Greetings All,
My Inbox this morning contained an Email from NZDA about this, the first proposed amendments to the Arms Act. As the name implies it deals with Shooting Clubs and Ranges. It does not deal with Firearms Licences. Worth a read if you are interested.
GPM.
Yes good work from Nicole. I see it passed its first reading on Thursday.
What is the "Section 6" that was originally meant to be revoked, but National have renegged on.
Personally I don't mind there being some sort of register for non pistol clubs and ranges. It adds a degree of consistency across all including those unaffiliated to any national body already.
Removing the onerous reporting and allowing greater freedom with temporary ranges and activities on existing setups is a positive.
Part 6 is what the amendment is mostly about. The amendment, if passed, repeals and replaces the previous Part 6 of the previous Act. It is a little different than what was proposed a few months back if you read both documents.
GMP.
Part 6 Amended not Repealed as promised by National & Act before the Election. National caved to the Anti-Gun mob rhetoric led by Ginny Anderson of Labour. And that is exactly where the Review of the Register will go. National will cave again. Remember. That is all.
Also, factor in it is easier to "amend" than "repeal". There is a bigger set of works on in the review of the Arms Act and possible eventual replacement - making Section 6 more functional now and less onerous to comply with in the interim while the full new Arms Act works are conducted is an acceptable workaround solution to me.
Correction. I see from a later NZDA Email that Part 6 is amended rather than repealed and replaced. A technical difference.
NDM.
Please make a submission - even if it is only to say " I support the amendments"
Add your own coments or suggestions if you wish , but at least make a submission. If you do nothing and get steamrolled by the anti-gun brigade then you only have yourself to blame .
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/m...eid=469174fd0d
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill...d0d#d3052425e2
Done.
Bang on the money, mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSA
Said to see ACT is not keeping its promise.
Mark Mitchell said last week on TV that the register will stay as long as he is police minister.
Well, I wouldn't consider him the brightest of shining lights in terms of police ministering. Seems like a relatively easy fix hahaQuote:
Originally Posted by RUMPY
After potato Williams and kiri Allen he looks quite shiny though you have to admit
Greetings,
I note that Section 96 of the Act, as amended, allows the responsible Minister to conduct a review of the Act between 25 June 2026 and 25 December 2027. These dates are a hangover from the earlier Act but I wonder why they were not changed.
GPM.
Having just read through the proposed legislative change wording, I note that although there is clearly proposed change away from Police to Justice, the Police Commissioner to the Secretary of Justice and from the Minister of Police to an alternate “responsible Minister” there is still a very strong connection to Police when it comes to the wording associated with the inspection of clubs and ranges. Thinking about that, I can see that there is a considerable level of knowledge and experience residing in those people currently performing these tasks which would not be possible to immediately transition to other different people within the Department of Justice who do not have that same level of knowledge and experience. However even though I reached that conclusion, it causes me to wonder whether all of the change included in the proposed legislative wording will be nothing much more than cosmetic if the same people at ground level are still doing the doing? Noting also that these change are the first of many more being worked upon.
Greetings @Rushy and all,
There definitely is more to come. The review into registration of firearms still needs to be completed before any further changes to the Act are considered and by my count there are about 18 months left before the 2026 Election silly season descends upon us. We live in interesting times.
Regards Grandpamac.
About 12 -15 months before the 2026 election silly season begins.Quote:
Originally Posted by grandpamac
If the firearms act is to be further amended, imho, the bill would need to be introduced early in 2025 and passed by September 2025.
The coalition government won't want any debate of firearms legislation in an election year.
Nor should we as it would enable and empower the anti-gun lunatics who rely on scare tactics and misinformation.
If anyone wants a good reason why the Police should have nothing to do with the Register it is the revelation that a) Police are duplicating the Register in their NIA database, b) It is not only your Firearms information that Police are collecting in the Register. It is massive overreach enabled by very rushed and sloppy Law/Legislation making.
@ BSA I would be interested to know where / how you got the revelation for a). I struggle to comprehend how the Police would have the resource for such a major effort as duplication of the data that they already have access to via the FSA which they manage. That said I would imagine a link from the FSA register to the information about endorsement holders endorsed firearms held in the Police NIA would be useful to them during this transitional period.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSA
The Police continuing to run the NIA was covered off by Cam Slater after his 'interesting' issues at the recent arms auction (Ruahine???)
We are a little over a year and a bit into a five year transition period. I reckon that while there is still even one endorsement holder that hasn’t put his/her endorsed firearms information into the FSA register, the Police will need to keep the endorsed firearms records in the NIA. I will admit to being biased when it comes to Cam Slater though. I wouldn’t give that bigoted racist prick the smell off of a week old crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by XR500
Harsh Rushy Harsh but his OIA over their Breaching his Privacy is going to be very interesting indeed I'm thinking. Regardless your thoughts of Mr Slater he appears to have knocked the scab off a suppurating wound. We live in interesting times do we not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
We most certainly do! Globally, internationally, nationally and locally.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSA
People (and I use the term loosely) like Slater are not who I would want to be seen as representing FAL ownersQuote:
Originally Posted by BSA
He's just a slimy little worm
The Good oil is just that....Good...straight up.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSA
Weellll, I think his original blog (Whale Oil Beef Hooked) sums the deal up. For those that never got it, say the name fast in a Scottish accent...
[QUOTE=BSA;1619054] a) Police are duplicating the Register in their NIA database,
Are you sure of that? There is no interface between NIA and the register, hence why no B and C stuff has been copied over yet, but its planned to have one written in the future to allow a cross check on B and C items in the register.
[QUOTE=Percy Jones;1619250]If it is for Police use only there doesn't have to be. Especially if they are going to lose control of the FSA/TTP. Remember the Security Camera issue and Police collecting info/data illegally. There is a lot of skulduggery goes on that people would not credit.Quote:
Originally Posted by BSA
Greeting,
Enough of the conspiracy theories. Mr Oil's lack reliability has been well established by the libel cases that have been brought against him some successful. Let's just concentrate on what is actually happening in the changes in firearms legislation and how we may navigate the future in our sport.
Regards Grandpamac.
I'm happy that Mr Slater is out there making noise about the absurdities facing FAL holders. The MSM won't objectively cover issues with the new register or the law changes, so at least he offers another perspective. His blog has a surprisingly large reach.
Slater isn't very credible. Hardly the voice I want to hear on our issues.
Likely appeals to a small segment of the pros and to none of the antis.
Are you credible enough to explain what in his recent articles about firearms isn't credible?
Credibility is attached to past behaviour and conduct, not what he says on some specific issues. He might be quite correct on some issues. But he is a bad voice for us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Slater
I would wager my left nut that his assertion that Police are duplicating the FSA register data into the NIA is pure fantasy and made mention of by him for reasons of sensationalist attention grabbing.
You might be right. There might also be a perfectly legal and valid reason the police is doing this too. Or not, I would be interested to know what the truth of the matter is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
He's not a voice for all FAL holders. He's an independent blogger who posts his opinion on things. He doesn't represent any firearms organisation that I'm aware of and no one in the MSM goes to him for comment. He is as entitled anyone else to post a blog with his opinions online.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
I thought we weren't allowed to do POLITICS!?
we're allowed until the admins say we aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Shields
Not being B or C enabled (have the interest to do it but also have the procrastination power to never have!) - I am a little surprised that a check in on B and C peoples wasn't like the first thing done. My impression was any regulatory interest like that would trigger an activating event requiring them to enter their stuff into the new register which (and I admit this is likely a deeply flawed logic haha) would make the old database inaccurate and no longer required.
Maybe I'm seriously underthinking that one.
Attachment 260306
As an operator of several "non-club affiliated" rifle ranges, and having had a bunch of input to a bunch of other range's certification applications I see this "enrollment" as an improvement but the devil will be in the detail. I am quite disappointed the "Repeal of Section 6" has not come to pass, as was promised pre-election.
The wording of the Act is vague at best and I suspect we won't see any detail until we see the wording of the Regulations. For example there isn't any detail in the bill as to what "information and documents that are prescribed" means. And the Commissioner may still "make whatever inquiries the Commissioner considers necessary" and request the applicant "provide any further information"...
The Department of Justice Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) lines up non-pistol shooting ranges to be certified by the "Regulator" or by a "Governing Body" but doesn't go further into the definition of a "governing body". At first impression my guess is that "governing body" is meant to refer to one of the national shooting organisations (e.g. Pistol NZ, NRA, NZDA, TSNZ, Clay Target NZ, etc.). The RIS also doesn't go into any further detail about what regulations may be imposed on these "governing bodies" - for example it will be interesting to see if the range manuals for a governing body will have to be approved by the "regulator", and if they do then will those new range manuals have to meet the current FSA/Police Range Manual...
Lastly, a minor point... but if I have submitted a range certification application but have not yet received my certificate by the time the act is ammended will I get a refund? And then I can pay the separate (possibly less fee for "enrollment"? If I have a currently certified range, will I still have to pay the enrollment fee?
