Thread: New gun security laws

Lax A cat security story's

I used to have a push bike shop, a large one by NZ standards and in a high profile location so we got a lot of people-several every week-coming in asking for bike locks to lock up guns. We even ended up labeling one model as suitable after getting sick of people who didn't ask for advice bringing locks back as the lock heads were to big to fit through actions. It became our biggest selling lock, maybe because bike owners thought that if it was good for guns it must be extra strong-it wasn't as like all cable locks it could be cut through in seconds with good side cutters.

I thought this had gone the way of the dodo over the last few years but only a couple of months I got a bike lock around a pipe ticked off as A cat security at my nominated NZ address. I would not have done this if I thought I would ever have a gun at that house but I was surprised the veter suggested it.

A year ago a young guy I know had his house burgled, he had a couple of cheep guns in a old thin sheet metal clothing locker-the crim just kicked the door to bend it and the peeled the top open enough to lift his guns out.

Actually , the safe is only a delay device is ONLY works when no one is at home & for a limited time , when people are home then , all the crim does is treaten you or family , and you will open up the safe for the crim , and he has access in side a few secs , that was told to me my a member of the Police .

Yes but as home invasions are actually rare, and most robberys take place in empty homes, then the policeman is giving stupid advice. Yes a safe is only a delaying device, as is the door on your car, but would you be without it.

The news in our neck of the woods pertaining to E-cat safes is that the inspectors will need to sight a manufacturer's guarantee that an e-cat safe is 6mm thick and/or an engineer's guarantee that a home-made safe is minimum 6mm thick with the appropriate locks.

The rule is not retrospective so if you are good now you are good in the future.

I gather that the idea is that the inspectors do not have the technical know-how to say if an e-cat safe is good or not. Obviously a set of calipers would do the trick but apparently that is not to be.



All that aside, I agree that A-cat safes in general should be stronger than they are - a personnel locker with a hasp and staple on it is as much good as a one-legged man in an arse kicking party

Originally Posted by 308

The news in our neck of the woods pertaining to E-cat safes is that the inspectors will need to sight a manufacturer's guarantee that an e-cat safe is 6mm thick and/or an engineer's guarantee that a home-made safe is minimum 6mm thick with the appropriate locks.

The rule is not retrospective so if you are good now you are good in the future.

I gather that the idea is that the inspectors do not have the technical know-how to say if an e-cat safe is good or not. Obviously a set of calipers would do the trick but apparently that is not to be.



All that aside, I agree that A-cat safes in general should be stronger than they are - a personnel locker with a hasp and staple on it is as much good as a one-legged man in an arse kicking party

Thats always been the rule for e/b/c

Originally Posted by 308

The news in our neck of the woods pertaining to E-cat safes is that the inspectors will need to sight a manufacturer's guarantee that an e-cat safe is 6mm thick and/or an engineer's guarantee that a home-made safe is minimum 6mm thick with the appropriate locks.

The rule is not retrospective so if you are good now you are good in the future.

I gather that the idea is that the inspectors do not have the technical know-how to say if an e-cat safe is good or not. Obviously a set of calipers would do the trick but apparently that is not to be.



All that aside, I agree that A-cat safes in general should be stronger than they are - a personnel locker with a hasp and staple on it is as much good as a one-legged man in an arse kicking party

Because we all know how tricky using those callipers can be.....Almost need a degree

@Savage1 " large bolty screw thingys " do i get these at bunnings?

Originally Posted by stumpy

@Savage1 " large bolty screw thingys " do i get these at bunnings?

I would post a picture, but screw you.

hey , wait a min ..... i might be effing great in an ass kicking party .......

The problem I see is that there doesn't appear to be any clear direction or game plan to tackle organised crime and the drug trade. Everybody wants an end to gangs, P etc but the approach we are taking is a broken record and doesn't appear to be making an impact.

With regards to firearms, the police association is taking a disjointed and rambling crusade against legal gun owners who they dont differentiate from criminals. They cry for gun registration, restrictions on .50 BMG's, further restrictions on MSSA's. None of those things will serve to enhance officer safety. Most illegal guns are obtained through theft, so registration won't do shit. .50BMG's are pretty much never used in crime. Restricting them is pointless. MSSA's are already among the most tightly controlled guns. They are already registered anf required to be kept in more substantial security. What more could they want to increase officer safety? There is something to be said for A category security being to relaxed, most A cat safes are shite. But as has been pointed out, why should we have to saddle a burden caused by organised crime?

Perhaps we need take a drastic new direction. Maybe we need to legalise all drugs. That would basically destroy the economy of the gangs. If meth addicts could get a cheap hit without having to commit crimes to feed their habits we might see a steep decline in burglary, which may result in less guns being stolen. We should introduce warrentless searches for anybody known to be associated with organised criminal gangs. MSSA owners are burdened with this so why the fuck can't we do it to gang members. Imagine how impossible it would be to operate a crime ring if the cops could pay a daily visit to the gang pad or the associates houses.

Originally Posted by Beavis

The problem I see is that there doesn't appear to be any clear direction or game plan to tackle organised crime and the drug trade. Everybody wants an end to gangs, P etc but the approach we are taking is a broken record and doesn't appear to be making an impact.

With regards to firearms, the police association is taking a disjointed and rambling crusade against legal gun owners who they dont differentiate from criminals. They cry for gun registration, restrictions on .50 BMG's, further restrictions on MSSA's. None of those things will serve to enhance officer safety. Most illegal guns are obtained through theft, so registration won't do shit. .50BMG's are pretty much never used in crime. Restricting them is pointless. MSSA's are already among the most tightly controlled guns. They are already registered anf required to be kept in more substantial security. What more could they want to increase officer safety? There is something to be said for A category security being to relaxed, most A cat safes are shite. But as has been pointed out, why should we have to saddle a burden caused by organised crime?

Perhaps we need take a drastic new direction. Maybe we need to legalise all drugs. That would basically destroy the economy of the gangs. If meth addicts could get a cheap hit without having to commit crimes to feed their habits we might see a steep decline in burglary, which may result in less guns being stolen. We should introduce warrentless searches for anybody known to be associated with organised criminal gangs. MSSA owners are burdened with this so why the fuck can't we do it to gang members. Imagine how impossible it would be to operate a crime ring if the cops could pay a daily visit to the gang pad or the associates houses.

Damn straight - people wanna get high - why not legalise ecstasy? We already know it is safer than alcohol, or horse-riding for that matter

If it were up to me I'd have warrentless searches on gang pads, gangs having to prove clean legal ownership of assets to avoid forfeiture, decriminalise drugs that do sod-all harm but keep the crime of dealing drugs as illegal and ban fucking pokie machines - problem gambling does no good whatsoever to anyone

Sorry - pissed rant over

Originally Posted by Beavis

We should introduce warrentless searches for anybody known to be associated with organised criminal gangs. MSSA owners are burdened with this so why the fuck can't we do it to gang members.

no no fuck no

Originally Posted by gimp

no no fuck no

I agree, who determines what is association?

omg .... im one legged , and i sit at a desk ....... this is becoming all about me

It's not often that I get called thick, when I do it is normally by people with notably less intellect than me or my wife, however I'm not suggesting that you fall into either of those categories.

If you're unable to explain your logic then that doesn't make me stupid.