Thread: Response to the Law and Order Select committee

Originally Posted by zimmer

This is what amazes me about vetter's and AO's opinions/interpretations/attitudes - why would a rack be OK for occasional but not long term when the opportunist thief could happen to be in your premises on day one of your short term use of a rack. The rack is either a tick or a cross, time in use shouldn't come into it.

And yes, strong guidelines/standards are required to overcome this vetter variability. Said standards would turn into a nightmare but there has to be a better system than exists now.

I also perceive that the newer vetters and AO's are less likely nowadays to have a mechanical or practical background.

I do see your point. In the some situations the rack is there to comply with the security requirements as required by the current law- That is to secure against people who are in the dwelling who you need to make sure are unable to access or play with said firearm. The law around A cat security is NOT aimed at preventing burglars to access but stopping opportunistic or curious hands from causing harm to those nearby. (Think visitors, children etc rather than burglar) This is because these situations were the ones most likely to cause harm. Whether this is the best position moving forward, that is not the point. The point is a rack that secures a rifle to the wall so it cannot be easily removed and discharged is the law as it stands.

Long term a safe to protect against theft is common sense, and warranted given the value of some firearms and the lengths to which some will go to get them, nut if traveling to go hunting away from home, do you put a 6mm safe in the boot so you can secure your firearms at your unlicenced mates place on the way? Its not practical and likely not to happen.