Thread: Firearms Storage Inspection ....

Originally Posted by scaggly

It is probably worth saying that those changes were a knee jerk reaction, that cynics might suggest were an attempt to cover up for someone getting a license who never should have had one in the first place.... kind of like the most recent round of changes to the rules.....

Those 1992 changes were also responsible for driving a fairly substantial number of mssa's underground which have had ample opportunities to fall into the wrong hands over the last 30 years...

The reality is, the world has moved on. The rules are 30 years old and are as out of date as if they were outlawing that newfangled cased ammunition, and restricting everyone to muzzle loaders.

They actually tried to make the changes earlier but weren't able to, it took a few deaths for them to pass it.

Last time I counted 1992 was 21 years ago. Just because the firearms could have gone underground doesn't mean they all ended up in the wrong hands.

Last I heard MSSA's are still the most popular weapon amongst people in the world for mass shootings, I think the world has moved on but probably in the wrong direction.

20 or 30, doesn't alter the fact that the rules are horribly outdated. Like if I was going to be pedantic, I'd point to the fact that MSSA's don't exist anywhere but here.

The interesting common denominator across an awful lot of mass-shootings is that the people doing them shouldn't have had licenses under the rules that existed at the time, but did. Port Arthur, the guy was a retard. Aramoana, the guy had some fairly serious mental peculiarities. Most of the US ones, mental health issues all over the place. Being nuts has always been a bit of a no-no for owning guns. before the advent of semi-autos, as well as after.

If i was a cynic, I'd suggest that trying to restrict guns based on looks was a deliberate ploy to distract attention away from questions about how people who never should have had a license, got one and then went off the deep end.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Last I heard MSSA's are still the most popular weapon amongst people in the world for mass shootings, I think the world has moved on but probably in the wrong direction.

cite source.

Again, if someone who is a potential mass shooter can pass the A-cat req's what is to stop them passing the E-cat req's. And why should they be allowed any gun, given that if they are a potential massshooter they are unlikely to obey the law and would likely modify their firearm to any configuration they like.

Originally Posted by gimp

cite source.

Again, if someone who is a potential mass shooter can pass the A-cat req's what is to stop them passing the E-cat req's. And why should they be allowed any gun, given that if they are a potential massshooter they are unlikely to obey the law and would likely modify their firearm to any configuration they like.

Source, my own observations.

People change, more inspections and contact with the AO can only help pick up on problems, add in more reference checks I don't see a downside. Small price to pay in my views.

Just to be clear, I'm not against E-Cat, I just don't think an A cat licence is strict enough to own those types of weapons.

Originally Posted by Savage1

I just don't think an A cat licence is strict enough to own those types of weapons.

You mean guns which are functionally identical to A cat guns, just cosmetically different, considering that anyone who has enough disregard for the law to be a murderer is going to have no qualms about using their rifle in an illegal configuration

Originally Posted by gimp

E cat:
-requires $200 fee not if doing another endorsement at same time
-requires $1000+ safe $500+, i think security requirements should be stricter across the board anyway
-can't loan my rifle to a friend what? he can get his own, deadbeat! haha
-can't even get my friend to take my rifle to a gunsmith what? lol surely you are not that lazy
-can't sell my rifle easily did u buy it to use it or sell it? (cant comment, never tried to sell Ecat)
-can't buy another rifle easily not hard at all
-can't import parts for my rifle. I want to try a different pistol grip to see if I like it better? hand in rules all changed afaik, this is kinda a non issue from what i can tell
A cat:
-I can do all of the above
-If I am a scumbag asshole murderer, I shouldn't have an A-cat but if I do I can just as easily get an E-cat, or just use my A-cat guns to be a scumbag asshole murdererthis is where the law needs some attention

has there been any murders done by a licenced firearm owners using firearms they are legally entitled to own?

Originally Posted by Haydendev

has there been any murders done by a licenced firearm owners using firearms they are legally entitled to own?

Yes, but mostly garden variety man-kills-friend-or-acquaintance-over-dispute type murders where if they didn't have a gun they'd have used a bar stool or garden fork or whatever

Originally Posted by Savage1

Source, my own observations.

People change, more inspections and contact with the AO can only help pick up on problems, add in more reference checks I don't see a downside. Small price to pay in my views.

Just to be clear, I'm not against E-Cat, I just don't think an A cat licence is strict enough to own those types of weapons.

Brilliant Savage. Thanks for your support haha. I was starting to feel very lonely in my stance
Straight up, the process of acquiring an A-cat license in NZ is waaay to easy, with MSC testing officers 'helping' applicants to pass and police AOs doing referee "interviews" by phone. I've also heard multiple ppl on this forum and elsewhere stating the AO never checked their safe nor firearms! How am I or any other member of the NZ public supposed to have confidence in our system to vet and confirm that someone is "fit and proper" for E-cat?

Further, except for the initial purchase of a firearm from a retailer, what do the police know about who owns what or who sold it to who? The current system is a joke and as much as I love firearms, like fine cars and motorcycles, I am fearful of who might be in possession of any type of firearm, but especially rapid fire styles.
Additionally, regarding mental health, things can happen in our lives. Ppl can get depressed, or become highly volatile through anger. Is ten years too long between police checks to verify you're of sound mind and judgement? I think so


Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting

Originally Posted by Hunt4life

Brilliant Savage. Thanks for your support haha. I was starting to feel very lonely in my stance
Straight up, the process of acquiring an A-cat license in NZ is waaay to easy, with MSC testing officers 'helping' applicants to pass and police AOs doing referee "interviews" by phone. I've also heard multiple ppl on this forum and elsewhere stating the AO never checked their safe nor firearms! How am I or any other member of the NZ public supposed to have confidence in our system to vet and confirm that someone is "fit and proper" for E-cat?

Further, except for the initial purchase of a firearm from a retailer, what do the police know about who owns what or who sold it to who? The current system is a joke and as much as I love firearms, like fine cars and motorcycles, I am fearful of who might be in possession of any type of firearm, but especially rapid fire styles.
Additionally, regarding mental health, things can happen in our lives. Ppl can get depressed, or become highly volatile through anger. Is ten years too long between police checks to verify you're of sound mind and judgement? I think so


Identify your target beyond all doubt! Sorry won't cut it later and no deer is worth the fall out. Safe and happy hunting

Interesting, you obviously have no clue about those of us who hold other endorsements. I have been "visited" and had my Security checked yearly for as long as I can remember. Either I am special or my local AO is very organised, thorough and quite frankly a pleasure to deal with or he has too much free time. Ditto from what I hear from other endorsement holders in the area too

Originally Posted by Hunt4life

... I am fearful of who might be in possession of any type of firearm, but especially rapid fire styles.
Additionally, regarding mental health, things can happen in our lives. Ppl can get depressed, or become highly volatile through anger. Is ten years too long between police checks to verify you're of sound mind and judgement?

Breathe mate, breathe. We live in, per capita, one of the most heavily armed countries on earth. Bolt, pump, semi, no difference - they are all around us. How often do you read of people ""getting depressed" and then hosing down other people with semi-automatic weapons... or bolt action weapons, or any firearms at all for that matter? Pretty damn rarely. Why live in fear of something that doesn't exist? Fearing what might happen is just your imagination - an irrational fear, much like me worrying about getting run over by a bus or monsters under my bed. It could happen but hey... I could get also get stung by a sting ray!

Anyone who reads the news even badly sees that fisticuffs, stabbings, bottlings etc are more prevalent because it's easier to carry a bottle or a knife around with you than a firearm. People who are depressed aren't necessarily violent and even if they were, they could do a lot of damage without a firearm.

In NZ, as soon as there is even a hint of a firearm involved... the police are onto that like a fat kid on a happy meal. Case in point, one day in 2006, I was sharing a house in North Auckland with someone. My flattie noticed that the fella next door had an air rifle and one day when we were drunk, he saw him walking around the house with it so he called the cops.

Within 5 minutes, they'd surrounded the house, K9 there was, interviewed the poor guy, came and interview my mate etc. Admittedly a complete waste of tax payers' money but the fact of the matter remains that gun crime is so low in New Zealand, that when it is reported, the police take it extremely seriously.

Where I come from, you'd be luck if the police even answered the phone!

i dont have a problem with need an E cat licence to get a restricted firearm or whatever.

i have and issue with the definition of a MSSA. how does a pistol grip or a adjustable stock, (they are not exactly concealable, just customizable for length of pull) make a firearm more or less "dangerous". flash hiders?? wtf how does that make a firearm more dangerous??

high cap mags are a different story, can clearly see the thinking concerning them, and they are not restricted at all (except for use), my 4year old daughter could legally go and buy one from gun city, (if she had a spare $299 lmao). they should stop restricting firearms because they "look" dangerous.

end of the day, if they make a firearm that i want, to require a specific licence to own it, i will acquire the licence. because i am a "fit and proper person".

Originally Posted by Haydendev

i dont have a problem with need an E cat licence to get a restricted firearm or whatever.

E cat:
-requires $200 fee
-requires $1000+ safe - is there actually any evidence to suggest that it prevents theft more than a standard safe, to justify the burden of cost on law abiding shooters?
-can't loan my rifle to a friend
-can't even get my friend to take my rifle to a gunsmith
-can't sell my rifle easily
-can't buy another rifle easily
-can't import parts for my rifle. I want to try a different pistol grip to see if I like it better? FUCK YOU HAND IN YOUR OLD ONE SO WE CAN DESTROY THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY YOU ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO OWN BEFORE WE GIVE YOU AN IMPORT PERMIT

A cat:
-I can do all of the above
-If I am a scumbag asshole murderer, I shouldn't have an A-cat but if I do I can just as easily get an E-cat, or just use my A-cat guns to be a scumbag asshole murderer

Originally Posted by gimp

E cat:
-requires $200 fee There is talk of them waiving the fee for the change over.
-requires $1000+ safe - is there actually any evidence to suggest that it prevents theft more than a standard safe, to justify the burden of cost on law abiding shooters? You can get one for $4-500
-can't loan my rifle to a friend
-can't even get my friend to take my rifle to a gunsmith Actually you can.
-can't sell my rifle easily Yes you can
-can't buy another rifle easily Yes you can
-can't import parts for my rifle. I want to try a different pistol grip to see if I like it better? FUCK YOU HAND IN YOUR OLD ONE SO WE CAN DESTROY THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY YOU ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO OWN BEFORE WE GIVE YOU AN IMPORT PERMIT Yes you can

A cat:
-I can do all of the above
-If I am a scumbag asshole murderer, I shouldn't have an A-cat but if I do I can just as easily get an E-cat, or just use my A-cat guns to be a scumbag asshole murderer

So we should just remove all difficulties for anyone to own a firearm?

Originally Posted by Savage1

So we should just remove all difficulties for anyone to own a firearm?

We should remove difficulties for a person who has been considered fit and proper to own 2 functionally identical but cosmetically different firearms, considering that the laws don't actually stop anyone who wants to use them for a nefarious purpose from doing so in the slightest

selling and buying requires permit to procure on behalf of the buyer and potential registry fuckups by police staff (these happen all the time). Not as easy as A cat and a much reduced pool of potential buyers which makes it harder to sell.

I can't let a friend who doesn't have his E possess my E rifle to take it to the gunsmith. That would be illegal as I understand the law. I get mates to drop shit at the smith all the time for me, and vice versa.

The handin policy is literally as I described, unless it has been canned (as it should be for being utterly ridiculous bullshit)