Well I'm only planning on getting a 22 and a big Centre fire as I'm an apprentice so not heaps of money to get a whole lot of different calibers.
450 bushmaster.
Printable View
A mate shot a cat with a 22.250 and it "sloshed" as we picked it up.Maybe just the right amount of inner trauma
This must differ between insurance companies and policies.
I pay for and expect replacement - especially when I have listed the items with serial numbers and values.
An example from my past:
8 years ago I rolled my ute. I had 3 bicycles on a carrier on the back.
Car insurance didn't cover the bikes, but my household contents policy did - I got replacments not indemnity.
I expect my rifles to be similarly covered whether at home or away from home.
If your insurance only offers indemnity it is time for you to get another insurer.
I’ve just gone with Tower, don’t have to list any item under $10k.
New Arms Code in the works right now
so will it be asked on a per owner or per household basis?
there could be multiple owners using a communal safe. its bureaucracy gone mad
I was asked that last time I renewed my licence, simply said it had been my passion and hobby since I was 13 yrs old. That's a fairly good commitment?
So its interesting, They limit me to 4 rifles and I have to trim my collection (by heaps). Where do the ones I have to get rid of go? Are they going to purchase my collection, am I going to be taxed on the over quota, do they just get re circulated to those that dont have 4 yet, there would be a shitload going to the "other side" It solves SFA. Ya cant beat DUMB
My understanding is that under the A CAT license once a persons security is inspected. As in when it is first installed, The Police or arms officer has no right under current legislation to re inspect it. The only legitimate reason to re inspect is if the firearms owner moves addresses. They also have no right to inspect individual firearms or request any information regarding those firearms, including the number of firearms the license holder is in possession of.
Can someone please point me in the direction of the piece of legislation that says otherwise.
It's in the Arms Act
24BGeneral conditions of firearms licence
(1) Every firearms licence is subject to the conditions that the holder of a firearms licence must,—
...
(c) permit a member of the Police to inspect all firearms in the licence holder’s possession, the place or places where the firearms are or will be kept, and the place or places where the ammunition is or will be kept, and, for those purposes, to enter at all reasonable times upon the premises where that place or those places are situated; and
...
Does a “member of the police” include a vetting person, who is not a police officer, probably on contract?
Do rogue elephants and man eating tigers qualify or would that be deemed self defense?
Arms Act definition = "member of the Police means a Police employee within the meaning of section 4 of the Policing Act 2008"
Section 4 of the policing act = "Police employee means a person employed under section 18 and, except in Part 4, includes a person seconded to the Police"
If the Police are rewriting the Arms Code, it looks like the promised independent agency to administer the Act is as likely as 100,000 State homes being built and the light rail down Dominion Road running in my lifetime.
Out of interest - are you a user of the existing rail network? If you were looking for affordable price, decent times and efficiency I suggest that the current network fails in all your stated measures - and any additions to the existing will suffer the same faults and foibles. The rest of the country couldn't give a fat rat's arse either.
A bit off topic but .....
Our biggest issue with commuter transport, especially here in Chch is population density. Auckland is in a similar position but being a denser population has some advantages.
Rail works when you have larger numbers of people in one place who transport to another place regularly. Chch has a buggered central city so most people work everywhere else and live elsewhere...so we are not all at the same starting point and are not all going to the same place. As for efficiency, I used to live 25km from where I worked. If I cycle to work, it took me just over an hour on the pushbike, If I took the motorbike it took about 35 minutes, (Car was fractionally longer) If I caught the bus it took me 1 hour 15 minutes...AND the bus stopped right outside work at about the same time as I finished. IE If I biked home I would be leaving at almost the same time as the bus....... In other words for a distance of 25km I was able to match the bus for speed with a bicycle. I could understand this if the distances were different, but both are almost the same route and mostly a straight line to Woodend....The first few Ks I stayed off the main roads and would reach the junction with the bus route about the same time as the bus....From there I would pretty much take the bus route....It would pass me on the road then I would pass him at the next stop etc...
If Chch had a larger population then public transport would start to make sense. I heard one councillor state "it worked in big cities over seas so why wont it work here? " I do not think she understood or realised what city means overseas. She used the trains in New York as an example. For NY they have 16 times Chch population (8.4m) which is 1.6 times the NZ population living in an area HALF the size of Chch. So for every property in Chch that houses a family of 5, that same land space would have to contain 80 people. Ever block in the city that had 20 houses on it with about 4 or 5 people in each that houses about 90 people would need to home nearly 1500 people. They say there is a McDonalds every 100m in these cities...what they don't tell you is there are enough people living within 50 metres of that building to make that a viable business model....
how else do you think the high speed rail in japan and europe got built? it wasn't through private funding
I have a work van however I do use it to go to town as i live within walking distance a train station. I use the bus a lot to go clubbing etc or to go to bars.
Yes it is not cheap, quick or reliable. however it avoids a DIC.
Um, err, nope.
Drawing comparisons with other countries' infrastructure is a wasted cause. Auckland's population is a mere 5-10% of any similar sized (area wise) metropolis around the world. Therefore funding such grandiose pipedreams is beyond our means. Simple.