Thread: Arms Bill - lead up to new Arms Act

Here it is, folks. Hot off the press, so to say.

It's only 232 pages - start reading and get your submissions prepared.

2025 12 Dec_Arms Bill.pdf

Reading with interest. Just a reminder that if we want to keep the thread open no discussion of politics, which, when discussing a law is somewhat difficult

the more things change the more they stay the same.

Something like this that affects every one of us can not be termed "political" and banned from discussion. Its too important.

Perhaps a new , seperate section specific to law changes might be in order ? Just thinking aloud...

Discuss the nuts and bolts of the draft act, and submission points, by all means.

Originally Posted by gimp

Discuss the nuts and bolts of the draft act, and submission points, by all means.

What I have observed, in the past, if someone decides they don't like what is being said they will start a political conversation to shut the whole thread down. Can you maybe on this occasion just give them a cooldown instead of shutting an otherwise generally productive conversation down?

Thats sort of why I wondered about a specific section where these subjects can be discussed - and contained.

A suspended LFO (temporary hold, often for investigation or health reasons) gets hit with immediate hand-in on request (clause 147), while a revoked LFO (permanent "unfit" finding) gets a 3-month grace to sell/hold onto their gear before mandatory delivery (clause 162). If revocation means you're too dangerous to own firearms, why do you get to keep them longer than during a suspension? And the suspension-to-revocation scenario do they hand your stuff back for 3 months and then find you in breech for illegal possession?

No appeal to the courts....... so we have to trust that the appointed board, of which we have no control over is fair and reasonable, why would we, when historically this has not been the case in any other jurisdiction?

'Fit and proper' not defined and can be interpreted by one person as they see fit. That is great if they are reasonable people, what if Phillip Alpers gets appointed to this position?

Just a few things as I am reading through. I am line by lining it though.

353 Direct access to licence information
(1) The Department of Conservation may have direct access to a licence holder’s licence information recorded in the registry.
(2) The purpose of the direct access is to provide administrative assistance to the 10 Director-General of Conservation in relation to the issue, under section 38 of
the Conservation Act 1987, of permits for hunting.

The Bill doesn't seem to place any obligation on DOC to ensure that the privacy or use of the information is protected. Unless it's somewhere else in the Bill?
It seems to be a very broad entitlement to peoples' information without any protecting provisions?

Later: My concern is covered ok in S357.

Originally Posted by Tahr

353 Direct access to licence information
(1) The Department of Conservation may have direct access to a licence holder’s licence information recorded in the registry.
(2) The purpose of the direct access is to provide administrative assistance to the 10 Director-General of Conservation in relation to the issue, under section 38 of
the Conservation Act 1987, of permits for hunting.

The Bill doesn't seem to place any obligation on DOC to ensure that the privacy or use of the information is protected. Unless it's somewhere else in the Bill?
It seems to be a very broad entitlement to peoples' information without any protecting provisions?

Later: My concern is covered ok in S357.

S357 does not actually safeguard the information on the registry nor it's access, just that the privacy commissioner has agreed to the terms between the departments. Very valid point Thar.

Also, from what I can tell, no more selling ammunition unless you are an approved seller. There is no provision for LFO to LFO that I can see.

Looks like reloading is closed for people not holding a license. (268). It is ridiculous that wasn't illegal anyway, but the implications probably include not being able to trade projectiles among ourselves or perhaps order them online

Arms Act 1983 was 86 sections and now we have 380 sections - this is not making things simpler or easier - it is taking the absolute fucking piss - A feast for solicitors if you have issues.

What I have read so far does not inspire much confidence. This just the current Act with some word smithing and essentially no tangible change.

Like, a pistol shooter will need an extra endorsement to use magazines >10 rounds wtf

Originally Posted by Beavis

What I have read so far does not inspire much confidence. This just the current Act with some word smithing and essentially no tangible change.

Like, a pistol shooter will need an extra endorsement to use magazines >10 rounds wtf

Well, no tangible change? more regulation really, when taken as a whole, with less FALO (Yep Fire Arms Licence Owner pronounced like Fallow, oh dear/deer) safeguards and the decision making process utterly at the whim of the regulator/police/minister. Change of government to one that viewed FALO's as bad would weaponise it in a heartbeat with appropriate appointments, think Phillip Alpers being recalled and given the Chief Executive role because of his 'knowledge and deep understanding' of firearms laws and the New Zealand landscape. (Not a political statement but a statement of what could potentially happen under said circumstances).

Sections 366 to 373. Cost recovery.