Thread: New Updated Arms Code 2017

Sent to MP.

Hello

I am writing with a query as to why the Police publication of the Arms code has been allowed to be altered to reflect requirements that are NOT law. We are now expected to answer the following questions with our license renewal as well as key wording changes to some statements.

First: On page 41 of the new firearms code it state

"A firearms licence allows the holder to have and use sporting type shotguns and rifles. A license holder may possess any number of sporting-type rifles and shotguns although you will be required to justify the number of firearms you hold when the Police inspect your security. A firearms licence is valid for ten years unless revoked or surrendered sooner"

This "justifying" is not legally required and has been added ultra vires into the guide. There is no definition of what is Justified and what is not. There is reason for this and yet it could be held against someone who is applying for a renewal. Is "because I like that one" a valid reason? My worry is that while I have a legal reason, while I am renewing the licence I do not want to be disadvantaged in my application because I do not agree with complying with a request that I am not legally required to acquiesce to.

This appears to be another example of the Police overstepping their jurisdiction and trying to write law rather than enforce it.

Secondly:The term "has been " is now "can be" in the definition of a firearm. The big problem here is ANY piece of steel or metal CAN be adapted to discharge any shot, bullet or projectile by force of explosive. In fact it does not have to be metal either. You could drill a hole in a piece of wood, fill it with powder and cap it with a projectile and ignite it. So by definition even a piece of wood falls under this description. Look around your office where you are sitting as you read this. Is there any metal tube? (Metal pen, Chair or table legs, gas struts from adjustable chairs, Plastic tubing or plumbing) Because they can be closed at one end and turned into a closed tube, these could now be considered "firearms" by that definition....Its that poorly written.