Thread: COLFO Submission Guide

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

Will submitt but can't say I'e seen notable changes from multiple submissions in the past 30 years. It's not hard to become a conspiracy theorist with an apparent concerted effort against legal firearm owners in the comonwealth.

I know why they want to limit reloading gear but it will just be another PITA for licensed firearm owners. On the other hand I don't mind sharing the pain with all the self centred who have supported other anti gun legislation. The most depressing is telling Australians (mostly non gun owners) that their "Great" laws wouldn't stop another event.

My take was that it is only placing limitation on non licence holders which gives authorities another charge that they can bring to bear. I am not opposed to it myself.

NEW ZEALAND ARMS BILL CONSULTATION GUIDE
Prepared by COLFO on 22 December 2025
Instructions:
You can copy the text below and paste it into a document or directly into a tool of your choice to
edit it. Remember, copy-pasted submissions that are not altered are only counted as ONE
submission. You must edit this template for it to be considered valid.
Customise it by adding your personal experiences, specific examples from your use of firearms,
and any additional thoughts. Make it unique with your personal experiences which all make
your submission stronger. Put it in your own words. Keep it honest and to the point.
Then, submit it via the Parliament submission portal before the deadline. Link below.
Submission deadline: 11.59 pm on Monday, 16 February 2026.
Process:
When you submit via the portal you have two options:
Upload a document containing your submission (.PDF, Word, Doc X, basically standard text
formats)
Or
Use the online submission form which has two sections:
“I/We wish to make the following comments” and “I/We wish to make the following
recommendations”
The template is structured accordingly. Look for RED TEXT as these are areas you should look to
update with your own details.
** Links you need**
Read the Bill
Read a summary explainer of the key changes
Make a submission
Important Note Regarding Oversight
This process is being overseen by Justice, NOT Police. That means you can speak your mind
without the fear of negative repercussions on your license from Police. Those who are still
worried may consider COLFO’s Sentinel Membership which provides legal protection for your
firearms license from non-criminal revocations for just $99 +GST per year.
Submission portal is here:
Make a submissionSubmission Template
Introduction
To the Justice Select Committee,
My name is XXX
I am a licensed firearm owner and have had my license since (YEAR). I use my firearms
predominantly for (insert the sporting disciplines you enjoy such as hunting, IPSC, clay targets,
collecting etc).
I am writing to express my general support for the Arms Bill as it is presented, however believe
that there are areas where it can be further improved to better balance the safety of all New
Zealanders, while also ensuring that law-abiding licensed firearm owners are not unfairly
targeted by police, burdened by impractical restrictions that do not enhance public safety, or
are treated as second-class citizens as we have been since 2019.
Add any personal experience or information you feel may give your submission more weight or
context.
Feedback on the Bill as it is Presented
I support the establishment of a new firearm regulatory agency led by an independent Chief
Executive who is tasked with enabling legitimate civilian ownership and use of firearms within
New Zealand. Since 2019 the relationship between Police and licensed firearm owners has
been irreparably damaged since they scape-goated licensed firearm owners and firearm laws
to avoid taking accountability for the Christchurch terror attack. Since then, Police have treated
licensed firearm owners as potential criminals, have bullied, threatened and used their powers
to intimidate our community without any checks and balances. They have mishandled data
leading to multiple data breaches, have had significant scandals such as McSkimming’s, and
have proven that they are not the right agency to deal with the administration and regulations
that govern what law-abiding people do. The police exist to catch criminals, not administer
systems for law abiding people, so let them focus on criminals and take firearms administration
away from them. They can still share information with the new agency as they do with Drivers
licenses, but should have no control over the new agency which is handles civil issues, not
criminal matters.
I do support a clarified information sharing agreement between the firearms safety authority
and Police. Although Police should have no control over the regulator, I acknowledge that the
information is important to the safety of frontline officers. As such they should be able to
access the register in a limited capacity that does not expose the register to potential data
breaches at scale.
I strongly support the creation of a Firearms Licensing Review Committee. The current system
disproportionately stacks the deck in favour of the police revoking licenses by expectingeveryday people to be able to represent themselves legally in a non-transparent process that
places significant stress and consequences on the person effected. This process should still
allow lawyers to represent the licensed firearm owner if they choose due to the high-stakes and
emotional stress, however it is a positive improvement to the system. However, the right to
appeal a revocation decision by the committee to the courts should always be maintained if the
individual chooses to do so. This protects against a committee being overly biased against
licensed firearm owners or overly zealous on revoking licenses.
I strongly support that gang membership is an automatic disqualifying factor for firearms
licensing. Gangs are criminal organisations and we should not be granting licenses to those
who have committed their lives to living outside the law and doing harm in our society.
I support the introduction of 90-day infringement periods for minor level offenses such as
transport requirements, or repeated storage issues. This allows time for the licensed firearm
owner to recognise they have breached the law and provides them with the opportunity to fix
their behaviour without the need for a full revocation with a subsequent 5 year stand down
period.
Health-related licence suspensions extended to 12 months is a positive change. Mental health
issues within licensed firearm owners are a growing concern and the current system punishes
licensed firearm owners if they choose to seek professional help. It is important to balance both
the safety of the individual needing help and the public, but revoking a license causes
significant mental distress and a loss of identity for gun owners. It could be improved by
allowing the person to still use firearms under supervision so they can still go hunting etc. with
friends which helps improve their mental health while also providing food for their families or
doing key tasks relating to their job if firearms are needed. There needs to be options to suit
individual circumstances that do not discourage LFOs from seeking medical assistance.
Pistol magazines with more than 10 rounds being restricted to only endorsed pistol license
holders, or appropriately vetted collectors is sensible.
The change from “dealers licenses” to business licenses is a practical step which helps include
NZ based manufacturers, pest controllers, and gunsmiths who are not strictly ‘dealing’
firearms. The requirement for businesses to notify police of all surrendered items rather than
just endorsed items seems overly burdensome on both businesses and the Police as it is
unlikely that criminals will surrender firearms used in crime through businesses. So long as
Police can check the item is not stolen against the register, then that should be enough.
The permanent alteration to make prohibited firearms to make them compliant can be a good
step to allow for family heirlooms such as .22 tube fed magazines to be kept altered to be
compliant with new rules. There should be a clause explicitly stating that the deactivation offirearms cannot be applied to valuable collectors items or impact those granted a collector’s
license, as that would destroy the value of the items.
The creation of new offenses such as intentional diversion of firearms, and possession of
firearms with intentionally removed serial number explicitly targets criminals and are good
steps aimed at improving public safety. Unsafe storage and the possession of blueprints are
concerning because they rely on the judgement of the attending officer. Ammunition
temporarily being transported or sitting loose after a purchase or reloading session may be
interpreted as ‘improper’ by an officer, and the intention of owning blueprints is subjective.
Increasing the penalties for non-licensed firearm owners finally punishes those who choose to
ignore firearm laws more than those who choose to follow the law, so I strongly support this
principle.
License extensions to help curb the historical bell curve of applications is positive so long as a
new card is issued. Otherwise, the individual will be faced with explaining when travelling,
buying ammunition etc. with explaining why their license card is not valid. Especially when cell
phone reception may not be an option for checking the license online.
I support the clarified definition of “premises” for secure storage requirements. It gives
flexibility for people to store firearms at a different location if they are students, travelling, use a
workplace safe or are renting, to safely secure their firearms.
I oppose the provision that requires any standard firearm or part manufactured by a firearms
licence holder in their personal capacity for personal use to be sold only through a licensed
business. This rule applies unnecessary restrictions to non-commercial, low-volume activities.
Items such as bipods, cheek risers, handgrips, stocks, or other accessories made for personal
use pose minimal risk. They do not alter firearm function in ways that justify mandatory dealer
involvement. Licensed owners already meet fit and proper standards. Direct private sales of
these personally made items allow verification of the buyer's licence. This maintains
traceability without added burdens. The requirement limits legitimate hobbyist work. It reduces
incentives for skill development in safe manufacturing practices. Current controls suffice for
standard items. This change adds administrative hurdles. It contradicts the Bill's goals of
simplifying requirements for compliant users.
I strongly support the regulator requirement to consult directly with firearms community and
can publish guidance on their website via the Ministers Arms Advisory Group. This ensures that
the voice of those who are affected most by the laws (those who must live by them) have an
input into the process. The Advisory group should include a mandatory member of the COLFO
Board to ensure that all disciplines have at least one representative from the community who
has an oversight over all firearm sports.I support fee reviews every five years and tiered fee structure however these must be tied to a
marker of economic process such as inflation. This prevents the FSA from increasing the fees to
cover inefficient operating costs and ensures that licensed firearm owners and the public are
not responsible for anything but core functions. The cost of firearms licensing should be
considered a public benefit due to the positive work that hunters and shooters for conservation
and local food banks. People getting licenses rather than operating outside the system is
essential to public safety so the cost of this should not only be on the applicant. It should not be
a seen as a purely user pays system.
I support the provision that restricts the Arms Regulator from including information in the
firearms registry beyond what regulations explicitly require. This change imposes strict legal
limits on recorded data and prevents scope creep. It protects privacy for licensed owners and
mitigates the exposure of private data when the register is eventually compromised by a data
leak or malicious access.
I support the extension of the endorsement duration on a firearms licence held by an animal
and biosecurity controller from the current 2 years and 6 months to 5 years. This change
reduces unnecessary administrative burdens. It affects both the Arms Regulator and
endorsement holders. Full re-applications every 2.5 years add load without added safety.
I support the removal of permits to possess by gunsmiths for short term repair work though this
should be increased to 10 working days or 14 days. Due to the dwindling number of gunsmiths,
many of whom are single owner operators, burdening trusted gunsmiths with paperwork not
only reduces their profitability, but also does nothing to improve public safety.
I support the extension of import permit duration for business licence holders from 30 days to
12 months. This eases the paperwork for all partes in a world with shipping delays and
international supply chain issues. This change does not negatively impact public safety.
I support extending business licence duration to five years for compliant holders if they have
been operating for more than 2 years. At that point they have proven that they can be trusted
and annual license fees create inefficiencies for the regulator and the business with no gain in
public safety.
I support the clarified definition of manufacture in clause 5. The Bill now includes modifying,
converting, or otherwise altering the function of an arms item. It should exclude purely
aesthetic changes from this definition. Examples include painting, cerakoting, engraving,
stippling grips, or applying cosmetic finishes. These do not impact firearm function. They pose
no safety risk. The current wording risks over-regulation. Licensed owners often customise
firearms for personal preference. Such changes improve comfort without altering operation.I support a formalised red flag system. Individuals who are flagged as potential terror suspects,
gang members, or who are connected to extremist or violent ideologies should not have access
to firearms and be subject to firearm prohibition orders.
I Wish to Make the Following Recommendations
When it comes to the legislation, there must be a return to the standard of all licensed firearm
owners being considered innocent until proven guilty. As such, no provision should allow for
pre-emptive restrictions or penalties based on unproven claims. This ensures that licensed
firearms owners are treated as responsible citizens unless culpability is established beyond a
reasonable doubt in a court of law.
I believe that in alignment with fundamental principles of justice, the burden of demonstrating
non-compliance or wrongdoing must rest solely with the prosecuting authorities. This shift
eliminates presumptions against licensed owners and ensures that allegations are
substantiated through evidence, thereby safeguarding individual rights during legal
proceedings.
There must be protections in place to prevent unjust search or seizure of privately and lawfully
owned property. These include the re-establishment of requirements for warrants, mandating
judicial authorisation for all searches, with exceptions narrowly defined and subject to
immediate post-action review. And fair compensation for seizure or disposal of property,
ensuring that owners receive equitable reimbursement for lawfully owned items confiscated
without due process, calculated at current market value.
In the General Policy Statement, the line “The New Zealand firearms regulatory system allows
individuals considered “fit and proper” to possess arms items” should be rewritten to read:
“The New Zealand firearms regulatory system grants individuals considered “fit and proper” the
right to possess arms items, subject to safeguards”. This recognises that all New Zealanders, if
they qualify as being ‘fit and proper’ are entitled to legally own firearms once they are
appropriately licensed. This change acknowledges the historical role firearms have had in our
culture and normalises legal ownership and use of firearms into the future.
The line “The Bill introduces additional safeguards to ensure that only responsible users can
access arms items” Should read: “The Bill introduces additional safeguards to ensure that only
responsible users can lawfully access arms items.”.
Section 69 determines the criteria for what makes a “Fit and Proper” person. This is the
standard that sets who these laws will apply to. Section 69-2-c which states: “any othermatters the chief executive considers relevant” should be removed. This vague and subjective
metric has been used by police to bully, intimidate and threaten licensed firearm owners. The
Chief Executive should not have the power to subjectively decline or revoke a license without
objective reasons that can be consistently applied. If the standard can be objectively applied
(like gang membership or affiliation) it should be included in the legislation.
Similarly to the previous statement, section 69-3-b which states “consider information
obtained from any source” should also be removed. The quality of information is not stated and
may be used to include unverified complaints by malicious romantic partners, anonymous
rumours, or other unverified information which is not fair or effective at determining whether
someone is fit and proper to own firearms legally. Section 69-4 says the applicant must have
the right to respond, though this is meaningless if the executive has the power to deny or revoke
a license without oversight.
All changes that are being made, which increase the burdens on the regulator or the licensed
firearm community, should always come back to the question: Does this meaningfully impact
public safety? And if so, what evidence supports that position? If the answer is that is not clear,
then the change should not be made until evidence can be objectively assessed.
I do not support the continuation of the firearms register for A-category firearms. Despite it
being in the process of being populated, I am aware of errors within the current system. These
will only increase in time as more users and firearms are registered. It does not improve public
safety because only licensed firearm owners will register their guns, criminals are already
removing serial numbers, and the existence of the register exposes my data to a future data
breach that puts my safety at risk of exposure. We have not been provided any evidence that the
register decreases gun crime and as a result, we should save the money and invest that in more
front-line officers to target criminals importing and using firearms to harm our society.
With the increased messages regarding environmental damage by introduced species such as
goats, pigs and deer, I support the reintroduction of autoloading hunting rifles that do not have
a large capacity detachable/swappable magazine. With a magazine limit of 5 rounds. These
rifles would grant the appropriately licensed hunter the tools necessary to address and assist in
NZ’s conservation efforts. Standard bolt action rifles may allow a hunter the chance to engage
one or two goats within a mob while hunting, however the autoloading hunting rifles would
allow them to double this which is a benefit to the environment. These rifles differ from what
some refer to as “MSSA’s” as they are designed specifically for hunting with smaller capacity
magazines that are slower to reload making them suitable for hunting but largely unfit for
criminal purposes.
To make the law consistent, I support standardising magazine capacity at 10 rounds for Acategory firearms. This balances safety with practical utility for hunting, sport, and wild animal
control. This limit provides sufficient functionality without necessitating reclassification ofmanual-action firearms, such as pump-actions, which should all be in Category A to reflect
their non-semi-automatic nature.
I support the return of centrefire semiautomatic competition firearms under strict licensing
conditions such as the previous E-category endorsement. Prior to 2019, the endorsement
system was an effective way to ensure that only the most trusted and well-trained individuals
could have access to semi-automatic centrefire sporting rifles. The licensing could be done
with similar regulations as we see for pistols in a way that allows our world class competitors to
train and compete on a global stage without creating a public safety risk.
Thank you to the Select Committee for your fair and reasonable consideration of the firearms
law that I and 232,000 licensed firearm owners must abide by. Firearms and hunting are a core
part of New Zealand’s history. The work this committee is undertaking will ensure that
tomorrows hunters, conservationists, collectors and law-abiding firearm owners, have a place
in the future of our nation.