Thread: New Updated Arms Code 2017

Yes it was a cynical attempt at coercing new firearms owners to think there was a new law and if they refused to justify their firearms ownership they would be denied a licence. A classic example of small incremental "reasonable" changes having a big effect over time.

What a load of bollocks, early draft maistakenly published. What about all the hard copies given out with firearms licence renewals? No way do you mistakenly publish those. That had to be a commercial contract and signed off by people in high places.

Originally Posted by stug

What a load of bollocks, early draft maistakenly published. What about all the hard copies given out with firearms licence renewals? No way do you mistakenly publish those. That had to be a commercial contract and signed off by people in high places.

Are there any hard copies.? I dropped into my cop shop last week and all they had was the 2013 version.

Keep piling in the submissions. Keep in mind this is only a battle, the war will take longer to sort, and typically most of us will flare up and then go off the boil whilst those agin us will continue to plod along on the long haul.

IGNORE ABOVE, YOU ARE RIGHT, apparently hard copies are out there.

This from SSANZ

"We have been advised that the 2017 Arms Code has been pulled from the Police website after various firearm groups (including SSANZ) pointed out glaring errors. Police claiming it was an advance copy. However we don't think so because a printed version has also been published and is in circulation. Police claim they are now going to review the document and consult with the FCAF, which they should have done in the first instant."

@zimmer Outdoorlad posted a pic of a hard copy of 2017 Code and vietnamcam said he had a copy as well. Someone else posted they picked up 15 copies for their firearms licence course they were running.

Originally Posted by stug

@zimmer Outdoorlad posted a pic of a hard copy of 2017 Code and vietnamcam said he had a copy as well. Someone else posted they picked up 15 copies for their firearms licence course they were running.

Thanks Stug, missed that.

I wonder now if they will do the "right" thing and recall the misleading information they have provided in the form of hard copies ha ha.

Publishing a booklet like that is not a 5 minute exercise - they have been working on that or some time whilst not disclosing their intent to the mixed committee.

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

LOL. The "smoking gun"

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

I didn't spot that on page 44. But while it is not word for word, it is very similarly written on page 41 in the first paragraph under the "Firearms Licence" topic. The one difference I did notice is in the section you show it states "Asked" where the page 41 statement states "required" as though it is mandatory.

Quote
"A licence holder may possess any number of sporting-type rifles and shotguns although you will be required to justify the number of firearms you hold when Police inspect your security."

Yep there telling porky pies!
I'd hold onto that veitnamcam might be like those rear stamps that have been printed wrong but go into publication.
20years ago they got away with this Scott free!
Not this time guys get stuck in the future of our sports depends on it

Also seems to be a new licence card design as featured on page 41.

As for me justifying why I have x firearms - I might ask them to justify the reasons they're asking in the first place.

Using a PDF document analyser it suggests to me that this file might have actually been created earlier than we'd like to think...


Trapped /False
ModDate D:20170306153304+13'00'
CreationDate D:20170306153256+13'00'
Producer Adobe PDF Library 15.0
Creator Adobe InDesign CC 2017 (Macintosh)

D:2017 (year) 03 (month) 06 (day)153304 (hh:mm:ss) +13'00' (GMT +13 = NZ time zone).

The above is based on my assumption that they're using American English regional settings (viz mm/dd) and / or U.S. dictionary (given that they have used the word "oriented" in the text as opposed to "orientated" I think this is entirely plausible).

EDIT: Online resource did okay but using Notepad++ and searching for dates I found creation date:


xmp:CreatorTool="Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)"
xmp:CreateDate="2017-02-21T15:01:03+13:00"

Seems they've been cooking this up for a while.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Using a PDF document analyser it suggests to me that this file might have actually been created earlier than we'd like to think...


Trapped /False
ModDate D:20170306153304+13'00'
CreationDate D:20170306153256+13'00'
Producer Adobe PDF Library 15.0
Creator Adobe InDesign CC 2017 (Macintosh)

D:2017 (year) 03 (month) 06 (day)153304 (hh:mm:ss) +13'00' (GMT +13 = NZ time zone).

The above is based on my assumption that they're using American English regional settings (viz mm/dd) and / or U.S. dictionary (given that they have used the word "oriented" in the text as opposed to "orientated" I think this is entirely plausible).

EDIT: Online resource did okay but using Notepad++ and searching for dates I found creation date:


xmp:CreatorTool="Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)"
xmp:CreateDate="2017-02-21T15:01:03+13:00"

Seems they've been cooking this up for a while.

Just more evidence that the tail wants to wag the dog.

Cheers
Pete

Originally Posted by Ryan

Seems they've been cooking this up for a while.

That has been my gut feeling but you have just proven to us all they are in fact; lying

Yet again obviously... But this one is a really really bad one. And, a TOTAL waste of tax payers money I might add, by-crikey this should go in the epic fail basket or something.

Can't be any other date format, since 03 June hasn't arrived yet. Your assumptions seem correct.