Thread: This question again

Originally Posted by Beaker

I was asked the other day, if it would be ok to have a firearm (any, shotgun, pistol or rifle - e or a), at your hand, inside, IF there were a lock down in progress due to armed folk expecticed in the area. This was around the time of those guys in the NI running around with guns and schools being shut etc....
So you do feel for you or yours life, due to nut jobs running around close to you, as notified by news and police, you have time to get to guns, bolts and ammo.
If they do come onto your property, waving a gun in a threatening way to you or family, you allow them to remain on the ground until ambulance/black car removes them, then how to you fare in the law?

It could be argued that seeing as you were stuck inside it may be an opportune time to thoroughly clean and check the condition of your firearms.......but in all honesty, in these situations I would much rather be somewhere else and let the authorities take the risks and exposure to danger. That's what they are trained for and paid for.

Originally Posted by Beaker

I was asked the other day, if it would be ok to have a firearm (any, shotgun, pistol or rifle - e or a), at your hand, inside, IF there were a lock down in progress due to armed folk expecticed in the area. This was around the time of those guys in the NI running around with guns and schools being shut etc....
So you do feel for you or yours life, due to nut jobs running around close to you, as notified by news and police, you have time to get to guns, bolts and ammo.
If they do come onto your property, waving a gun in a threatening way to you or family, you allow them to remain on the ground until ambulance/black car removes them, then how to you fare in the law?

It's actually quite simple and common sense, people quite often try and over complicate it in arguments just to have a good old bitch.

S48 Crimes Act:
Everyone is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.

S62 Crimes Act:
Everyone authorised by law to use force is criminally liable for any excess according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

I've just recited them off the top of my head, they might not be quite verbatim.

Originally Posted by Maca49

Mate I just get sick of the protection, listen to this thread and tell me there's not a problem there is and it's fairly wide spread!

I understand where you're coming from. However, jumping on a keyboard and denigrating the police because you read things on an internet forum which may or may not be true is irresponsible behaviour IMHO. It's been my experience that some people always blame their unfortunate situation on somebody or something else. How hard is it for someone to sort themselves out with decent security? Instead of just meeting minimum "A" cat security, wouldn't it be better to well and truly exceed it? Sure, it's going to cost money but so do a lot of other worthwhile things.

Some people, it would seem, like to fixate on one small issue and miss the big picture. The big picture surely is having good firearm safety practices and that includes strong security for our firearms and a gun owning public that works with the police to achieving that for the safety of all of us. The police are only human, trying to do the right thing, they sometimes make mistakes, who doesn't? If a particular AO or firearms vettor doesn't see it your way, discuss it with them and if you can't agree then you have the right to take the issue up with their superior officer.

10-Ring, Whatever I do to make my enviroment safer is all to the good I agree. It is just the inconsistancy in interpretation of the law, when the AO thinks his opinions are better it blurs the black line when he decides to try to put them into practice.
I dont see the other side of the people he deals with and Id believe that makes a difference, but we all have difficulties doing our jobs and should have the skills to perform them.
I know what I had approved just recently was flatly refused to another person by the same vetter. I know the family and I told them to query it, will be interesting to see if it changes.
I also think that maybe many of the people in the police force do not want to know about firearms? and this is why it is put back on the AO when it doesnt need to be.
Hey I support the police, think you do a great job working within tight restraints, I dont rate AOs or traffic officers in the same camp,

Originally Posted by Savage1

There most certainly is a problem, a problem with firearms being taken from substandard security and a relaxed attitude to firearm security.

I have been listening to this thread, but correct me if I'm wrong but it was started by a person who misunderstood the law and was inflamed by people who didn't bother to check the law.

What get's me is I've upgraded my security from what was acceptable and still is acceptable to a far more superior set up which is now unacceptable. So have I misunderstood the law? Should I go back to my old setup which in hindsight I believe to be less than adequate.
At which point does a lockable cupboard become a room? Would it make it better if I said it was a cupboard?
And at no point have I got a relaxed attitude towards substandard security, I have four kids kicking about and there is no way they will gain access!

Originally Posted by screamO

What get's me is I've upgraded my security from what was acceptable and still is acceptable to a far more superior set up which is now unacceptable. So have I misunderstood the law? Should I go back to my old setup which in hindsight I believe to be less than adequate.
At which point does a lockable cupboard become a room? Would it make it better if I said it was a cupboard?
And at no point have I got a relaxed attitude towards substandard security, I have four kids kicking about and there is no way they will gain access!

ScreamO,

It would probably be of benefit to you to discuss the above with the firearms vettor and/or the Arms Officer. Ask them to point out where they think your security has failed. Then at least you know where they're coming from and you can take it from there.

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

ScreamO,

It would probably be of benefit to you to discuss the above with the firearms vettor and/or the Arms Officer. Ask them to point out where they think your security has failed. Then at least you know where they're coming from and you can take it from there.

Yep, the AO is going to make contact this week and we will go from there.

Originally Posted by Maca49

....Hey I support the police, think you do a great job working within tight restraints, I dont rate AOs or traffic officers in the same camp,

Maca, you're entitled to your opinion but surely you don't rate all AO's and traffic police as one and the same because you've experienced an issue with one of them? Also, you're taking complaints about AO's from what you read on the internet as being gospel. You're only reading about the side of the complainant. Have you any idea of the volume of firearms related applications and issues most AO's have to deal with every day in this country?

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

Maca, you're entitled to your opinion but surely you don't rate all AO's and traffic police as one and the same because you've experienced an issue with one of them? Also, you're taking complaints about AO's from what you read on the internet as being gospel. You're only reading about the side of the complainant. Have you any idea of the volume of firearms related applications and issues most AO's have to deal with every day in this country?

I should make it clear that I wasn't trying to offend the vetting officer nor the AO or police, I have a great deal of respect for them (most of the time). What I was trying to do is find out if he was right or not. By the comments made on this thread I'm thinking I have a right to stand my ground.
I think Maca49 has made some good points and instead of them being shut down, maybe they should be taken on board (I don't mean it in any way to be taken as a personal criticism.
Any way as an update I just got of the phone from the vetting officer who seems to be a good bastard (I will hold that judgment until I get my renewal) but it looks like I don't have to put a chain through my firearms.I will remove my bolts, not because I have too, but I do agree that it's a good idea and a little give and take goes a long way.
And thanks to all the posters, good and bad, that's what it's all about isn't it?

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

Maca, you're entitled to your opinion but surely you don't rate all AO's and traffic police as one and the same because you've experienced an issue with one of them? Also, you're taking complaints about AO's from what you read on the internet as being gospel. You're only reading about the side of the complainant. Have you any idea of the volume of firearms related applications and issues most AO's have to deal with every day in this country?

I guess I tainted by a bit more than I can say on here, and it has a long history.

We could all see valid and fair comment with what @Maca49 has continued to say I do. However, I can also see fair and valid reason why any AO may need to ask to see serial numbers, open each and every lock, view where ammo is stored etc.
The law is BERY black and white.
So are people.
So are hunters
So are AO's. 🏽
So are criminals.

Most is tongue in cheek.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So the AO turned up last night and had a quick look at my security. He was happy enough but would like another lock on one of my shed doors so that works for me. I almost thought he was turning up to take my firearms as I haven't heard any thing more about my FAL renewal.

Missus had her renewal last week,I shoot with the cop who did it he told me her answer to the self defence question. Yes, but I'd prefer a hockey stick they're easier to swing.He laughed and carried on.

Ive got ten more years as from today,unless they change the rules

Originally Posted by hamsav

I had this exact issue , Buffilo river gunsafe with the separate lockable box inside main safe. The vetting officer said it didn't comply , the guy who sold it to me was "pretty sure" it did . H&F told me that these safes were approved by the NZ police , and the AO grudgingly agreed that they were compliant .... but shouldn't be.
The next vetting ( moved house ) guy had a dig about the safe but let it go , he seemed more concerned that the safe was visible from the window . he did try to get my serial #s , and wanted to make a list of what I had.

You must look dodgy?