Thread: New range laws and shooting on unregistered ranges

Originally Posted by Friwi

Vote act in 2023

Act, with their announcements on Treaty issues, will struggle to be a member of any government.

If you want to vote for an opposition party, and you think that's going to help, go for it.

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Act, with their announcements on Treaty issues, will struggle to be a member of any government.

If you want to vote for an opposition party, and you think that's going to help, go for it.

I would tend to differ...it seems to me,a 27th generation Kiwi.....that they are making perfect sense.... the treaty was never about co-governance infact if I CAN BE SO BOLD...the very idea of co-governance reeks to high heaven of apartied ..you know the thing every one got so upset about in the 80s???
people have different rules because of the colour of thier bum or who their granddady is said to be....also reeks of old school elitism .....
like it or not NZ is a country with population made up of many many different people from many different places around the globe...for the majority of my 50 years on this earth we as a country have tried to live together as one people..... to try and seperate it is madness on a grand scale.

SpecificallyI think it's designed to target the likes of GPRE type events etc it's unclear if you don't charge a fee or are considered a club if it would or could be applied not that that would stop them trying.

@Gillie, keen to get your view on Section 10 - Ad-hoc Sighting-in from the doc above.

This probably covers most of the previous "what about my situation" comments above... I read that and felt pretty comfortable that I would get arrested sighting in a rifle on a mate's/family members farm... but you seem to have a better understanding of what they say vs. what they mean. What were your thoughts? Thanks!

Originally Posted by yeah_na_missed

@Gillie, keen to get your view on Section 10 - Ad-hoc Sighting-in from the doc above.

This probably covers most of the previous "what about my situation" comments above... I read that and felt pretty comfortable that I would get arrested sighting in a rifle on a mate's/family members farm... but you seem to have a better understanding of what they say vs. what they mean. What were your thoughts? Thanks!

@yeah_na_missed, From the Police Shooting Range Manual Rev 1 (2022-03-03):

Areas set up for and routinely used by the public for sighting-in will need to be certified as a range. However, sighting-in that is conducted as an ad-hoc or occasional shooting activity does not require the use of a certified range, if it can be carried out safely, whether on private or public land, for example:

1. it is done by an individual or a small group of individuals (but not a shooting club); and
2. they are doing sighting-in as an ad-hoc or occasional activity (such as, prior to a hunting trip, or pre-duck shooting season); and
3. the public (or a club) do not access and use that area for sighting-in (for example, there are no established targets, or other indications that the area is used for shooting activities).

In discussion with the Inspector running the Police Shooting Clubs and Ranges team:
If the area is used regularly for sighting in (within every couple or three months), if there are targets left at the location, etc. then it is considered a range and subject to certification.

I have asked Police to clarify "sighting in" because this section doesn't say anything about practicing, recreational shooting, plinking, etc.
If you take your kids down on to the farm with a few targets for some fun every few months (and you do it safely, and there is not a complaint) then i don't see Police having anythign to do with that. If you leave the targets up "permanently" and are down there every month then i can see Police wanting certification.

In writing, I think the Police are trying to align with their interpretation of the definitions of a Range in the Act while appreciating that certifying every instance of anyone shooting at an inanimate object is practically impossible. In practice, i can't see Police arresting and prosecuting people for sighting in unless you were doing it in an unsafe way and there was a complaint. If you were sighting in safely and there was a complaint (and you weren't a dick about it) then i think Police would take an "educational" approach and either be happy or simply advise you to apply for range certification.

So regarding, Section 10 - i think Police have given themselves enough of a vague definition such that they can apply some judgement in practice.


In @Peteforskeet example - i think Police would interpret that as needing certification because it sounds like a bit of an organsied event for his family / friends.

Originally Posted by Gillie

@yeah_na_missed, From the Police Shooting Range Manual Rev 1 (2022-03-03):


In discussion with the Inspector running the Police Shooting Clubs and Ranges team:
If the area is used regularly for sighting in (within every couple or three months), if there are targets left at the location, etc. then it is considered a range and subject to certification.

I have asked Police to clarify "sighting in" because this section doesn't say anything about practicing, recreational shooting, plinking, etc.
If you take your kids down on to the farm with a few targets for some fun every few months (and you do it safely, and there is not a complaint) then i don't see Police having anythign to do with that. If you leave the targets up "permanently" and are down there every month then i can see Police wanting certification.

In writing, I think the Police are trying to align with their interpretation of the definitions of a Range in the Act while appreciating that certifying every instance of anyone shooting at an inanimate object is practically impossible. In practice, i can't see Police arresting and prosecuting people for sighting in unless you were doing it in an unsafe way and there was a complaint. If you were sighting in safely and there was a complaint (and you weren't a dick about it) then i think Police would take an "educational" approach and either be happy or simply advise you to apply for range certification.

So regarding, Section 10 - i think Police have given themselves enough of a vague definition such that they can apply some judgement in practice.


In @Peteforskeet example - i think Police would interpret that as needing certification because it sounds like a bit of an organsied event for his family / friends.

Letting the police use their 'judgement' is a bad idea in my books.
They have proven many times to be pricks when dealing with firearms.
Although, there are good cops out there I believe the majority will be horrible to deal with regarding shooting.

In saying this, I think the law is an ass and if it is enforced to the letter as it stands we are screwed.

What a crappy situation.

Does anyone have an idea what certification will cost for a private range? and any annual costs etc?

Just make up a patched jacket and shoot on the farm. Whilst wearing said patch.

Cops won't even bother

Awesome, thanks @Gillie, good to get your interpretation of it!

I guess that "no complaint" point is a big one... be nice to your neighbours, and keep any neighbours who might not like loud noises well supplied with meat!

and pick up the pizza box after you have poked holes in it.... the lake lyndon fiasco a few years back is classic WHY this is on the cards...if you wanted to find a REASON to change things,thats about as good as can get.

It's all in the discussion document $830 per range and $500 for a "special event" range even if it's only a one off organised shoot. There's a lot more in there and submissions close 4 may.
It would be nice to have the established national bodies get a set of guidelines out so people can formulate their own replies. A copy n paste template is no good.

Originally Posted by Marty Henry

It's all in the discussion document $830 per range and $500 for a "special event" range even if it's only a one off organised shoot. There's a lot more in there and submissions close 4 may.
It would be nice to have the established national bodies get a set of guidelines out so people can formulate their own replies. A copy n paste template is no good.

Don't forget, that that cost is the estimated Police Cost Recovery, the Shooting Range Inspector may also have costs associated as they will likely need travel to get on-site for the inspection and spend time actually doing their part and the write up.

All I see is my range that cost me a lot of time and money going up in smoke because those swine bastards at PNHQ think they know how to think.
What am I supposed to do when I want to shoot some targets? I cannot afford to buy their bullshit 'approval' I will be forced to shoot at different locations every time so there is no set range.
The neighbors are going to fucking love that.

You bastards at PNHQ reading this? Get a real job.

Originally Posted by 40mm

All I see is my range that cost me a lot of time and money going up in smoke because those swine bastards at PNHQ think they know how to think.
What am I supposed to do when I want to shoot some targets? I cannot afford to buy their bullshit 'approval' I will be forced to shoot at different locations every time so there is no set range.
The neighbors are going to fucking love that.

You bastards at PNHQ reading this? Get a real job.

I'd really like to see a justification from PNHQ on the value of this, a balanced scorecard on how these specific changes will "make us safer", reduce harm and crime in the community and identify specific cases where had this legislation been in place, a crime would have been prevented, failing that, an accident or injury would have been prevented. But not something related to human factors like a ND which could just as easily happen on a "certified range"

I'd like somewhere comfortable to wait though.

Originally Posted by imaca

I'd really like to see a justification from PNHQ on the value of this, a balanced scorecard on how these specific changes will "make us safer", reduce harm and crime in the community and identify specific cases where had this legislation been in place, a crime would have been prevented, failing that, an accident or injury would have been prevented. But not something related to human factors like a ND which could just as easily happen on a "certified range"

I'd like somewhere comfortable to wait though.

It's not about making us safer. It's about making it difficult so you give up and do something else

What he said.

Don't get lost in the minutia of the proposed regulations. Look at the big picture. There was no problem prior to the Police incompetence that permitted an Aussie psycho to get one of our FAL. None of the proposed changes stand up to a robust cost-benefit analysis, as incidents by licenced FAL holders have been very few and far between. This is all part of a much bigger push to make the average Kiwi citizen more pliable and compliant to forthcoming social engineering. Oh...but if you are a gang member...none of this applies to you.

My take: there's going to be an awful lot of 'pest control' being undertaken by mates of farmers on their private property.