Thread: Police doing a 3 yearly check of my safe for my E Endorsement?

I have heard of people who have sold restricted firearms (all paper work done properly) yet when the inspection happens the Police records show them as still owning it. Luckily they had kept their paperwork to prove they had sold it.

Originally Posted by stug

I have heard of people who have sold restricted firearms (all paper work done properly) yet when the inspection happens the Police records show them as still owning it. Luckily they had kept their paperwork to prove they had sold it.

i have had this situation with a pistol

What endorsed stuff I had came up in conversation while I was at the cop shop. They were missing 2 off the list

Originally Posted by Tommy

What endorsed stuff I had came up in conversation while I was at the cop shop. They were missing 2 off the list

And yet they want to have a cat registered as well.... Can't see there being any mistakes or slip ups when the number of firearms that are on the list has another 0 on he end, yeah right

Originally Posted by stug

I have heard of people who have sold restricted firearms (all paper work done properly) yet when the inspection happens the Police records show them as still owning it. Luckily they had kept their paperwork to prove they had sold it.

i have changed rifles from e cat to a cat at the arms office and they have said to wait 2 weeks and the change over would be complete and taken off my licence ,there was no paper work to do ,they just wanted to see it in a cat configuration ,told them i was selling it as a cat and they had no problem with it ,saying that i have no way of proving this actually happened as there was no paper work involved .hope this does not come back and bite me in the ass

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

Obviously, if your security can easily be removed from the premises then it's not secured against theft. As an example, according to your interpretation of "secured against theft" leaving a gun rack with firearms locked within lying on the floor, table or elsewhere is perfectly acceptable. Thankfully, most people have a lot more common sense than you appear to have and make sure that their firearm security is secured against theft.

This is the police attitude that is at the root of the problem. If your firearms are stolen then you didn't have adequate security! Therefore you are in breach of the conditions of your licence and are an unfit person to hold a licence.
Everyone just sit back and think of the repercussions here.
The victim is being made responsible for the actions of another, a thief.
How do you build in security that will prevent all theft, and if it is possible to do so how will you afford the cost?
Why is the focus on preventing theft, rather than preventing thieves?
Why is the focus on persecuting the victims of theft, rather than the extermination of thieves?
A functioning police force should be encouraging people to enjoy their property and discard the siege mentality, happy in the knowledge that any theft or trespass will result in relentless pursuit and heavy retribution upon thieves.
Increased security doesn't prevent theft. It forces a thief to employ more force to achieve its aim.
Preventing theft doesn't rid society of thieves. They continue to seek a way to separate you from your property or your life, while you pay for their living costs.

Originally Posted by JWB

This is the police attitude that is at the root of the problem......

You don't know what I do for a living therefore don't make assumptions about me.

While you seem to have a very strong contempt for police judging from some of your other posts, I agree with much of what you say above. Judges who seem to give more consideration to criminals than their victims and a largely anti-firearm mentality that pervades the media is really the root of the problem.

Unfortunately, there is no way that anyone can stop an intelligent, determined thief, particularly a professional one, from stealing your firearms. However, you can do your best to stop the common opportunistic thief that breaks into the premises to steal whatever they consider is of value. Every minute counts that you can slow them down. Having your A- cat firearm gun cabinet, rack or safe (nothing wrong with a good quality robust safe) secured to the premises, the keys to which are well hidden is being a responsible firearms licence holder. It's common sense and a no brainer.

There appears to be, reading some of the posts that have cropped up on this forum from time to time, a few AO's and some vettors in some areas, that have their own, possibly illegal requirements regarding A-Cat firearm security. If such a situation occurs and can't be resolved locally, a firearms licence holder or applicant has the option of taking it up with Police National HQ.

While there might be the odd one that falls short of the mark the NZ Police do a great job overall particularly the front line coppers. Would you want to put up with the abuse and crap they have to tolerate?

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

You don't know what I do for a living therefore don't make assumptions about me.

I don't know how you feed off society. I am commenting on your attitude, which is a mirror of the police attitude as excreted by their management and union. That is to make shit up to justify their desires through policy.

If you have a lockable cabinet on your premises to lock your firearms in then you meet the condition to secure your firearms against theft. While it may be prudent or desirable to secure the cabinet to your premises, nowhere in the legislation is there a requirement to do so, nor is there authorisation for police or their contractors to examine for such fixing or examine and record the contents of that container.

There is no requirement for the examination of a licence applicants, or a licence holders premises anywhere in the act or regulations.
A vettor is a invited guest on the premises and may only look, examine, or record only that which the proprietor allows. Anything else is trespass.

The general ignorance as regards the Act and its Regulations, as well as the publics historical reverence and trust for police, has allowed abuse of the Act though policy.
Lies and deceit, or making shit up appears to be the police SOP as regards firearms administration.

You don't have many friends, do you?

Originally Posted by JWB

I don't know how you feed off society..... ad nauseam.

You're clearly a very bitter person with a massive log on his shoulder and a very high opinion of himself.

He was the 2nd member ever added to my ignore list.

Originally Posted by JWB

This is the police attitude that is at the root of the problem. If your firearms are stolen then you didn't have adequate security! Therefore you are in breach of the conditions of your licence and are an unfit person to hold a licence.
Everyone just sit back and think of the repercussions here.
The victim is being made responsible for the actions of another, a thief.
How do you build in security that will prevent all theft, and if it is possible to do so how will you afford the cost?
Why is the focus on preventing theft, rather than preventing thieves?
Why is the focus on persecuting the victims of theft, rather than the extermination of thieves?
A functioning police force should be encouraging people to enjoy their property and discard the siege mentality, happy in the knowledge that any theft or trespass will result in relentless pursuit and heavy retribution upon thieves.
Increased security doesn't prevent theft. It forces a thief to employ more force to achieve its aim.
Preventing theft doesn't rid society of thieves. They continue to seek a way to separate you from your property or your life, while you pay for their living costs.

I beg to disagree to with a lot of this. But not all.

"The victim is being made responsible for the actions of another, a thief". - Not really. You are being asked to take REASONABLE steps to protect your gear. The key word here is reasonable. Would you park your car in town unlocked and with a laptop on the seat and expect it to be there when you get back? Of course not. I agree that, Yes the thief should not have taken it, but you should have locked the car and put the laptop out of sight. This is a reasonable step to take to prevent theft. You dont have to have fort knox, but a few simple things that can be done, should be done. Bolting the storage down so it cannot be removed easily. Hiding the keys. Hiding the bolts and magazines elsewhere. At least take some satisfaction that you made it harder for the little cnut to steal from you. Following from this is this comment " Increased security doesn't prevent theft. It forces a thief to employ more force to achieve its aim". and this is the intention. Thieves are targeting "easy money". If they did not mind harder money then they would have found a bloody job. They steal because it is easier than working. If you force a thief to work harder to get what they want, it is more likely (though not guaranteed) that they will look for somewhere easier. Harder also means making the reward less for what they get. If they dont get the bolt or magazine then they dont have full value and the effort / reward ratio is further reduced. The reason they target firearms is they are easy to find black market owners for. The reason they wont steal the toilet is because it is a lot of work and no one wants to pay much for a second hand discounted shitter....

For these comment,

A functioning police force should be encouraging people to enjoy their property and discard the siege mentality, happy in the knowledge that any theft or trespass will result in relentless pursuit and heavy retribution upon thieves.


I agree that this should be the case, but I believe for the most part that this is what they are trying to do and that they do there best. Can they do better ? Yes of course, but so can we. They do focus on preventing theft but we need to do our bit and stop making it easy for them. There is a catch 22 here as well. If you reduce the theft of firearms and the supply of stolen ones then the demand for these increases and the thieve are then rewarded more for their efforts. Thus they will put more effort into trying to take what is yours. But we still need to at least take some steps to prevent scum helping themselves to what is ours. We work hard for our stuff, why should some scum bag low life oxygen stealing fucktard get it for free? Especially when they are living proof that condoms should not only be free but should have been used!

Well said timattalon.

There are rotten eggs in every sector of society - but of all the police and arms officers I've met personally, they've been very pleasant people to deal with. Most of them actually went out of their way to work 'with' me, as opposed to against me. One negative perspective circling around online can sometimes come across louder than the praise sung by the majority out in the real world. We're all human at the end of the day - most policemen/women get into the force because they want to help people. Unfortunately (due to our sub-par legal system (in certain areas), there is undue stress placed on those enforcing these laws...

For those that have had sour dealings - that sucks. Guess it pays to be vigilant.

Originally Posted by Frodo

There are rotten eggs in every sector of society - but of all the police and arms officers I've met personally, they've been very pleasant people to deal with. Most of them actually went out of their way to work 'with' me, as opposed to against me. One negative perspective circling around online can sometimes come across louder than the praise sung by the majority out in the real world. We're all human at the end of the day - most policemen/women get into the force because they want to help people. Unfortunately (due to our sub-par legal system (in certain areas), there is undue stress placed on those enforcing these laws...

For those that have had sour dealings - that sucks. Guess it pays to be vigilant.

Same. I have found almost every cop I have ever met (former and current serving status) to be very reasonable people. Even on occasions when I have been pulled over, though there have not been many of these. In saying that I have never yelled at, threatened or generally behaved like an arsehole to them so I have not given them reason to do what they are required to for their chosen career. I also think they are badly let down by the judiciary when they do catch offenders, as well as their top brass grandstanding.