Go Paula the hunter!!
Printable View
Go Paula the hunter!!
Senidng to all of the comittee bar nz first, and also sending to paula bennett:
This is a response to the select committees final report on this subject, from a firearms license holder, a military officer and a voter.
I am frustrated and alarmed at the findings of this committee. The findings will have minimal impact on criminal possession of firearms, while introducing expensive time consuming, and practically unenforceable regulations on law abiding firearms license holders.
My first concern is that the recommendations in this report focus on increasing regulations and restrictions on license holders. These people have been vetted by the NZ police and deemed fit and proper. We abide by the law. How does increasing draconian restrictions on the already law abiding reduce illegal possession of firearms? The answer is of course, it doesn’t. Criminals will just flout more regulation and continue their behaviour. If changes are to be made, the end state must be an impact on illegal possession, not on the law abiding. There is no recommendation for increased customs screening of incoming shipments for example, to reduce firearms smuggled into New Zealand. Why not? Was this even considered? This would reduce the number of illegal firearms entering the country, without placing ineffective restrictions on the law abiding. Criminals don’t care about permits to procure, or endorsements, or security standards. None of these recommended changes is going to affect them.
Currently arms officers barely cope with the existing workload such as license renewal inspections and processing of permits to procure - the very document itself says that they are under resourced and now the committee is suggesting a Permit to Procure to be required for every firearm purchase and in the same breath saying that registration is unenforceable but yet that's exactly what they are trying to do. They aren't even capable of doing a good bullshitting job!
We recommend to the Government that the law be amended to make it clear that
the secure storage requirements must be met to the satisfaction of the Police, before a
licence or endorsement can be issued.
The report wants clarity on the storage requirements yet, strangely is not clear on what these requirements are? As for the "satisfaction of the Police"... That sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion. This ‘up to police interpretation’ policy has already been challenged by NZ license holders when Richard Lincoln took the NZ police to court and won his case. Several more instances of legal action are now pending as a result of police changing their ‘interpretation’ of the law. I'm referring to overall length measurement of MSSA as an example, originally it was measured extended - now it's apparently measured collapsed. If the storage requirements are left to police discretion my 6mm thick safe may suddenly become "unsatisfactory" tomorrow and police will require a 10mm safe to be installed. Which will be possibly regarded by many as an attempt to price shooters out of the hobby.
The recommendations do nothing to resolve the NZ polices embarrassing burglary of firearms resolution rate. (circa 9%). Surely even aiming to increase this, would have a greater result on reducing illegally held firearms, and not cause unwarranted restrictions on the law abiding? Was this raised during the select committee?
The proposals would Empower NZ police to decide what firearms they want restricted, with no justification (already happening and pending legal action as a result), to enter with no warrant, and inspect our bolt action firearms. Why is it deemed acceptable to effectively carry out warrantless searches on the deemed fit and proper, which by definition are held to a higher level of accountability that the general public, when this is not acceptable behaviour on criminals?
Police cannot cope with the current workload, eg license renewals, permits to procure and registration of ‘e’ and ‘b’ classification firearms in NZ, so how are they going to cope with the massive workload increase, and the associated costs?
Most embarrassingly, the report contradicts itself in regards to registration of firearms. Initially the report states
We recommend that instead of creating a firearms register, the legislation be amended to
require the Police to record the serial numbers of firearms owned by licence holders.
Clearly arguing against a register, which given the Canadian experience seems most sensible! The Canadians spent billions, far exceeding their budget on their registry, achieving a compliance rate far lower than what was required, and Canadian officials admitted that it had no net benefit! Worse, was the multiple security breaches of the database, resulting in a shopping list of firearms and their location for persons unknown. To date the Canadian registry has not been credited with solving ANY crime. It is no wonder that after several years, no benefit, and billions of dollars, that the Canadians repealed their registry. Simply, criminals will not register their illegal firearms before using them to commit crime. Maddingly the report later contradicts itself, stating
We recommend to the Government that the law be amended to require the Police
to record the serial numbers of all firearms possessed by licence holders upon renewal of
their licence or inspection of their premises.
This ‘database’ IS a registry. It is functionally identical, with the title being the only difference. So the committee doesn’t want a registry, but it does! It is later confirmed that although a registry is not recommended, it is exactly what is recommended, as per the following statement.
We recommend that a permit to procure be required for the sale or transfer of all firearms.
The permit process would give details of firearms transactions to the Police and it would
allow them to slowly build up a database of firearms possessed by individuals
The Canadians repealed their registry due to the time and expense involved, while providing no benefit to reducing illegally held firearms. Why is this being recommended? How is this meant to reduce firearms crime in New Zealand? I believe that the compliance rate will be very poor, due to what the firearms community has observed in Australia and the UK, where registration databases were then used to confiscate firearms at a later date after more law changes. I would sincerely appreciate any answers to the questions I have raised.
Frustratingly, most of the changes appear to have an end state of making life difficult for the law abiding with now impact on criminals. I see this as an attack on me, a law abiding firearms license holder. As a result I will not vote for any party involved in this committee. NZ first was the only party to raise similar concerns during the process, and I will be encouraging all of the 250,000 licensed firearms holders to vote for NZ first in order to preserve our shooting heritage.
I think we all need to take a bit of spare time & write to MP's outlining our concerns.
Time to get salty on them emails I think.
May actually put together a few bulletpoints and arrange a short get together with my local MP. Will put on my best smiley face :)
So what happens when a rifle that has its serial number stored in a "database" gets stolen? Will the database magically track it down or will the licenced, fit and propper registered owner be prosecuted for insufficient storage?
WANKERS!!
Sent from my SM-G388F using Tapatalk
Have not voted for either of the 2 major controlling party's ever...... short of blowing up parliament or somehow mind controlling "Sir Peter Talley"(What a fucking JOKE that is!) I dont know how we could effect the status quo other than halting immigration.....totally.
We are overfull already....and there is a lot that should go back whence they came , A bit redneck perhaps but I make no apology at all for that.
If every firearm owner voted for a keep your guns party maybe we would have a chance....but most would be more concerned with weather the govt will charge them tax on capital gains on the 15 houses they own:omg: than if they keep their guns they never use./
They don't recommend registration because they don't think it will achieve anything, in the next sentence they recommend recording all serial numbers....permit to procure for ALL firearms, how is that not exactly what they recommended would not achieve anything?
Sounds like Police are going to have their wishes and be spending all day doing admin recording and permitting firearms transactions and ammo sales. Be much easier for crims than is now. Sit outside Police station and watch.
If this wider permit to procure recommendation came to pass, there are enough licenced firearm owners in this country to drown them in their own paperwork.
All a 230000+ strong user group would have to do is transfer possession of a single firearm each between a mate, each and every week and just break the system.
Just wondering if this will mean there will be any changes on types of weapons we can by with each type of endorsement?
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Can anyone give a list of names in the bee hive that are pro and neg firearms?
No I get what you mean.
Another consideration. Where does it leave people with regard to borrowing firearms? For pistols, MSSA's etc, you need a P2P to take possesion of a gun, then the old owner needs a P2P to take it back. What happens if a Dad lends his son a rifle, son gets stopped by a cop that wants to check the ownership of the gun, and finds it doesn't belong to him? Under the current system for MSSA's, both parties would find themselves in deep shit.
Also if I have read the recommendations correctly, police would now have the same search powers for A cat owners, that they do for restricted weapons. They can enter your premise and demand an inspection and audit of your firearms and security without a search warrant. Guys like me are used to that (and lol if they ever have the staff and time to do it), but how would it sit with the rest of the gun owning population knowing you literally have less rights than a real criminal?
in the third paragraph of the introduction they wrote "Thus, our recommendations aim to reduce the flow of firearms to criminals, gangs, and those who do not have a licence, without unfairly impinging on law-abiding firearms users."
yet by their own comments and recommendations, they seem to have disregarded the criminal element and have tried to place the burden right back on law abiding "fit and proper" persons.
Recommendation to the Government that the permit to procure process be extended to cover the sale or transfer of all firearms. Permit to procure for ALL firearms- It is already evident by the delays in processing that the Police cannot cope with the volume of work they have now, and this would likely increase the required resources many times over, and these resources would be better suited to targeting ACTUAL crimes. Also with a database and increased access to this by large numbers of people means it will essentially be a list of where you can steal what you are looking for....Criminal shopping list? And being electronic, the list of those who will have access will be huge. These registration lists are inaccurate, and become unwieldy and inaccurate. By their own admission, the paper based system was 66% inaccurate and from my professional experience, adding computers to this does NOT make it any more prone to accuracy. In fact, it will make it easier for larger numbers of people to access(and potentially alter) the information including non police personnel (Trade me is even specifically mentioned even though it is a corporate and insecure site.) And what does it gain? Registration and permits to procure will effectively become a bureaucratic entanglement where the only people who want to use it will be the very people who should NOT have access to that information.
Recommendation to the Government that the Police investigate the creation of a category of restricted semi-automatic firearm (rifle and shotgun) to replace the MSSA firearm endorsement category. There are so many semi auto 22 rifles alone (Think Ruger 10/22) that are not MSSA. To make these MSSA will not make any difference to the firearms going to criminals. In fact this will likely INCREASE the number of firearms being dumped into criminals hands as the cost of complying with the law (getting a license endorsement and / increased security costs) will far exceed the value of the rifle. An endorsement costs $200 and the 6mm safe is $500 to $1000 or more, where the rifles such as the Ruger 10/22 etc are $400 to $500 brand new and often half that for second hand. The cheapest option for owners will be to "give" them to crims" simply so they do not end up holding onto them. Add this to the many many semi autos out there (one of the cheapest rifles sold in NZ new is a semi auto) and this whole idea can be seen for the impractical and stupid idea that it really is. A better suggestion would be reduce the entire category back to A category and apply the endorsement for permission to own the large capacity magazines. Make the restrictions "specific and measurable" and not open to interpretation. How does the shape of a handle make a firearm more or less dangerous? Does the colour of a car do the same? If a car has a rear spoiler, does that mean it can go faster? The whole MSSA debacle and the definition problems have occurred because of an emotive and reactionary approach rather than a common sense and realistic approach. Clearly the government is able to learn from its errors. We have seen this in the way we now have LAMS motorcycles as an improvement on the 250cc restriction we used to have for learner riders. Common sense and someone who understood the dynamics of the problem was able to address this and made it safer.
Recommendation to the Government that the Arms Act 1983 be amended to clearly state that a gang member or prospect must not be considered a fit and proper person to possess firearms and therefore must not hold a firearms licence.Finally a bit of common sense.
Recommendation to the Government that the law be amended to require the Police to record the serial numbers of all firearms possessed by licence holders upon renewal of their licence or inspection of their premises. If this registration is such a good idea, why did Canada abandon it for being too expensive and not providing any actual practical use?
What I found most disappointing was that there were only 400odd submissions made to the committee in the first place.
A real missed opportunity.
Well yes as they have recommended the Police go away and come up with a new classification for ALL semi auto firearms and also Police to come up with what they think security requirements should be.
Basically whatever Police made in their secret submission.
As above, if the Police get what they want I think they just want to make it really hard to purchase and import firearms by making process difficult is I think their aim to restrict as they have not been able to qualify new laws on any other reasonable grounds.
On another note to understand police on this new Police Union boss doesn't believe we should be allowed to legally shoot any pistols or mssa, or A cat semis.
Despite I'm sure at some stage of being a cop he done some training at one of NZ's pistol or NZDA ranges that also cater to Police.
I would support changes that allowed stricter penalties for people who breach the arms code or people that use guns in a crime, hopefully it becomes a deterrent. These recommended changes only penalize the law abiding. How do the police actually plan to enforce this? I waited two years for a safe inspection after moving house, and that only came after I moved again!
Well that is not entirely true as not necessarily a numbers game and there was some pretty good submissions made amongst some retard ones on the other side.
Not to mention select committee had a fair amount of time to accurately research facts on stated aim of enquiry and what they basically came back with is what everyone expected was what Police were telling them needs to happen.
I now believe NZ police top brass to be of a very low intellect level. They could have surely come up with some better ideas than they have.
I mean why have I ever been a little nervous being grilled by vetting officers over the years questioning anything and everything like exactly how many beers I drank when fit and proper person doesn't already cover gang members?
Yes, and fortunately for us shooters NZF is pretty good all round but we need at least one party that has our backs or else we can kiss this sport good-bye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1QzZ15-L38
COLFO
Colfo breakdown of the report.
Well at least the army is doing their bit to inspire the next generation in to owning MSSA weapons!
Guns big part of army leadership roadshow at primary schools | Stuff.co.nz
I am going to write to the minster of Police the PM and my MP I know it probably won't have any affect other than add to the pile of emails they get each day as I have done it before all I got was a reply from their flunkies
saying thank you,
Any one who thinks there are more important issues like eduction, healthcare, housing in this election are fooling themselves if the police get away with it this time we may not have any firearms at the next election
so get your heads out of the sand and fight back or we are heading for a police state,
Don't vote for National Labour or the Greens all of them want your guns at present only NZ first has our backs I hope that the NZ Outdoors party can get organised in time would be good to have another choice for those
that don't like Winston, MMP is all about tactical voting unfortunately most NZ'ers can't seem to figure it out otherwise we would not be in the position we are now, heading the way of the super nanny state England
And the next big problem with the only useful bit they came up with will be the definition of 'gang member' without impinging on the rights of others.
Everything else is a complete contradiction of the aims stated at the beginning.
That's true Gadget.
Quite true.
I found this on the police association website: The New Zealand Police Association is a voluntary service organisation representing 8,600 constabulary police members across all ranks of the NZ Police. The Association also represents over 2,300 Police employees.
Section 5 part 2 of the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Act 2013 No 56, Public Act – New Zealand Legislation states
"The Minister of Police may not make a recommendation under subsection (1) unless he or she is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation, association, or group proposed to be identified has the following characteristics:
(a) a common name or common identifying signs, symbols, or representations; and
(b) its members, associates, or supporters individually or collectively promote, encourage, or engage in criminal activity."
And this is referenced for definition of GANG in the report. My problem is that it does not require proof of criminal activity only "reasonable grounds". And we know what "reasonable grounds" means when they decide to assess whether a stock is E or A cat....