Thread: Support for tighter Acat storage

Guys I just mentioned ar15/ak as a reference since they're the most pronounced, and obviously things like rimfire and shotguns would be exempt in this. However keep the suggestions and ideas coming as it is good to get a wider perspective.

Originally Posted by Macca

Guys I just mentioned ar15/ak as a reference since they're the most pronounced, and obviously things like rimfire and shotguns would be exempt in this. However keep the suggestions and ideas coming as it is good to get a wider perspective.

Why would you exempt .22's and Shotguns? They are statistically the most commonly criminally mis-used firearms. What would you achieve by making all semi autos E category, when they are barely used in any crime at all?

Originally Posted by Beavis

Why would you exempt .22's and Shotguns? They are statistically the most commonly criminally mis-used firearms. What would you achieve by making all semi autos E category, when they are barely used in any crime at all?

Agree. First off, Macca, thanks for starting this thread, well worth talking about.

Security depends on so much more than the safe itself, several here having already raised points about sanding discs, etc etc for the determined. Hiding the safe in plain sight is massively valuable. Also avoiding blabbing about your guns (club membership may be a double edged sword in this regard). Separating out ammo and bolts from the a-cat firearm too (and why not separate bolts from ammo while we are at it?). I think the better approach is not to go the legislative way (give an inch and someone will take it a mile) but to just foster excellent security in excess of what is required of us -- while still allowing beginners a low-cost start-up in the sport. After all, an upright gun safe is a lot less hassle than a bracket and people eventually buy one if they have more than a few guns.

The point, re excempting .22s from the proposed E-cat storage requirements is not based on fact but springs from a misperception of them as purely sport weapons, maybe even less dangerous than say a .308 bolt action. Sure, it is unsuitable for stalking presidential cavalcades from book repository buildings, yet a silenced .22 semi is probably the one gun you don't want sick evil bastards to have, going out and about from house to house, room to room, killing people without the alarm getting raised too early: think David Gray (Aramoana) and Bain (Dunedin).

The ubiquity of the silenced .22 semi-auto in NZ is chilling, and you will not get a competent cop investigating a burglary draw a sigh of relief if you tell him, "It's only my suppressed Ruger 10/22 that's missing, just as well they left the powerful rifles!" There is really no case for excepting such guns, any guns, from such a proposed E-cat-safe-for-all idea. But then again, legislation is not always based purely on reason, it just has to appear reasonable.

Originally Posted by Macca

Recent proposes to law changes regarding firearms has caused quite a stir and caused many to be very vocal about their opinions, some of which are more drastic than others. One point I've always looked at and thought needed improving was basic storage requirements of A category firearms.

Current standards approved by I have no idea who, But enforced by police (to their dismay) allow things such as a simple mild steel eye bolt into a wall stud with a wire cable etc to attach firearms, a basic stamped metal cabinet that could be cut with tin snips, or even just a cable around hot water cylinder pipes etc. Let's be honest here and agree that these options are pathetic (and most Acat safes) and we can do better than that as a community to protect out hobbies and investments.

What's wrong with making stout (ie more than 1mm Acat safes) boxes/safes which are securely attached to walls/floors a mandatory requirement and ditching the minimum? Such as how we do our Ecat/Bcat. I get cost may play a factor, but if we're spending thousands and thousands on our firearms then we can invest in secure storage.

Another touchy subject is making all semi autos (.22 and shotguns etc excluded) into Ecat or a new class where a process similar to permit to preclude must be followed. Because what semi autos do you hunt with that aren't ar15/AK derivatives? I only vaguely support this because any Joe Bloggs with a FAL can buy an Acat Ar15/AK and then buy a 30 round mag on the same licence (pretty sure you don't even need a licence?) And then sell it onto a criminal. Please don't come at us with the usual "police should do a better job vetting", and "they need to make longer sentences", because we need to do our part as well to protect our sport and future.

Please add your ideas and solutions as to what changes can be made to have a middle ground between us and police/anti gunners to make all parties happy.

I have a great idea, how about some tough sentences for those who break in and steal legally owned firearms. The Arms Act is strict enough on firearm security, we need a few decent sentence's for the offenders plus more police available other than for issuing over the speed limit infringement notices.

Originally Posted by tetawa

I have a great idea, how about some tough sentences for those who break in and steal legally owned firearms. The Arms Act is strict enough on firearm security, we need a few decent sentence's for the offenders plus more police available other than for issuing over the speed limit infringement notices.

This is what I said not to say in this thread however valid it may be. We can keep using these valid excuses to no avail or we can bang heads and come up with more.

But yeah current sentencing on firearms offences is pathetic.

Im keen on more people having better security

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by 199p

Im keen on more people having better security

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Yes and where does it stop. With the cordless gear with the high tech cutting discs available it doesn't take much to open the average gun safe. There needs to be a strong deterrent for the offenders.

Originally Posted by tetawa

Yes and where does it stop. With the cordless gear with the high tech cutting discs available it doesn't take much to open the average gun safe. There needs to be a strong deterrent for the offenders.

Where can I buy some of these 'high tech' cutting discs? They sound good

Originally Posted by MSL

Where can I buy some of these 'high tech' cutting discs? They sound good

Any engineering supplier.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Any engineering supplier.

And I was trying to keep that a secret.

Asking for stronger security measures to appease people who hate guns is irrational, foolish, indeed it could be called stupid behaviour. It is an own goal. It is actively working to remove firearms use from the NZ population. In the same way that a vote for any political party except NZ First, is a vote against firearms ownership in NZ.
I know my fellow citizens and I accept that most of you will vote for more gun control, and settle down to give up your sport bit by bit in the cause of safety. You will get the govt. you deserve, and they will serve it up to you.

I lock my car, I lock the door on my house, I put my wallet in a safe place, my money in the bank, and guess what I look my guns in a safe as they are valuable, as to voting NZ first

Originally Posted by JWB

Asking for stronger security measures to appease people who hate guns is irrational, foolish, indeed it could be called stupid behaviour. It is an own goal. It is actively working to remove firearms use from the NZ population. In the same way that a vote for any political party except NZ First, is a vote against firearms ownership in NZ.
I know my fellow citizens and I accept that most of you will vote for more gun control, and settle down to give up your sport bit by bit in the cause of safety. You will get the govt. you deserve, and they will serve it up to you.

To assume that people are only asking for stronger security measures in order to appease people who hate guns is stupid irrational and wilfully arrogant.

I'd love to see a rational explanation for the first three sentences of your post.

There is no middle ground and you can all kiss your legal semi autos goodbye in the not so distant future. Fact.

Originally Posted by Towely

There is no middle ground and you can all kiss your legal semi autos goodbye in the not so distant future. Fact.

Show me the proof to your "fact"