Thread: Paste your submissions here

I thought we could do with a thread for submissions if you feel like showing what you have written. The idea being that we can all learn from one another's.

I don't have one yet, which is why I have not included my own....

Great idea. Will try to remember to post mine here when I get around to doing it.

I thought each of us ( member of the forum)should motivate at least 4 or
5 of our gunfriends that we no would never do a submission otherwise.
20000 members x 5= 100 000 submissions . We would start to have a bit of traction then .

Here is a draft of a block of my submission.

The Bill materially alters the review architecture for firearms licence decisions through the cumulative effect of its licensing, review, and appeal provisions. While the resulting framework is legally coherent, its operation is procedurally dense and not readily legible in plain English. The practical consequences for review, cost, delay, and risk exposure arise only through the interaction of multiple clauses distributed across the Bill, rather than being clearly signalled in any consolidated form.


Decisions to decline the issue of a firearms licence, to revoke a firearms licence, or to impose conditions on a firearms licence are subject to review by the Firearms Licensing Review Committee under clauses 79 to 81. The Bill does not provide a direct merits appeal to the District Court from the Chief Executive’s original firearms licensing decision. Instead, the statutory pathway requires an affected person to proceed first through the Review Committee before any judicial merits appeal becomes available.


The powers of the Review Committee are set out in clauses 313 to 319. Following review, the Committee may confirm or reverse a decision not to issue or to revoke a firearms licence, confirm, vary, or reverse a decision to impose a condition on a firearms licence, and may also impose any new condition on the applicant’s firearms licence. The Bill contains no provision preventing the Committee from imposing more onerous conditions on review than those originally imposed by the decision-maker. As a result, a licence holder who seeks review is exposed, as a matter of statutory design, to the risk of a worse outcome than the original decision, without any corresponding safeguard against outcome-worsening.


This creates a structural asymmetry. The exercise of review rights carries a downside risk that is not present at the initial decision stage. That risk arises from the architecture of the review mechanism itself, rather than from the manner in which it is exercised in any particular case.


Reviews by the Committee are conducted on the papers under clause 318. There is no entitlement to an oral hearing, and the Committee may require further information only if it considers that information necessary to enable the conduct of the review. In addition, the Bill provides in multiple licensing contexts that disclosure of certain matters to an applicant is not required. Examples include clause 72 in relation to firearms licence applications, clause 126 in relation to visitor licences, and clause 173 in relation to ammunition seller approvals. These provisions permit review and decision-making on the basis of information that may not be fully disclosed to the affected person.


Taken together, these features lawfully constrain the factual and reasoning record available to a licence holder at the internal review stage. They also shape the material that will be available if the matter proceeds further.


Following a decision of the Review Committee, a right of appeal to the District Court on the merits is available under clause 341(1)(c). The Bill therefore preserves access to an independent judicial merits appeal, but only after completion of the Committee review process. The effect of this sequencing is to defer judicial merits scrutiny until after an applicant has traversed an internal review stage that is paper-based, may involve limited disclosure, and carries a statutory risk of outcome-worsening.


Judicial review in the High Court remains available in accordance with orthodox public law principles and section 27(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. However, judicial review is confined to questions of legality, process, and reasonableness. It does not permit re-weighing of evidence or correction of disproportionate but lawful outcomes, and it is procedurally complex, time-consuming, and costly relative to a statutory merits appeal.


Each of these features is lawful when considered in isolation. Their combined operation, however, produces a procedurally dense and sequential review pathway in which time, cost, and risk exposure accumulate before independent judicial merits consideration is reached. That cumulative effect is not clearly or transparently communicated on the face of the Bill.


Although individual clauses are drafted in plain language, the Bill does not clearly convey to an ordinary reader that review of firearms licensing decisions involves a mandatory internal review stage, that the internal reviewer may worsen outcomes, that review is conducted on the papers, that disclosure may be lawfully constrained, and that judicial merits appeal is deferred until after completion of that process. These consequences emerge only through the interaction of multiple clauses located in different Parts of the Bill.


While the Bill is intended to make the firearms regulatory framework easier to understand, it contains a substantially greater number of clauses than the Arms Act 1983 contains sections. Increased clause granularity does not of itself indicate poor drafting. However, the redistribution of operative provisions across the Bill contributes to reduced system-level legibility, particularly where significant procedural consequences arise cumulatively rather than being stated expressly in one place.


In assessing the robustness of this design, it is relevant to note that New Zealand legislative history contains multiple examples where statutory regimes were enacted with concentrated discretion, constrained review pathways, and limited procedural transparency, and were later amended after lawful operation revealed practical imbalance. This occurred, for example, in aspects of the mental health compulsory treatment framework under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, the immigration decision-making and tribunal structure under the Immigration Act 2009, and the oversight arrangements within the Oranga Tamariki system under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. This history does not imply that similar outcomes will occur here. It demonstrates that risks arising from governance architecture, procedural density, and review sequencing are real considerations at the Bill stage.


The cumulative effect of the Bill’s review and appeal provisions is to narrow the practical accessibility and effective enjoyment of review for persons whose firearms licences, as interests recognised by law, are affected by regulatory decisions. This engages section 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, not because review rights are formally absent, but because their practical operation is obscured and burdened by the structure through which they must be exercised. While the limitation is prescribed by law and directed toward an important objective, the Bill’s design raises questions as to whether practical accessibility to review could be better supported through clearer signalling or additional safeguards within the review pathway.


The effect identified does not arise from any single clause, but from the interaction of multiple provisions distributed across the Bill. It is therefore unlikely to be apparent to an ordinary reader considering clauses individually. The Committee is invited to consider whether additional signalling or safeguards are required to ensure that the firearms regulatory regime maintains practical consistency with principles of natural justice, transparency, and institutional robustness as reflected in New Zealand law.

Here is an abridged version of my draft as it stands...

Feedback for the bill in its current form:

New firearm Agency:

I absolutely agree that the police administration should NOT be in charge of Firearm licensing and control. The main reason for this is through the previous decades the friction between Police Administration and their interactions with license holders has eroded any trust and respect to almost negligible levels. They have mishandled data, treated license holders as potential criminals instead of with respect and courtesy, and mishandled data, had multiple data breaches. and even had significant honesty related scandals such as McSkimming saga and this has proven they are not the right agency to perform this role. In relation to the data breaches, I was the recipient of one of these data breaches and in the course of a normal interaction was emailed information that I was NOT supposed to receive. This was not intentional on the senders part but an error, indicative of the failings of the system. It resulted in me being sent names and address and firearms details from transactions I was not a party to. I immediately informed them of the error and deleted the information as requested, but I have to wonder if the others involved were sent my information as well and whether that got deleted too....I ask the committee members “ Would you like your name, address and items you own published for others to know? “

Also for too many years it has been evident that the administration while under Police control, has been under-resourced as Police administration have taken funding to use elsewhere within their budgets (primarily due to underfunding in those areas and though prioritizing rather than anything malicious) with one example being the massive reduction in Vetting staff that was about to take effect when the Chch terror attack took place. While it was quietly and quickly canceled, it showed the Police priorities were NOT on operating the Firearm administration effectively but rather using it for a source of funding to fill holes where their priorities differed from the governments. In fact the inquiry found that practices with these government driven changes were in part responsible for enabling the offender getting his license in the manner that he did. .

The police exist to catch criminals, not administer systems for law abiding people, so let them focus on criminals. As such there clearly needs to be a close relationship between the new agency and the police for Police to be able to access information required to keep their staff safe, in the same way NZTA does with Drivers licenses etc. But the new agency should have full control over civil (non-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 front line 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.

Gang Membership:

I am of the view that Gang membership and in most cases, even close association with gang members such as prospects and affiliates needs to be an automatic disqualification for getting a firearms license. These people have chosen to operate outside the law and if they will not follow the laws of society, they will not follow firearms regulations either. They exist to do harm to society. Though I suspect making it illegal for them to get a firearms license or own firearms will be about as effective as telling a two year old to stop crying in a supermarket.....If they are able to import chemicals for drug manufacture in weights measured in Tons then a few KG of steel and alloy / plastic wil not prove difficult at all....


Dealing with Mental Health issues:

I see Health-related license suspensions extended to up 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 actively discourage license holders from seeking the help they may need. In fact if we stop punishing those who seek help, it would mean that maybe they would seek help before it becomes a license effecting issue...

Premises for firearm storage:

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, traveling, use a workplace safe or are renting, to safely secure their firearms. I know of people who only use firearms near where their parents live and yet have to install a safe in a rental or forfeit their license because that is where they are deemed to “live”. I spent 5 years at a boarding establishment and while I was there 13 weeks at a time, home was where my family lived not where I slept most of the time. Consider also Fifo workers who work in some cases 10 weeks away and ten weeks home etc....Do they live at work? Or at home?

Limits to the number of firearms owned:

With the suggestion of limits to the number of firearms allowed to be owned, I would state that it will do nothing for safety and only serves to punish those who have done nothing wrong. Different firearms have different uses or suitabilities . You cannot use a 22 to hunt deer or use in a national park, likewise you cannot control rabbits effectively with centrefire rifles suitable for deer. Target rifles are not suitable for hunting...hunting rifles are not suitable as target rifles...You cannot shoot ducks or game birds with rifles and you cannot legally hunt in DOC areas for game with a shotgun. As such, the statement that Shooters dont need more than 4 number of firearms or that smaller numbers of firearm owned will make people safer merely highlights the complete lack of knowledge or common sense and an inability to use critical thinking. Ask yourself...How many knives do YOU have in your kitchen? All knives are the same and therefore more than 3 knives in any kitchen is excessive...- See how silly that sounds....? You cannot practically peel an apple or a potato with a bread knife, nor can you chop a pumpkin or lettuce with a paring knife, You shouldn't carve a roast with a steak knife nor should you give a child a chefs knife to spread butter on toast....And another example - how will limiting the number of cars a non drinker can own stop another person from driving drunk? If a person is going to commit crime with a firearm (or car) the they are not fit and proper and should not have access to firearms (or car) to start with. If they are fit and proper, they will not commit crime therefore whether they have 1 firearm or 50, none will be used to cause harm....


Consultation and License policy:

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 - Passports, and Drivers licenses are the same. They are there as a required service to allow a system to permit people to do what they have proven they are capable and want to do – (travel, drive etc) 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.

Additional Recomendations:

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 change eliminates presumptions against licensed owners and ensures that allegations are substantiated through evidence, thereby safeguarding individual rights during legal proceedings.

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.

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 authorization 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” would be better if it was 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 change 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 also acknowledges the historical role firearms have had in our culture and normalises legal ownership and use of firearms into the future.

All changes that are being made or suggested, which increase the burdens on the regulator or the licensed firearm community, should always be considered with 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.

The Firearms Register:

I cannot support the continuation of the firearms register for A-category firearms. Despite it being in the process of being introduced and starting to become functional. I am aware of errors and issues 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 additional future data breaches that puts my safety at risk of exposure. We have never been provided any evidence that the register decreases gun crime and most countries that have one cannot provide any either, and as a result, we should invest that limited resource more carefully where it can do much greater good in more effective solutions. In fact, if the register was to be as effective as its proponents claim, there would be no stolen cars used in crime because they are registered....Cars are not registered to prevent theft- they are registered so that officials can charge fees to operate, and fines to transgressors...As such, the firearms register will never have any impact on crime and its massive funding would be far more effective if used for things like
-Suicide prevention / mental heath assistance... Removing firearms access only makes it so they use alternative means. We need to address the issues so they no longer feel the need to do this to start with by any method, not just firearms....
-Equipping the front line Police with the tools to do their roles,
-More front line Police officers
-Training for front line Police especially around firearm usage seeing as we (NZ) are arming them more frequently
-Resources and staff to target criminals, especially those importing and using firearms to harm our society,
-Resources for actually targeting criminals instead of a tool that provides them a list of who owns what and where they live....

Finally a 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 and its future. 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.

Originally Posted by timattalon

Here is an abridged version of my draft as it stands...

Some ideas for your consideration only

New firearm Agency:

New firearm agency; 'They have mishandled data, treated license holders as potential criminals instead of with respect and courtesy, and mishandled data,' - mishandled data twice in the same sentence. Next to McSkimming add Summer Smith, another example so that it can not be thrown away as 'one off'.

Gang Membership:

Cool

Dealing with Mental Health issues:

Cool

Premises for firearm storage:

Cool

Limits to the number of firearms owned:

Accept that you are preemtively challenging something that is not in the Bill.

Consultation and License policy:

Cool

Additional Recomendations:

Maybe ask that the law defines 'fit and proper'?

The Firearms Register:

Cool.

Nice stuff