Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

NZGR DPT


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 85
Like Tree67Likes

Thread: E cat safe/safe room options

  1. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Western BoP
    Posts
    1,168
    Try moving to a different part of the country one day. The difference in standards of security and approval for various permit types can be a pain. I've heard of people travelling and getting the signoff while away as a way to minimise hassle. Standards should be consistent throughout the country otherwise for one example engineers signoff for security accepted by one region may not in another which creates costs for you as you have to buy another or pay to get it recerted.
    canross likes this.

  2. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    398
    My guns are worth shitloads of money. That is why my security far exceeds what is required.

    As I said a few posts above, my security would still be the same if I was allowed to just keep them under the bed.

    It's not a competition to see who can get the least amount of security signed off. Well, not for me anyway.
    10-Ring likes this.

  3. #18
    Sending it Gibo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Hill
    Posts
    17,304
    Quote Originally Posted by systolic View Post
    My guns are worth shitloads of money. That is why my security far exceeds what is required.

    As I said a few posts above, my security would still be the same if I was allowed to just keep them under the bed.

    It's not a competition to see who can get the least amount of security signed off. Well, not for me anyway.
    Shit the bed!!! I agree with you I will read that all again, this can't be so.
    Spudattack, nzfubz, Beaker and 4 others like this.
    Werawhakaui?

    Rule 4. Identify your target beyond all doubt.

  4. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,256
    Quote Originally Posted by systolic View Post
    My guns are worth shitloads of money. That is why my security far exceeds what is required.

    As I said a few posts above, my security would still be the same if I was allowed to just keep them under the bed.

    It's not a competition to see who can get the least amount of security signed off. Well, not for me anyway.
    I do agree that security needs to be at least what they are asking. In my mind, if you are not prepared to secure your firearms to the very best of your ability, then you should question whether you are a "fit and proper" person to hold a license. A fit and proper person will take every step possible to control the possession and use of their firearms.

    But I have a minor issue with them stating how much is enough in a minor way. If something happens the onus is then taken off the thief / perpetrator and placed on the owner to prove the measures were enough.

    Here is a parallel situation as an example.

    Motorcycles safety: It is a very good idea to ride with the headlight on so other vehicles see the rider. And I almost always ride with the headlight on. But I will always object to making it compulsory. If a motorcyclist is hit by a car in a situation where the car did not see them (probably because they did not look), then it is clearly the cars fault. But if you make headlights on compulsory, and then the same situation occurs, now the injured motorcyclist has to prove he had his light on because the car driver can easily claim "I did not see him so therefore his light must have been off". If it is off, then it must be his fault I did not see him....Where, in truth, it is still the car drivers fault for not looking. Trains have their lights on and too many car drivers manage to not see those too......Not looking is the problem.


    It does not matter if your guns are in a safe, an alarmed strong room or a fort knox bank vault with three guards on duty, or on your bench, if a thief steals them, it does not lessen the fact that the thief has stolen them. It is still theft of a firearm. Yes, you should definitely take EVERY measure you can to reduce the chances of theft, but the fault MUST still lie with the thieving piece of boot scrapping, cat turd, low life, miserable, festering cockroach, oxygen burglar, waste of space that decided he could help himself to your property.
    tetawa, Tommy, Jexla and 1 others like this.

  5. #20
    Member stretch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Clarks Beach, (South of) Auckland
    Posts
    1,330
    Quote Originally Posted by timattalon View Post
    In my mind, if you are not prepared to secure your firearms to the very best of your ability, then you should question whether you are a "fit and proper" person to hold a license. A fit and proper person will take every step possible to control the possession and use of their firearms.
    Define "very best of your ability" and "every possible step".

    Should a FAL holder be spending $1000+ on the security of, say, a $200 .22? Raising the security requirements could be seen as an underhand way for the authorities to price people out of lawful firearms ownership.

    Joe Bloggs: "I'd like to get into hunting and shooting. Perhaps I'll get my FAL, then a cheap .22 to familiarise myself with firearms safety, shooting technique and marksmanship principles."

    Joe Bloggs does some research into security requirements...

    Joe Bloggs: "Shit, it says here I need x or y security before I can have a .22! That means I need to spend z to get into this hobby. Stuff that - I'll just stick to [insert current hobby]."

    Cops and the anti-gun population: "GOOD."
    Jexla and Danger Mouse like this.

  6. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Western BoP
    Posts
    1,168
    Quote Originally Posted by systolic View Post
    My guns are worth shitloads of money. That is why my security far exceeds what is required.

    As I said a few posts above, my security would still be the same if I was allowed to just keep them under the bed.

    It's not a competition to see who can get the least amount of security signed off. Well, not for me anyway.
    Um, Systolic mate you are either being a dick deliberately or you aren't understanding the point.

    Doesn't matter what level of security you have, it could be built of unobtanium and completely surpass all of the requirements of you AO and at the moment if you go somewhere else and can't get a cert that fits the requirements of the new area (one reason being that the AO can't prove without a doubt that it wasn't built in China and therefore with lax build quality or materials used) you have to replace it. What security level you actually have is irrelevant at the moment, as there isn't a universal standard covering the entire country. The requirement to get an engineers cert is one of the things making it hard, as there is no defining standard for an engineer to measure against so a lot of them are reluctant to cert on the basis of 'feels about right when I thump it'.

    I understand what you are saying about utilising more than is required, but at the moment the next guy into your area could ask for you to replace it with better anyway. That's the point that is being made it's not a pissing contest about who has better...

    I built my last safe fully seam welded it out of 6mm corten (slightly better spec than basic mild plate) and two x five lever locks so well in excess of the basic requirement, but in some areas no dice as I have to get the damn thing certed which can be a mission in it's own right.
    Tommy likes this.

  7. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,256
    Quote Originally Posted by stretch View Post
    Define "very best of your ability" and "every possible step".

    Should a FAL holder be spending $1000+ on the security of, say, a $200 .22? Raising the security requirements could be seen as an underhand way for the authorities to price people out of lawful firearms ownership.

    Joe Bloggs: "I'd like to get into hunting and shooting. Perhaps I'll get my FAL, then a cheap .22 to familiarise myself with firearms safety, shooting technique and marksmanship principles."

    Joe Bloggs does some research into security requirements...

    Joe Bloggs: "Shit, it says here I need x or y security before I can have a .22! That means I need to spend z to get into this hobby. Stuff that - I'll just stick to [insert current hobby]."

    Cops and the anti-gun population: "GOOD."
    What should a "Fit and Proper person" consider secure? How long is a piece of string?

    If you cannot afford a decent helmet, gloves and jacket, can you afford a motorbike? If you cannot afford a condom, can you afford a child?


    Another view of the same perspective, is if you cannot safely secure them to decent level then yes, perhaps you should not buy a 22. One important factor to bear in mind, The security requirements around A cat firearms has a very different aim to the security around E, B, C, etc. The primary and central objective of A Cat security is to keep un-trained, opportunistic people from gaining easy access and potentially causing harm. Not thieves, not criminals, but your family. It is to stop those who do not understand the safety and dangers involved with firearms from hurting themselves and those around them. Think more along the lines of children and visitors. And consider, decent security for a 22 can be achieved with about $200-$300.

    The increased security around the other categories is more aimed at thieves etc because with the perceived additional danger of these firearms (And that itself is a different conversation) it is expected that these are more highly sought after by those of a criminal persuasion. Hence the additional requirements to discourage theft.

    Consider this. If you looked at the security that you have now. and in three weeks, one of your family or friends somehow gets access to those firearms, and your family member is hurt or worse. Would ANY level of security be enough that you would think...I could not have done any better?????

    To answer your question re spending $1000 on protecting a 22: In most cases it would probably be too much, but if you spend $99 on a cheap safe remember, You have to live with the consequences if someone gets hurt.

  8. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Stewart island / canterbury
    Posts
    4,456
    Hate to say it folks but any level of security can be breached with enough time and the right tools.... Know someone with a 12ton digger, if he wants to take our see and give it a bit of a squeeze I don't think much would last. House might be toast but he would have your guns

  9. #24
    Member canross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Western Canada - Soon to be Christchurch
    Posts
    47
    Well, it's official, it's possible to start a heated argument during the discussion gun storage containers in three separate countries on two separate continents.



    Anyways, the point of the discussion is to figure out what is the best option in building a gun storage container. If I planned to live in the same house for the rest of my days I would buy a stack of 2.5cm thick steel road plates, gas axe them to size and weld them into an internal safe room inside my house and be done with it.

    Unfortunately, it doesn't look like I'll be purchasing a house in the near future, and moving frequently makes things all the more difficult. I thoroughly enjoy shooting and hunting, so don't want to abandon the hobby because it's difficult, but I also don't want to make my life miserable trying to move a 750kg safe every couple of years, or have to uninstall and reinstall a security system every time I move, along with the associated repairs to whatever house I'm living in at the time. The level of security should be enough that anyone who didn't come prepared can't get in and take the guns. There are many ways to achieve this, however being new to the country I need to know where I can, and cannot, use my judgement to solve a problem, hence the questioning. In the cases where there is an established standard that I must meet, I will make sure to do so. In the cases where there is a recommended standard, I will try to meet it unless it is negated by something else I have done, or isn't reasonable in this case (IE a full house alarm system installed by a commercial company is not practical in a rental, however I am able to wire my own small system and monitor it myself).

    Several forum members have been kind enough to answer my questions, and those answers have gone a very long way towards figuring out how things work in NZ and really saved me a lot of hours looking for solutions to problems that don't exist, or I didn't know existed.

    Anyways, looks like I owe a few folks some beer when I get there!
    Last edited by canross; 11-02-2017 at 02:43 PM.

  10. #25
    Member canross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Western Canada - Soon to be Christchurch
    Posts
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Taff View Post
    Depending on how soon you are moving, any info might be irrelevant, with the proposed rewriting of the arms act.
    Any info on this? Hear-say? Actual in-action in front of the government proposed law? Working-group discussing something?

    Any info on what this re-write contains?




    Coincidentally the same thing's apparently in the works in Canada. Only indirect mutterings so far, but since the current ruling party has majority power and created our last Firearms Act, which was a punitive, poorly thought out and overall terrible waste of money and time, things don't look good on this side of the pond.

  11. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by canross View Post
    Any info on this? Hear-say? Actual in-action in front of the government proposed law? Working-group discussing something?

    Any info on what this re-write contains?




    Coincidentally the same thing's apparently in the works in Canada. Only indirect mutterings so far, but since the current ruling party has majority power and created our last Firearms Act, which was a punitive, poorly thought out and overall terrible waste of money and time, things don't look good on this side of the pond.
    All rumours. Nothing happening, or likely to happen in an election year.

    There is a select committee on law and order investigating how criminals are obtaining guns. This has been seen by some people as heralding changes to the laws, but unlikely in an election year.

    Just ensure your security is well above what is required by the people who will be signing off your licence, and you will have no problems. If you try to skimp on security and buy some cheap safe you may have problems.

    If your guns are worth keeping, why wouldn't you have good security?

    Ignore the bush lawyers on this or other forums wanking on about what the cops can and can't do, legally or otherwise. Don't worry about what other arms officers in other parts of the country may or may not want.

    Just listen to what your arms officer or security vetting person wants. Then spend your time shooting.

  12. #27
    Member Jexla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Napier
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by systolic View Post
    Ignore the bush lawyers on this or other forums wanking on about what the cops can and can't do, legally or otherwise.
    Ironically I agree. Let the man read the minutes from the meetings of that select committee himself.

    http://sportingshooters.nz/wp-conten...ay-minutes.pdf

    http://sportingshooters.nz/wp-conten...ugust-2016.pdf

    http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/defa...cember2016.pdf


    A quote from a member of parliament who his on this committee:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Mark
    Hi Guys. Spotted this post. As you know I'm currently sitting in on the Select Committee which is holding this inquiry. I can't go into detail about what is before the committee because it's still confidential, but what I can say is that I am worried. In fact, I am very very worried for law abiding firearms owners. This is worst case scenario people and IT WILL turn into a new law if we don't all get together and do something.

    Make your own mind up and don't listen to people like systolic who defines himself as a "bush lawyer".

  13. #28
    Member canross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Western Canada - Soon to be Christchurch
    Posts
    47
    Interesting that you can view minutes from the meetings - here it's all top secret until the law hits reading in parliament. Only thing we know is that our committee is made up of police chiefs that have spoken openly about banning firearms (but also joked in a tv interview that he at least once intimidated his daughter's boyfriend with a shotgun, and used his rank to avoid speeding tickets), multiple reps of the anti-firearms lobby groups, and now at least one woman's group rep, who is technically not a representative of the anti-firearms group, but is an honorary member. The last two pro gun members (a federal lawyer and our national firearms organisation rep) were removed when the new gov came into power.

    Anyways, thanks again for the great info.

  14. #29
    Member Jexla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Napier
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by canross View Post
    Interesting that you can view minutes from the meetings - here it's all top secret until the law hits reading in parliament.
    I suspect the real stuff is suppressed considering there's very little mention of any proposed law changes and Ron Mark suggests changes will be coming.

  15. #30
    Semper excretia Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Ubique
    Posts
    4,338
    Whatever they are cooking up behind closed doors will inevitably be detrimental to firearm ownership in this country, either through stricter conditions or increased costs - or both.

    Instead of targeting burglaries and other crimes that are of a higher concern to most New Zealanders (justified given their appallingly low resolution rate and increase in many areas) they're targeting - behind closed doors - the most thoroughly vetted people in the country (barring those holding SV and TSV security clearances).

    Their claims relating to firearm crime through their mouthpiece the Police Association in conjunction with their bedfellows, the mainstream media, are completely unsubstantiated and should be treated with the callous disregard that they deserve. It should be obvious to anyone that this is a pernicious attack on all firearm owners that is orchestrated from the highest levels of New Zealand Police, an organisation who have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate ultra vires behaviour which displays scant regard for the law they are sworn to uphold.

    It is obvious what is happening once one connects the dots. The end-game is to achieve a monopoly on violence and they are targeting the most powerful weapons first (MSSA), then they will probably come after handguns because of their ability to be concealed and finally those that remain.

    It won't happen overnight, it will be conducted per generation. I.e. the generation succeeding will have no memory of ever being able to own X class firearm so likely won't question why it's not permitted for them to do so.

    If the authorities can act the way they do concerning firearm laws, what then is preventing them from encroaching on other rights / privileges / whatever once the populace has been completely disarmed?
    Koshogi, stretch, Tommy and 1 others like this.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. FS: Arma-safe 6-8 gun safe
    By dale in forum Buy, Sell or Swap
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-02-2017, 07:30 PM
  2. WTB: A-cat safe
    By brodster in forum Buy, Sell or Swap
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-01-2017, 06:13 PM
  3. FS: 3-Gun Safe - Never Used
    By Barb K in forum Buy, Sell or Swap
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-10-2016, 03:44 PM
  4. How many 243's in the safe is enough?
    By gadgetman in forum Firearms, Optics and Accessories
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 11-07-2013, 03:21 PM
  5. E-Cat gun safe
    By Burb122 in forum Firearms, Optics and Accessories
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 19-04-2013, 09:28 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Welcome to NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums! We see you're new here, or arn't logged in. Create an account, and Login for full access including our FREE BUY and SELL section Register NOW!!