Thread: Question: Retaining a licence with no firearms but without secure storage facilities

Originally Posted by longshot

I basically had the above explained to me nearly 20 years ago. The scenario was given that if I came home late one night from spotlighting and was locked out of mum/dads house, I was obliged to have a storage at my own residence in the event I end up going there without dropping off my firearm.

Yes plenty of people only use their firearms at the place they store them but might not live, but there will be others that store offsite and shoot somewhere else. Given enough time, sooner or later, someone will bring their firearm home.

So the law caters to the lowest denomination, which is that scenario. Otherwise you need two separate options within the law, one that says you must have storage at your home regardless of whether it contains anything, and another option which says you don’t need storage at home if you only shoot at xyz farm/range where firearms are stored.
Then it starts to get more complicated than having a token chain and padlock in the ceiling which never gets used until it does get used.

If I sleep under a tree in the bush I can lean my rifle against said tree for the night, quite legally, with no security, because it is in my possession.
So should we be required to secure firearm under those conditions too?
No way!!!

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

If I sleep under a tree in the bush I can lean my rifle against said tree for the night, quite legally, with no security, because it is in my possession.
So should we be required to secure firearm under those conditions too?
No way!!!

Arm chair critic post:
Along similar lines, what does Rogee on YT do when he goes on his public land cross valley recoveries? Their rifles are never carried with them for that part of the video. One would assume the rifles are simply stashed in the trees.
I think he’d have a hard time explaining himself if their gear got ripped off in this day and age no matter how unlikely it might be.

Originally Posted by Moutere

Arm chair critic post:
Along similar lines, what does Rogee on YT do when he goes on his public land cross valley recoveries? Their rifles are never carried with them for that part of the video. One would assume the rifles are simply stashed in the trees.
I think he’d have a hard time explaining himself if their gear got ripped off in this day and age no matter how unlikely it might be.

Arm chair critic?
Bullshit. It's a valid statement.
In my situation, if I am inside for a cup of tea, I can quite legally have a rifle leaning in the corner unsecured because it is in my possession. I frequently shoot things from the house so hardly secure one firearm during the day.
Basically a hunting situation.
The same as hunting in the bush.
If you read each situation from a practical viewpoint the law is not what some people think.

I was referring to myself being an arm chair critic within my own post. Hence use of the colon ( : ).
I actually agree with your post.

Originally Posted by Moutere

I was referring to myself being an arm chair critic within my own post. Hence use of the colon ( : ).
I actually agree with your post.

Oh I'm sorry.

I have been pondering that very question as to regards Roggee and even made that comment on one of his videos

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

I think the argument is that as the holder of a license, at any point you could buy or otherwise take possession of an arm - and so need storage.
It would seem to me that at that point you have obligations - but not until that point.
Fit and proper and all - so as a fit and proper person I'll make sure any arms in my possession are safely stored. Until then, I don't need to.

It's one of the many contradictory behaviors of the police. Once we are vetted fit and proper they trust us to use our firearms as prescribed by law, that should include storage. I suspect that they just don't want to do second visit once a safe is fitted. This thread indicates that there are plenty of situations where your firearms are not at your address, the police should be able to cater for that, they just can't be bothered.

Originally Posted by imaca

It's one of the many contradictory behaviors of the police. Once we are vetted fit and proper they trust us to use our firearms as prescribed by law, that should include storage. I suspect that they just don't want to do second visit once a safe is fitted. This thread indicates that there are plenty of situations where your firearms are not at your address, the police should be able to cater for that, they just can't be bothered.

And I think that lines up with my feelings on the matter - the law says what the law says, and the people administering it (with admittedly limited and arguably misdirected resources) have made a lot of decisions to attempt to dictate the behaviour of and transfer costs to licence holders to make things easier and cheaper for the management.

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

I think the argument is that as the holder of a license, at any point you could buy or otherwise take possession of an arm - and so need storage.
It would seem to me that at that point you have obligations - but not until that point.
Fit and proper and all - so as a fit and proper person I'll make sure any arms in my possession are safely stored. Until then, I don't need to.

I would agree with this, but at the end of it you are completely correct as you could be away from home and be called to take possession of a restricted item (I have had this due to being the only license holder in a situation where the person who was in possession needed to take an unscheduled trip to hospital). The fit and proper requirements kick in, even if you are not near your storage or home residence. But, it's a bit of a sideline away from the original question now - but I think this is a case where the original applicant needs to really sit down with the higher ups and dive a bit deeper into the specifics driving this decision as it's quite ridiculous to be forced to surrender a license at huge expense due to a temporary change in address for a valid reason.

If this isn't able to be sorted out, I would wager that the solution is 'don't ask, don't tell' which is not ideal for anyone.

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

I think the argument is that as the holder of a license, at any point you could buy or otherwise take possession of an arm - and so need storage.
It would seem to me that at that point you have obligations - but not until that point.
Fit and proper and all - so as a fit and proper person I'll make sure any arms in my possession are safely stored. Until then, I don't need to.

If that is the meaning and intention of the law then anyone in the army should have a place to store their firearm on base.

Being in a flatting situation where you aren't allowed to store a firearm or install a safe would be the same thing as not being allowed a personal firearm on base.

My son at uni and flatting in Auckland with no intention of having rifles there had to still demonstrate storage.
They accepeted a pair of eye bolts in a wardrobe with cable and padlock.
First version got turned down as the eyebolts were not deemed large enough.
Z

Originally Posted by ZQLewis

My son at uni and flatting in Auckland with no intention of having rifles there had to still demonstrate storage.
They accepeted a pair of eye bolts in a wardrobe with cable and padlock.
First version got turned down as the eyebolts were not deemed large enough.
Z

$80 cordless grinder from the warehouse and I don't care how large your eyebolts are.

What an absolute nonsense

Recent reply back from the FSA on acceptable alternatives to the eyebolts, cable and padlock:
https://www.guncity.com/outdoor-outf...un-rack-389806
Back of a wardrobe, two screws into a stud.

My son has just turned 16, and he has talked about getting his FAL which I am happy to support. Can he share my storage?

now an ex workmate but he still stores his firearms at his parent house with no issue. i am due for the renewal in 2 days. lets just say the security system from hell.