Thread: E cat safe/safe room options

Originally Posted by systolic

My guns are worth shitloads of money. That is why my security far exceeds what is required.

As I said a few posts above, my security would still be the same if I was allowed to just keep them under the bed.

It's not a competition to see who can get the least amount of security signed off. Well, not for me anyway.

Shit the bed!!! I agree with you I will read that all again, this can't be so.

Originally Posted by systolic

My guns are worth shitloads of money. That is why my security far exceeds what is required.

As I said a few posts above, my security would still be the same if I was allowed to just keep them under the bed.

It's not a competition to see who can get the least amount of security signed off. Well, not for me anyway.

I do agree that security needs to be at least what they are asking. In my mind, if you are not prepared to secure your firearms to the very best of your ability, then you should question whether you are a "fit and proper" person to hold a license. A fit and proper person will take every step possible to control the possession and use of their firearms.

But I have a minor issue with them stating how much is enough in a minor way. If something happens the onus is then taken off the thief / perpetrator and placed on the owner to prove the measures were enough.

Here is a parallel situation as an example.

Motorcycles safety: It is a very good idea to ride with the headlight on so other vehicles see the rider. And I almost always ride with the headlight on. But I will always object to making it compulsory. If a motorcyclist is hit by a car in a situation where the car did not see them (probably because they did not look), then it is clearly the cars fault. But if you make headlights on compulsory, and then the same situation occurs, now the injured motorcyclist has to prove he had his light on because the car driver can easily claim "I did not see him so therefore his light must have been off". If it is off, then it must be his fault I did not see him....Where, in truth, it is still the car drivers fault for not looking. Trains have their lights on and too many car drivers manage to not see those too......Not looking is the problem.


It does not matter if your guns are in a safe, an alarmed strong room or a fort knox bank vault with three guards on duty, or on your bench, if a thief steals them, it does not lessen the fact that the thief has stolen them. It is still theft of a firearm. Yes, you should definitely take EVERY measure you can to reduce the chances of theft, but the fault MUST still lie with the thieving piece of boot scrapping, cat turd, low life, miserable, festering cockroach, oxygen burglar, waste of space that decided he could help himself to your property.

Originally Posted by timattalon

In my mind, if you are not prepared to secure your firearms to the very best of your ability, then you should question whether you are a "fit and proper" person to hold a license. A fit and proper person will take every step possible to control the possession and use of their firearms.

Define "very best of your ability" and "every possible step".

Should a FAL holder be spending $1000+ on the security of, say, a $200 .22? Raising the security requirements could be seen as an underhand way for the authorities to price people out of lawful firearms ownership.

Joe Bloggs: "I'd like to get into hunting and shooting. Perhaps I'll get my FAL, then a cheap .22 to familiarise myself with firearms safety, shooting technique and marksmanship principles."

Joe Bloggs does some research into security requirements...

Joe Bloggs: "Shit, it says here I need x or y security before I can have a .22! That means I need to spend z to get into this hobby. Stuff that - I'll just stick to [insert current hobby]."

Cops and the anti-gun population: "GOOD."

Originally Posted by stretch

Define "very best of your ability" and "every possible step".

Should a FAL holder be spending $1000+ on the security of, say, a $200 .22? Raising the security requirements could be seen as an underhand way for the authorities to price people out of lawful firearms ownership.

Joe Bloggs: "I'd like to get into hunting and shooting. Perhaps I'll get my FAL, then a cheap .22 to familiarise myself with firearms safety, shooting technique and marksmanship principles."

Joe Bloggs does some research into security requirements...

Joe Bloggs: "Shit, it says here I need x or y security before I can have a .22! That means I need to spend z to get into this hobby. Stuff that - I'll just stick to [insert current hobby]."

Cops and the anti-gun population: "GOOD."

What should a "Fit and Proper person" consider secure? How long is a piece of string?

If you cannot afford a decent helmet, gloves and jacket, can you afford a motorbike? If you cannot afford a condom, can you afford a child?


Another view of the same perspective, is if you cannot safely secure them to decent level then yes, perhaps you should not buy a 22. One important factor to bear in mind, The security requirements around A cat firearms has a very different aim to the security around E, B, C, etc. The primary and central objective of A Cat security is to keep un-trained, opportunistic people from gaining easy access and potentially causing harm. Not thieves, not criminals, but your family. It is to stop those who do not understand the safety and dangers involved with firearms from hurting themselves and those around them. Think more along the lines of children and visitors. And consider, decent security for a 22 can be achieved with about $200-$300.

The increased security around the other categories is more aimed at thieves etc because with the perceived additional danger of these firearms (And that itself is a different conversation) it is expected that these are more highly sought after by those of a criminal persuasion. Hence the additional requirements to discourage theft.

Consider this. If you looked at the security that you have now. and in three weeks, one of your family or friends somehow gets access to those firearms, and your family member is hurt or worse. Would ANY level of security be enough that you would think...I could not have done any better?????

To answer your question re spending $1000 on protecting a 22: In most cases it would probably be too much, but if you spend $99 on a cheap safe remember, You have to live with the consequences if someone gets hurt.

Hate to say it folks but any level of security can be breached with enough time and the right tools.... Know someone with a 12ton digger, if he wants to take our see and give it a bit of a squeeze I don't think much would last. House might be toast but he would have your guns

Well, it's official, it's possible to start a heated argument during the discussion gun storage containers in three separate countries on two separate continents.



Anyways, the point of the discussion is to figure out what is the best option in building a gun storage container. If I planned to live in the same house for the rest of my days I would buy a stack of 2.5cm thick steel road plates, gas axe them to size and weld them into an internal safe room inside my house and be done with it.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like I'll be purchasing a house in the near future, and moving frequently makes things all the more difficult. I thoroughly enjoy shooting and hunting, so don't want to abandon the hobby because it's difficult, but I also don't want to make my life miserable trying to move a 750kg safe every couple of years, or have to uninstall and reinstall a security system every time I move, along with the associated repairs to whatever house I'm living in at the time. The level of security should be enough that anyone who didn't come prepared can't get in and take the guns. There are many ways to achieve this, however being new to the country I need to know where I can, and cannot, use my judgement to solve a problem, hence the questioning. In the cases where there is an established standard that I must meet, I will make sure to do so. In the cases where there is a recommended standard, I will try to meet it unless it is negated by something else I have done, or isn't reasonable in this case (IE a full house alarm system installed by a commercial company is not practical in a rental, however I am able to wire my own small system and monitor it myself).

Several forum members have been kind enough to answer my questions, and those answers have gone a very long way towards figuring out how things work in NZ and really saved me a lot of hours looking for solutions to problems that don't exist, or I didn't know existed.

Anyways, looks like I owe a few folks some beer when I get there!

Originally Posted by Taff

Depending on how soon you are moving, any info might be irrelevant, with the proposed rewriting of the arms act.

Any info on this? Hear-say? Actual in-action in front of the government proposed law? Working-group discussing something?

Any info on what this re-write contains?




Coincidentally the same thing's apparently in the works in Canada. Only indirect mutterings so far, but since the current ruling party has majority power and created our last Firearms Act, which was a punitive, poorly thought out and overall terrible waste of money and time, things don't look good on this side of the pond.

Originally Posted by canross

Any info on this? Hear-say? Actual in-action in front of the government proposed law? Working-group discussing something?

Any info on what this re-write contains?




Coincidentally the same thing's apparently in the works in Canada. Only indirect mutterings so far, but since the current ruling party has majority power and created our last Firearms Act, which was a punitive, poorly thought out and overall terrible waste of money and time, things don't look good on this side of the pond.

All rumours. Nothing happening, or likely to happen in an election year.

There is a select committee on law and order investigating how criminals are obtaining guns. This has been seen by some people as heralding changes to the laws, but unlikely in an election year.

Just ensure your security is well above what is required by the people who will be signing off your licence, and you will have no problems. If you try to skimp on security and buy some cheap safe you may have problems.

If your guns are worth keeping, why wouldn't you have good security?

Ignore the bush lawyers on this or other forums wanking on about what the cops can and can't do, legally or otherwise. Don't worry about what other arms officers in other parts of the country may or may not want.

Just listen to what your arms officer or security vetting person wants. Then spend your time shooting.

Originally Posted by systolic

Ignore the bush lawyers on this or other forums wanking on about what the cops can and can't do, legally or otherwise.

Ironically I agree. Let the man read the minutes from the meetings of that select committee himself.

http://sportingshooters.nz/wp-conten...ay-minutes.pdf

http://sportingshooters.nz/wp-conten...ugust-2016.pdf

http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/defa...cember2016.pdf


A quote from a member of parliament who his on this committee:

Originally Posted by Ron Mark

Hi Guys. Spotted this post. As you know I'm currently sitting in on the Select Committee which is holding this inquiry. I can't go into detail about what is before the committee because it's still confidential, but what I can say is that I am worried. In fact, I am very very worried for law abiding firearms owners. This is worst case scenario people and IT WILL turn into a new law if we don't all get together and do something.

Make your own mind up and don't listen to people like systolic who defines himself as a "bush lawyer".

Interesting that you can view minutes from the meetings - here it's all top secret until the law hits reading in parliament. Only thing we know is that our committee is made up of police chiefs that have spoken openly about banning firearms (but also joked in a tv interview that he at least once intimidated his daughter's boyfriend with a shotgun, and used his rank to avoid speeding tickets), multiple reps of the anti-firearms lobby groups, and now at least one woman's group rep, who is technically not a representative of the anti-firearms group, but is an honorary member. The last two pro gun members (a federal lawyer and our national firearms organisation rep) were removed when the new gov came into power.

Anyways, thanks again for the great info.

Originally Posted by canross

Interesting that you can view minutes from the meetings - here it's all top secret until the law hits reading in parliament.

I suspect the real stuff is suppressed considering there's very little mention of any proposed law changes and Ron Mark suggests changes will be coming.

Whatever they are cooking up behind closed doors will inevitably be detrimental to firearm ownership in this country, either through stricter conditions or increased costs - or both.

Instead of targeting burglaries and other crimes that are of a higher concern to most New Zealanders (justified given their appallingly low resolution rate and increase in many areas) they're targeting - behind closed doors - the most thoroughly vetted people in the country (barring those holding SV and TSV security clearances).

Their claims relating to firearm crime through their mouthpiece the Police Association in conjunction with their bedfellows, the mainstream media, are completely unsubstantiated and should be treated with the callous disregard that they deserve. It should be obvious to anyone that this is a pernicious attack on all firearm owners that is orchestrated from the highest levels of New Zealand Police, an organisation who have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate ultra vires behaviour which displays scant regard for the law they are sworn to uphold.

It is obvious what is happening once one connects the dots. The end-game is to achieve a monopoly on violence and they are targeting the most powerful weapons first (MSSA), then they will probably come after handguns because of their ability to be concealed and finally those that remain.

It won't happen overnight, it will be conducted per generation. I.e. the generation succeeding will have no memory of ever being able to own X class firearm so likely won't question why it's not permitted for them to do so.

If the authorities can act the way they do concerning firearm laws, what then is preventing them from encroaching on other rights / privileges / whatever once the populace has been completely disarmed?

An inter-generational conspiracy to disarm the population? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

There is no need for an inter-generational conspiracy to disarm the population, they could enact laws in a few months to do such a thing, no need to draw it out and never see the results due to dying of old age.

I believe it is more because society is changing and violence is becoming less acceptable and the need for firearms is reducing due to urbanisation. The media of the day seem to make people unnecessarily fearful of the world out there, and distrusting of anyone holding a position of power.

There's also very little benefit to disarming the populace, from a totalitarian point of view. An armed populace has very rarely been a significant obstacle to conquering armies throughout history. Modern first-world governments are always going to win via superior logistics. It's even more ridiculous when the doomsday "gonna come take our guns" preppers live in a country that routinely uses drone strikes to neutralise guerrilla militants. The ability to legally use a 30 round magazine with your AR is not going to do you much good in that situation.

It never takes long for some paranoid people to think any discussions about controls on guns, or proper security, are a huge conspiracy to disarm or enslave people.