Printable View
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by stretch
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.
Welcome @jasmineQuote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_H
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.
@Preacher I agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by Preacher
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by R93
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)
They need to change it or explain the obvious waste of time. (Fit and Proper.)
Upgrade security for E
Probation and regular requirements for B and to maintain it.
Once finished probation and approved by club you get your B
Would save money and streamline the system somewhere I am sure.
As we all know crims don't give a shit about licences or endorsements.
However those that do get mucked around and treat like criminals.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
I think its just another hurdle "they" added to the mix in order to make people give up on the process cause its too hard to own firearms some consider to more scarier and dangerouser than "Normal" firearms. All I really see coming from this process is 900 more hurdles get added so people say fuck it its too hard we wont bother and buy a bow or crossbow, speedy car, golf club etc etc insteadQuote:
Originally Posted by R93
I think you're spot on mikee.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikee
The current process avoids common sense otherwise.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
@PreacherQuote:
Originally Posted by Preacher
Sure, but for just one year? I do agree with Phil_H's insightful comment re benefits of dodgy characters having to interact with sharp shooters for a year. Would perhaps avoid NZP granting permanent licenses to known gang members, methinks.
@Phil_H
"Osmosis"?!? Get with the programme. We shooters are all uneducated knuckle draggers full of toxic masculinity; we NEVER use big words like that.
Also see you work with convicted offenders. Good on you. I was involved with Prison Fellowship myself for a number of years. Really disappointed at John Key for not keeping one of his election promises, to make all prisoners work (instead of atrophy). Hey, used a big word myself there. Drat.
Compulsory club membership - no way. We don't even have enough clubs/ranges in New Zealand.
@Beavis
You do realise the gun haters would anyway never push for such an option. It would massively strengthen shooters voice to have us all in clubs. And the clubs would grow and multiply. To use an atom bomb analogy, we already have way beyond critical mass with 250,000 shooters, were just not brought together and so no significant fission occurs.
Clutha Branch of the NZDA has already put forward a remit to conference to support the recommendation from police that membership of a valid club/organisation be a requirement of a Firearms License. Their reasoning is, its gonna happen cos "we've been told" so might as well support it. At last nights meeting, Mike was emphatic on several occasions that the Arms Act was not going to be changed, so where oh where did the NZDA get their info from? And it would be typical of the DA eh? Dont do enough real stuff to keep the membership coming, so lets get it by default and still do fuck all for the shooting community in NZ!
I just can't accept mandatory club membership. Even for only one year. The only time I get to shoot/hunt would be absorbed trying to maintain my FAL.
Just doesn't seem like it would be of any real world benefit, or even fair to enforce club membership. By all means increase handling skills and general firearm knowledge at the point of application, but to be honest some of the shittest guys I have ever been around in regards to firearm safety are the 30+ years in NZDA. (Not a dig at NZDA either) or similar.
Complacency is probably better addressed than we do currently.
That is probably a much bigger issue in my eyes.
If you take a step back and think about it, ask yourself, what problems am I trying to fix? I have been hearing people say things should be XYZ with nothing to really back it up. You should need an E cat for all semis, you need to be in a club, you need practical training, you shouldn't be allowed to hunt animals with your MSSA's - among other things.
How many firearm homicides or hunting accidents do we really have per year? For the number of people who take part in shooting sports, it's bugger all. You need to be careful that you don't end up being a Turkey voting for Christmas, for lack of a better analogy. The last thing we want is over regulation and the need to justify every facet of what we do to some desk driver in Wellington.
I agree. There's a few videos on YouTube which demonstrate what a .22LR can do. Not a toy by any means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordite
@ Cordite, the mandatory club thing was implemented in Australia, these days the antis cry about it because they say in hindsight it was a mistake, because mandatory club membership has bolstered the gun lobby in terms of funding and numbers. You can't please these people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordite
We only need to see Aus. as example, give an inch then more and more rights will be taken away.Semi's, then pumps, then levers, then ten shot mags for old 303's.
Let's face it, while the average plod joins up to make a difference for public safety the Police Heirarchy has some major power and control issues.
Um man with scary black gun (or similar) sells shit loads of newspapers or gets lots of viewers whereas man runs another man over while drunk does not even make page 3Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
Also the Police are clever in that there are only 250K FAL holders and not a big group of voters in the grand scheme of things where as Drivers or Drinker (in some cases both) are a far bigger group of ..........................................voters and not worth the risk of pissing off, yet I would suspect the cost of injuries caused by both things are rather more then shooting accidents. Similar to the shit smokers get
We should not have mandatory club membership to own a FAL. It's impractical for the most part and pointless for alot of people. For us here in NZ firearm ownership is a right/privilege. Whichever way you look at it, they are one and the same.
Don't lose track of our sovereignty guys, we are not the UK or Aussie where you might get a licence - Here you pay your fee, are deemed to be 'fit and proper' and then a license shall be issued.
Licence holders are already proven to not be the problem.
How will a bunch of extra rules achieve anything except invent criminals?
The DSA already scares me the amount members shoot eachother. So i certainly don't want to be forced to be a member of that or similar.
Create more farken stupid rules and you just create more farken criminals because people can't be arsed following dumb rules that don't address the problem.
Preach, Brother! Consider how dangerous a set of Briscoes kitchen knives in the total scheme of things. Because let's be honest that is far more likely to kill someone than a firearm in this country. Or probably in almost every country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
@Beavis,Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
Aaaah, what a shame.
I'd feel it would be a good trade off to have compulsory club membership,
while having cops removed from administering the firearms act.
Would be a fair trade, and the standard would go up.
But I am also with the voices that complain that it is making something fun, a sport (no such thing as a "serious sport", as "sport" means "play"!) into something drudgery. I guess compulsory minimum attendance does to some extent poison the fun of going to the pistol range in the case of B-endorsed FAL holders. IMHO one might almost have more fun (read much less irritation and hassle) just being a member of a pistol range and only own/bring a CO2 pistol.
In my profession we have to do continuing education, even logging it (as if we are not naturally predisposed to be bookworms, or we'd not be anywhere near our particular job!!). But the control freaks have managed to take a slice out of the natural fun inherent in reading and attending education events... Introduce that too for my FAL??? Guess what my answer might be.
an ongoing course every 5-10 years fine by me.
If you are in a club that should count too but then shoots attended would probably have to be counted and that's where I see an issue as then the compulsory number of shoots might creep in ala aussie.
I don't like giving into them one bit. To many antis have too much input on this and they will take every small victory as another step forward until complete capitulation.
Having the majority of politicians coming from urban areas and conservationist townies subscribing to the green mandate of gun control does us no favours
Geeze I’ve belonged to a few in my life, lot of them I didn’t stay with because of safety and inexperience of others! The two I enjoy now are the BP club, bunch of great guys, very relaxed and controlled by a very experience ranger officer on range day! And shooting on the Taupo Deerstalkers range, you have to shoot with unknowns on the range, but you have to engage with them to ensure safety, awesome, great way to learn and teach!
With all the concern about firearms safety and accidents in other threads, I would like to add the comment that I have had a similar experience to Phil H. Run properly a comprehensive handling / field safety component to the Firearms Licence would make a big difference. I would feel a lot happier when out in the bush with the knowledge that any other hunters also in the bush whilst I am there have been well trained. But two young guys in a hut I slept in had me shaking my head - loading their rifles inside and - unbelievable - cycling ammo through their bolt actions to 'make sure it fed properly' yes this was inside the hut !!! had me clear out of the valley and wonder how they ever got licenced !! ( did shoot two deer above the track on the way out though )Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_H