Thread: New Firearms Licence Practical Training

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

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

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 instead

Originally Posted by mikee

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 instead

I think you're spot on mikee.
The current process avoids common sense otherwise.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Preacher

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

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.

Originally Posted by Cordite

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).

I agree. There's a few videos on YouTube which demonstrate what a .22LR can do. Not a toy by any means.

Originally Posted by Cordite

@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.

@ 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Beavis

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.

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 3

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.