support it as it makes obtaining a license harder and cost more which then fuels their argument to increase the fees for licensing thus making it harder again. Mark my words, firearm licensing fees will go up in the next 12 months.

Originally Posted by jasmine

I will be going for my firearms license next year, and I am wondering about the new practical training. Does anyone know about what it will involve? Also will we have to cover all types of firearms (I am only wanting to get a .22 rifle). And how much does it cost?

Welcome @jasmine

Yes, it covers shotguns and full powered rifles too, bolt/break open/pump/semi, as your FAL will entitle you to own such.

The principles are simple: it's not nuclear physics, just safety, safety, safety. You won't learn much that is of no use to you even if you only ever own a .22 rifle. The .22 needs the same safe handling as other kind of gun, really (no child's gun as it has ten times the power of a spring air rifle).

Good luck with your license next year!

Phil, I agree with 99% of your post, however if a farmer uses firearms for pest control, should he have to belong to a firearms club ?

Remembering that this is a hypothetical discussion of course;

I agree re farmers and pest control; with their frequency of use, and existingH&S plans they’re required to have in place, they’re well ahead of the occasional hunter who may venture out only occasionally

None of us can afford to be complacent. But I suggest the criteria needs to be broad enough to recognise frequency of use and environment.

Originally Posted by Phil_H

Point taken and can't argue that logic.
I am sure that there could be exceptions in terms of class of use as in back to when I was shooting pistols. Policemen and soldiers, who carried/used pistols as part of their job weren't required to belong to a club.

I guess I would like to see something that
1/. shows the real intent of a person wanting to own a firearm - currently you just get a piece of paper or plastic card and you can have firearms, and any number of them.
2/. ensures that such person has some practical experience before being allowed out there in a bush covered, visually challenging area with a powerful hunting rifle while sharing it with other day trippers, picnic-ers, nature lovers, trampers, hunters and bush users in general.

Phil_H agree with the sentiments, but let us look at driving licenses. On the road I see evidence of people's natural propensity to be either safe or unsafe, but they supposedly all at sometime passed a theory and practical test. The evidence is maybe not there for a practical test, although it is of course a good idea on the face of it.

But it is more a matter of perpetuating good gun culture, and clubs are avenues for doing this. Even going to a well-run range will cause any newbie to absorb some healthy gun culture. We learn more from watching people do than from hearing people say.

I'd not be opposed to having a limited probational license for a year, conditional on attending six shooting club events during that year, and then be signed off by a club chair on basis of attendance and "no safety concerns". It will instill some common sense and culture, get the new shooter some contacts, etc.

Although I agree with the practical handling component proposed, I can't say I can agree with compulsory club membership.

Some of us have such limited time to even hunt or live too far as reasonable from any clubs, should we then be denied ability to own firearms/partake in hunting or shooting sports?

To be perfectly honest there doesn't appear to be a real and immediate reason for the changes as it is, as stated before it's people that should already know better consistently featuring in incidents.

However one "accident" is always one too many and safety should always be paramount. In saying that, the unlicensed clowns messing around with stolen firearms still won't care.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with what has been mentioned above around the benefits of belonging to a club, just not as a legal requirement.

Originally Posted by Preacher

Although I agree with the practical handling component proposed, I can't say I can agree with compulsory club membership.

Some of us have such limited time to even hunt or live too far as reasonable from any clubs, should we then be denied ability to own firearms/partake in hunting or shooting sports?

To be perfectly honest there doesn't appear to be a real and immediate reason for the changes as it is, as stated before it's people that should already know better consistently featuring in incidents.

However one "accident" is always one too many and safety should always be paramount. In saying that, the unlicensed clowns messing around with stolen firearms still won't care.

@Preacher I agree
No no no no.
I do not want to see in any shape of form a compulsory membership for standard firearms ownership.
Aussie has that and we do not want to go down that path no matter how safe it makes the police feel.
It would be the thin end of the wedge. Next thing you know you would have to do so many shoots a year to stay compliant with your license like the pistols.
You have to do that with every class of firearm in aussie unless you are super rural and don't have access to a shooting range.
But in that case you also have ample opportunity and places to shoot which have to be on the proper form and in writing I may add.
An example is that you have a tough few months with work weather etc and its hard enough to get out for a shot let alone a range.
Next thing you know mr plod says you haven't done your shoots and you have to hand in your firearms to an armoury until you can do it.
Fair enough it is that way with pistols, but you know that going in. And as Phil_H has suggested it does thin out the numbers somewhat. Guess what, it would be the same for longarms also in a bad way.
Find some other way as courses every now and again but not compulsory membership.
BTW I do agree clubs are awesome for learning the ropes, camaraderie etc. I sort of do clubs and I don't but that's just me.

At our meeting the term 'Fit and Proper' was brought up and how it seems pointless once deemed to be fit n proper and issued a licence why can that not suffice for any other endorsements.

Mike agreed with the premise once you were deemed fit and proper to have an A it should be no different for any other endorsements. But did not give an explanation as to why you have to be vetted by the police again.





Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by R93

At our meeting the term 'Fit and Proper' was brought up and how it seems pointless once deemed to be fit n proper and issued a licence why can that not suffice for any other endorsements.

Mike agreed with the premise once you were deemed fit and proper to have an A it should be no different for any other endorsements. But did not give an explanation as to why you have to be vetted by the police again.





Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

That is something I have wondered about often, if you are deemed "fit and proper" to hold A cat. firearms then you surely should only be subject to specific categories storage requirements.

You are either fit and proper, or you are not.

In regards to firearms there are not any other options. It's not a case of "he's good to own a hunting rifle but he cannot have a E. Cat. because he is a lil bit crazy"

Sure, handguns and proper milspec stuff still require some kind of registration but really the people using ANY type of firearm to commit crime don't give a fuck.

They just end up in my care eventually, hopefully before they kill someone, unfortunately that ain't usually the case.

(P.s I am a Screw/Corrections Officer)