Thread: Support for tighter Acat storage

I agree with increased security for A cats.

We have to realize the responsibility for firearms not falling into the hands of Criminals is both a Public and Police matter.My work gear in in a alarmed shed,expensive tools in a lock box,with the Tractor forks ontop and a truck parked across the entrance.This is to stop it getting nicked because the Police can't.

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 don't know the key to success,but the key to failure is trying to make everybody happy".
Given that the anti gunners are just that. Anti gun. Any gun at all. Thin end of wedge territory.

Originally Posted by Savage1

What evidence have you got of this stuff up? Come on Maca I'm dying to hear this. I know the cop who visited him and know what was said/asked etc.

I'm 99.99% sure I know a hell of a lot more about this incident than you.

How about you make sure you know what you're talking about before making accusations, saves you from looking like an idiot when the story comes out.

Story's out?

Originally Posted by Paddy79

If only they did it sooner I wouldn't have 4 daughters to worry about but alas they didn't and I do, bugger
pull out theory didn't work as planned aye

Bit of a cock up huh?

Given that its reasonably easy for a determined thief to break into a safe, wouldnt it be better to hide the guns better. I have a mate who wanted to hide his rifle in the roof cavity. Had them chained up in there. He was told by his AO he needed a safe. Fair enough but if a random burglar enters a house and finds a gun safe, its like a neon sign saying "Guns Here!!"

The last few gun burglaries I have personally heard of locally, the safes have either been physically removed from the house (a safe was chainsawed out of a house and carried off, on my street) and an E cat safe that was cut open and emptied. Talking to local police/AO over the years it seems that it is a common theme for the district, if they can't open your safe, they'll take the whole thing.

Originally Posted by Beavis

The last few gun burglaries I have personally heard of locally, the safes have either been physically removed from the house (a safe was chainsawed out of a house and carried off, on my street) and an E cat safe that was cut open and emptied. Talking to local police/AO over the years it seems that it is a common theme for the district, if they can't open your safe, they'll take the whole thing.

I keep hearing about this chainsaw thing, But looking at my securoty it would be impossible to remove due to steel plate under floor running over to the next 2 rooms etc, so you'd need to demolish multiple walls too. Seems like it would take them too long and get a tap on the shoulder from police before they finish.

Wouldn't it just be easier for them to stand you over?

Originally Posted by Macca

I keep hearing about this chainsaw thing, But looking at my securoty it would be impossible to remove due to steel plate under floor running over to the next 2 rooms etc, so you'd need to demolish multiple walls too. Seems like it would take them too long and get a tap on the shoulder from police before they finish.

Wouldn't it just be easier for them to stand you over?

Who are 'them' and how would they know you had guns and where they were?

Originally Posted by Macca

I keep hearing about this chainsaw thing, But looking at my securoty it would be impossible to remove due to steel plate under floor running over to the next 2 rooms etc, so you'd need to demolish multiple walls too. Seems like it would take them too long and get a tap on the shoulder from police before they finish.

Wouldn't it just be easier for them to stand you over?

I can only parrot what local police have told me.

I know of another case in a different town, where the victim had a large E cat safe bolted to concrete floor and the side if his garage. Thieves backed a truck up to the building, wrapped chains around the safe and drove off ripping the safe out of the building. The firearms were slowly recovered in drug raids.

Originally Posted by systolic

Who are 'them' and how would they know you had guns and where they were?

When u get woken up at night with a gun/knife up up your nostril or your kids n they/them say 'you gotta gun bro' n you say 'yep, help yourself....' I don't advertise it but people talk, quite often target shoot n close proximity of my house...shit will happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Savage1

The A cat security levels need to be raised, no doubt. Saying that it is "pointless and impractical" or is just irresponsible, and such statements are usually dished out by people who have no idea what they're talking about.

Did you read my post properly? It's pointless because I believe concealment of security and keeping a low profile is of far more value to us then changing the law. Which once changed is often irreversible. And it's impracticable because of said reasons: What about a small safe or wall rack for a home away from home for those hunting trips? Or the student who is already on a tight budget and that is all they could afford? You could also add pensioners & people on a low income. Do they not deserve to participate in our sport?

But hey, to you I'm someone who doesn't know what their talking about just like all the other keyboard commandos on here right?

Originally Posted by Savage1

I've never heard of a safe being cut into up here during a burglary, most have found the keys, levered them open or ripped them out completely, all of which could be easily remedied. In fact every one I've been too has been down to poor storage, if they'd not found the keys or the safe was fixed and of stronger construction it's likely they never would've been found.

My district has also had burglaries similar to what @Beavis mentioned. It's rare but it does happen and one was an Ecat safe being chained and driven off down the road...

Originally Posted by Savage1

Most people here haven't met the kind of people that burgle houses and steal guns like I have

I don't dispute that, and I certainly don't live in apathy about it either.

Originally Posted by Savage1

The reason for aesthetic features being restricted is that these features feature on certain types of firearms which attract a certain type of person, a person who would hopefully be identified through further vetting. That's the reasoning behind it, not particularly the lethality of the weapon.

You remind me of Clinton during the "Assault Weapons" ban during the 90's in the US.

It has nothing to do with the "evil" aesthetics of firearms being attracted to a certain type of person. Your statement is so stereotypical and tasteless. It's much more simpler then that and it's to do with where the industry is headed man. Our cars are more technologically advanced & safer to drive now and so too are our firearms - Their modularity alone is endless. Hence forth I have no qualms in why I choose to use firearms with such (safety) features and the reasons behind it. I threw safety in there because I have a bad wrist... And a pistol grip helps me immensely in the operation of those types of firearms. Does that make me a weirdo because of it?

Originally Posted by Savage1

I think universal E-cat standard should be sufficient.

You may as well say that poor people and students cannot afford the sport of shooting if this standard was to be implemented effectively making the living cost too high.

Attach a tracking unit to their heart so if they try remove it they die

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

But hey, to you I'm someone who doesn't know what their talking about just like all the other keyboard commandos on here right?

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, But most of us on this forum are genuine kiwi blokes who enjoy hunting/shooting sports and generally share similar ideas. This isn't an American ar15/glock forum where everyone on there is a neckbeard basement dweller who purchased a glock the day before from Wal-Mart.

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Did you read my post properly? It's pointless because I believe concealment of security and keeping a low profile is of far more value to us then changing the law. Which once changed is often irreversible. And it's impracticable because of said reasons: What about a small safe or wall rack for a home away from home for those hunting trips? Or the student who is already on a tight budget and that is all they could afford? You could also add pensioners & people on a low income. Do they not deserve to participate in our sport?

But hey, to you I'm someone who doesn't know what their talking about just like all the other keyboard commandos on here right?



My district has also had burglaries similar to what @Beavis mentioned. It's rare but it does happen and one was an Ecat safe being chained and driven off down the road...



I don't dispute that, and I certainly don't live in apathy about it either.



You remind me of Clinton during the "Assault Weapons" ban during the 90's in the US.

It has nothing to do with the "evil" aesthetics of firearms being attracted to a certain type of person. Your statement is so stereotypical and tasteless. It's much more simpler then that and it's to do with where the industry is headed man. Our cars are more technologically advanced & safer to drive now and so too are our firearms - Their modularity alone is endless. Hence forth I have no qualms in why I choose to use firearms with such (safety) features and the reasons behind it. I threw safety in there because I have a bad wrist... And a pistol grip helps me immensely in the operation of those types of firearms. Does that make me a weirdo because of it?



You may as well say that poor people and students cannot afford the sport of shooting if this standard was to be implemented effectively making the living cost too high.

Just because you believe that concealment is of more importance doesn't mean that security is pointless, especially since kids and burglars with a lot of time will look, concealment isn't infallible so a certain level of security is still required.

Being on a tight budget is not an excuse for having sub par security, it's a weak argument considering the cost of firearms, ammunition and getting a licence. Why should burglars have easy access to firearms because people can't afford a basic inexpensive safe? Should we remove safety features on cars and WOF requirements in vehicles to make them more affordable?

Just because a certain level of security can be overcome with extreme measures doesn't make it pointless, those events are very much an exception and. It a rule.

The reasoning behind the defining features of E-cat weapons was explained to me by a senior police officer, who explained the reasoningNo where did I mention any thing about all types of persons attracted to them nor did I even mention any of the characteristics of the people that I was talking about. So if you've found any stereotyping or offence in that then it's down to your own lack of comprehension.

You really missed the point.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Just because you believe that concealment is of more importance doesn't mean that security is pointless, especially since kids and burglars with a lot of time will look, concealment isn't infallible so a certain level of security is still required.

I didn't say that security is pointless, changing the law is. Read my post properly - Better education on firearm security is of more value then a law change; i.e gun safe placement in a dwelling. Because once the law is changed it is usually irreversible & effectively makes our sport more harder to get in to for society. Just like the whole Ecat/MSSA faff...

Originally Posted by Savage1

Being on a tight budget is not an excuse for having sub par security, it's a weak argument considering the cost of firearms, ammunition and getting a licence. Why should burglars have easy access to firearms because people can't afford a basic inexpensive safe? Should we remove safety features on cars and WOF requirements in vehicles to make them more affordable?

Refer to my above response ^^^ Also burglars can't steal what they don't see?

Originally Posted by Savage1

The reasoning behind the defining features of E-cat weapons was explained to me by a senior police officer, who explained the reasoning No where did I mention any thing about all types of persons attracted to them nor did I even mention any of the characteristics of the people that I was talking about. So if you've found any stereotyping or offence in that then it's down to your own lack of comprehension.

You really missed the point.

I haven't missed anything, the laws based around aesthetic features of firearms DO NOT prevent gun crime. It is pointless that laws are made based around firearms with "features" that offend based on only their appearance & certain functionality. The industry is ever changing & evolving so why should we all suffer with bureaucratic legislative bull-shit.

Savage1 I haven't found any offence to your post so your all good, I have a thick skin.

I plucked this from Colion Noir's instagram it has some resemblance to what is incrementally been happening here in NZ: