Response to the Law and Order Select committee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beetroot

I agree on the storage.
I believe there should be stricter rules on A-Cat storage, which at a minimum would be a steel safe. Some of what has previously been allowed is a joke.
I know that the rules are to stop opportunist thieves, but some of the gun racks or trigger locks bolted/screwed to the wall barely stop someone armed with a screw driver/crow bar.

I definitely think that gun owners need to stand up for their rights, as there is no one else who is going to to do it. But I worry that if we just oppose any change and don't accept that there are areas that need improvement, then the Police and public are just going to think we are crazy gun people and will do what they want anyway.
Unfortunately there is an imbalance in power and guns are not popular with the general public, especially semi-auto guns.
So if we want to be seen as the good, sensible, responsible people and the Police as the bad guys we need to continue to point out wrong doings, but also accept that there needs change in some areas.

I believe some areas we can be happy to allow change is:
Security, an improvement on minimum standards are needed
Penalties, increased penalties for people who do break the law
Recording of serial numbers, I believe it should be a requirement that gun owners personally record serial numbers and information on firearms, so if their guns are stolen the police are able to tell for certain if the guns are found in subsequent investigations.

The angle the Police Association is coming from is that too many guns are being being stolen and used by criminals, so if we can come up with ways to address this problem, they will have little grounds to increase gun control.
As I said, if the Police/Government decided they really wanted to ban semi-auto they could, if they put as much pressure as they do in Europe and the USA we don't have the NRA or enough people to oppose them.

---

This is called "Appeasement", which means to try to conciliate or placate a potential aggressor by making concessions, at the sacrifice of ones principles.
Exponents of appeasement are known as "Nevilles" after its most famous practitioner.
History has shown appeasement to be an unsuccessful strategy in dealing with bullies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWB

This is called "Appeasement", which means to try to conciliate or placate a potential aggressor by making concessions, at the sacrifice of ones principles.
Exponents of appeasement are known as "Nevilles" after its most famous practitioner.
History has shown appeasement to be an unsuccessful strategy in dealing with bullies.

---

So I guess that is this "peace in our time":o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWB

This is called "Appeasement", which means to try to conciliate or placate a potential aggressor by making concessions, at the sacrifice of ones principles.
Exponents of appeasement are known as "Nevilles" after its most famous practitioner.
History has shown appeasement to be an unsuccessful strategy in dealing with bullies.

---

It's not appeasement if there are areas that need/can be improved on.
I'm not suggesting we make a deal to give up something in order to leave us alone for a few years, I'm suggesting that we acknowledge areas that can be improved to show that we are willing to work with them to get the result we want.
I don't see making improvements in security sacrificing ones principles, if anything opposing change just because we don't want to co-operated when some change may be beneficial, would be sacrificing ones principles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWB

You just don't get it do you? The minister is not upholding the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.

There will be a new arms amendment which will include the illegal practices that police have previously carried out as policy.

There will be no addressing problems in the current act. No repeal of the reverse onus conditions in the current act.

Police will continue their current policy of inflicting the Thorp report upon licence holders through bully tactics. What works so well for them will not change.

Police will have additional tools to threaten and intimidate licence holders who insist that they follow the law.

Nothing in the amended act will stop criminals being criminals.

---

Please tell us how you know what is going to be in the arms amendment bill that hasn't been written yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotuku

Sir I likes your style.
now Rushy i hopes you aint been hoeing into them there horny goatweed pills they advertise as ala naturale for gettin the old bloke to stand to attention for a lady. wee know Paulas cute and cuddly and bugger me with a pineapple and call me augie ,shes a bloody poli with COMMONSENSE and a sense of FAIR PLAY,but until we get a centrefold of Paula in the camo with a trusty 12g on the hip and and ar15 tucked up under the armpit ,Im gonna hold my breath!


Ok thats a tad radical ,so im gonna start a collection for a camo mankini for Rushy to wear when he meets Paula!!!

Actually guys Im inclined to think Paula read Justice Jillian Mallons scathing comments re police conduct in the hearing over the freestanding pistol grip issue,or shes actually had a wee chat with the Honourable judge in person.If Chris Cahill could take some time to read the same judgement he may well want to temper his tantrum somewhat ,cause again like minister Madam Judge pulled no bloody punches-it was a subtle as a boot in the nuts from an irate scrub bull!

---

@kotuku

@Rushy has beaten you to it mate, I believe he has a whole collection of these things now. ;)

Attachment 70604

Cheers ( I think)
Pete

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P38

@kotuku

@Rushy has beaten you to it mate, I believe he has a whole collection of these things now. ;)

Attachment 70604

Cheers ( I think)
Pete

---

Ahhhh! A Rushy mini me. :XD:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beetroot

I don't see making improvements in security sacrificing ones principles, if anything opposing change just because we don't want to co-operated when some change may be beneficial, would be sacrificing ones principles.

---

I agree with what has been mentioned for raising the standards for security but there should always be the previous option as before and it shouldn't be taken away. Why not have both? A safe in the garage and a firearm locked up in a wardrobe/wall bracket may be a viable option for some people especially for their security.

It would also be a shame if the security standards become so high that it then becomes a financial burden to FAL owners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beetroot

I believe some areas we can be happy to allow change is:
Security, an improvement on minimum standards are needed
Penalties, increased penalties for people who do break the law
Recording of serial numbers, I believe it should be a requirement that gun owners personally record serial numbers and information on firearms, so if their guns are stolen the police are able to tell for certain if the guns are found in subsequent investigations.

---

Minimum security requirements don't require a law change, just common sense by gun owners and the vetting officers who check the security of gun owners.
Penalties for violent crime with a firearm are a joke as they stand, we all know and agree to that.
Recording of serial numbers. I agree, everyone SHOULD keep a personal record of their serial numbers, but instead of making more legislation (which is the last thing any country needs), how about we aim for education?
Why do we not drum in to people (via MSC, police firearm safety campaigns, gun stores, COLFO, SSANZ, FOUNZ, NRA, PNZ etc etc) that it is a great idea to personally record the serial numbers of their firearms in the case that they get stolen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beetroot

As I said, if the Police/Government decided they really wanted to ban semi-auto they could, if they put as much pressure as they do in Europe and the USA we don't have the NRA or enough people to oppose them.

---

If that were the case, how did we not end up with so many of the recommendations in the report? You think that was blind luck?

A lot of people put in a lot of work to make this happen. So many people took part of the democratic process that is used to further restrict and take away gun owners freedoms and thanks to that, we ended up with a "not as bad as it could be" result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mauser308

The bit about suspension of licenses is actually a very practical solution to one of the major clusterf**ks in the current legislation. There is no option to prevent someone who is involved in domestic violence or found to have a medical issue (like depression), from having access to firearms without fully REVOKING the person's firearms licence. Currently, you either are fit and proper and can hold your licence, or you aren't. Currently no chance to take a bit of time and see how things play out in the event of an issue with depression that stems from the loss of a family member or a major natural disaster like the CHCH earthquakes...

The ability to SUSPEND a licence for a temporary amount of time while information is gathered etc is actually a major step forwards without forcing someone who's licence is revoked to undergo the costs of a courts challenge to have it returned. That's actually a major win both for owners and for the public at large, similar to what currently happens with driver's licences and a few other qualifications. Kudos for the recommendation...

---

mauser old chap ive had depression for 30+yrs and all it required was a letter from the GP to allow me to retain the license.I frankly couldnt give a hoot if the whole world knows -Im a nurse in mental health ,ive a mental illness so what.i said to the vetting officer "go read my health file if ya want ,but dont blame me if youre asleep at the end of the first page-he laughed like hell and said no worries.
actually was recently privvy to a case where an FAL is suspended infinitum at this point ,as opposed to revoked and all parties think its a commonsense solution.

now i know its election year but hell its highly unusual to see polis from both sides of the house back wee Paulas decision.of course the drooping lip of Mr Christopher Cahill was also visible but reality Christopher old bean is in this case your policemen are in the minority ,and frankly if the article I read is correct maybe some more training is needed in actioning present firearms law correctly not as assorted AOs think it should be.
i bet Greg O'connor had a quiet snigger at that own goal.
of course as alluded to on here it remains to be seen if polis will listen to the FAL sector in future,but judging by statements made most were pretty impressed with the FAL constituents feedback.a bloody big thank you to all you guys -mighty bloody effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P38

@kotuku

@Rushy has beaten you to it mate, I believe he has a whole collection of these things now. ;)

Attachment 70604

Cheers ( I think)
Pete

---

faaaark hes almost as handsome as me and has a bloody puku to match!.:ORLY:.....be jasus is that a donald trump cowlick pokinout under his hat too??:onow i is bloody jealous:P
PS paula will luv a rub of the green.:psychotic:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Please tell us how you know what is going to be in the arms amendment bill that hasn't been written yet.

---

Certainly. By reading and comprehending the ministers report that she tabled in the house, and the ministers press release. Both confirm the actions being taken in the new "Arms (Firearm Prohibition Orders and Firearms Licences) Amendment Bill" as a response to the select committee report. I have no idea what else will be in there, but given that police are drafting this bill, be prepared for even more nasty surprises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWB

This is called "Appeasement", which means to try to conciliate or placate a potential aggressor by making concessions, at the sacrifice of ones principles.
Exponents of appeasement are known as "Nevilles" after its most famous practitioner.
History has shown appeasement to be an unsuccessful strategy in dealing with bullies.

---

Actually as most historians will agree "Nevilles" or a "chamberlain" is a misinterpretation of what happened, Great Britain was in no position to go to war with Germany in 1938, having let its armed forces run down, the following two years enabled Great Britain to rebuild its forces and prepare for war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotuku

faaaark hes almost as handsome as me and has a bloody puku to match!.:ORLY:.....be jasus is that a donald trump cowlick pokinout under his hat too??:onow i is bloody jealous:P
PS paula will luv a rub of the green.:psychotic:

---

@kotuku, he might be almost as handsome as you, but he's twice your height.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JWB

Certainly. By reading and comprehending the ministers report that she tabled in the house, and the ministers press release. Both confirm the actions being taken in the new "Arms (Firearm Prohibition Orders and Firearms Licences) Amendment Bill" as a response to the select committee report. I have no idea what else will be in there, but given that police are drafting this bill, be prepared for even more nasty surprises.

---

hello we have chris cahill posting under a bloody covert entity or mate are you a psychic.coppers drafting the bill-GO READ JUSTICE MALLONS JUDGEMENT AND COMMENTS TO THE COPPERS fFS.they do not draft this countries laws ,full bloody stop despite what you or jesus h christ may think!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jexla

Minimum security requirements don't require a law change, just common sense by gun owners and the vetting officers who check the security of gun owners.....

---

Abysmal A-Cat security is rampant, particularly among the older generation. In many ways you can't blame them as their flimsy MDF and similar wooden gun cabinets with gaps and a tiny lock passed muster ten years ago and prior. One senior gentleman said to me today, "I've had this gun safe for thirty years and it's done the job so I don't see why I should have to change it". His gun cabinet would take even the dumbest of thieves about twenty seconds to break open. Of course, he's never had the misfortune of being burgled.

Vetting personal need solid, straight forward standards that aren't open to interpretation for A-Cat security. The only way to achieve that is to make a law change that everyone understands. Counting on common sense is a lost cause because many people don't possess it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P38

@kotuku

@Rushy has beaten you to it mate, I believe he has a whole collection of these things now. ;)

Attachment 70604

Cheers ( I think)
Pete

---

You bastard Pete. Have you been taking photos over my fence? Ha ha ha ha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

Abysmal A-Cat security is rampant, particularly among the older generation. In many ways you can't blame them as their flimsy MDF and similar wooden gun cabinets with gaps and a tiny lock passed muster ten years ago and prior. One senior gentleman said to me today, "I've had this gun safe for thirty years and it's done the job so I don't see why I should have to change it". His gun cabinet would take even the dumbest of thieves about twenty seconds to break open. Of course, he's never had the misfortune of being burgled.

Vetting personal need solid, straight forward standards that aren't open to interpretation for A-Cat security. The only way to achieve that is to make a law change that everyone understands. Counting on common sense is a lost cause because many people don't possess it.

---

agreed, must be wood of x thickness, with a padlock meeting x standard. No mdf or weetbix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

Abysmal A-Cat security is rampant, particularly among the older generation. In many ways you can't blame them as their flimsy MDF and similar wooden gun cabinets with gaps and a tiny lock passed muster ten years ago and prior. One senior gentleman said to me today, "I've had this gun safe for thirty years and it's done the job so I don't see why I should have to change it". His gun cabinet would take even the dumbest of thieves about twenty seconds to break open. Of course, he's never had the misfortune of being burgled.

Vetting personal need solid, straight forward standards that aren't open to interpretation for A-Cat security. The only way to achieve that is to make a law change that everyone understands. Counting on common sense is a lost cause because many people don't possess it.

---

Like I already said, we do not need more legislation. Legislation is not the answer to everything. Like you said yourself, the inspectors need easy to understand guidelines that make it clear that a shitty wooden box wouldn't be okay.

I will note that I have a friend who made a safe out of wood and some brick that goes on the wall behind a fire place and I have no doubt it would have been harder to get into than some A category safes sold commercially. (He replaced this as soon as he could afford to with an E category compliant safe even though he has no endorsements).

Therefore I don't think it's okay to just outright ban the use of wood itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

Abysmal A-Cat security is rampant, particularly among the older generation. In many ways you can't blame them as their flimsy MDF and similar wooden gun cabinets with gaps and a tiny lock passed muster ten years ago and prior. One senior gentleman said to me today, "I've had this gun safe for thirty years and it's done the job so I don't see why I should have to change it". His gun cabinet would take even the dumbest of thieves about twenty seconds to break open. Of course, he's never had the misfortune of being burgled.

Vetting personal need solid, straight forward standards that aren't open to interpretation for A-Cat security. The only way to achieve that is to make a law change that everyone understands. Counting on common sense is a lost cause because many people don't possess it.

---

I think the current law is reasonably good in it's description as it says what the design intention is. That design intention is insufficient however for today's world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jexla

Like I already said, we do not need more legislation. Legislation is not the answer to everything. Like you said yourself, the inspectors need easy to understand guidelines that make it clear that a shitty wooden box wouldn't be okay.

I will note that I have a friend who made a safe out of wood and some brick that goes on the wall behind a fire place and I have no doubt it would have been harder to get into than some A category safes sold commercially. (He replaced this as soon as he could afford to with an E category compliant safe even though he has no endorsements).

Therefore I don't think it's okay to just outright ban the use of wood itself.

---

Have to agree with that. You could have a safe/gun room built into the house with reinforced concrete on 3 sides and a wooden door but a "metal safes only" rule would make it fail, sure you could hack through the door with an axe but it wouldn't be any quicker or easier than opening many commercial A-cat safes with the same axe.

Maybe AOs need clearer guidelines because you do hear of some strange interpretations of what is acceptable or not, but every time I've had gun security examined the AO has been practical and interested in it being fit for purpose rather than just ticking off a checklist of 'features'.

Had a good chat with one of them about racks/chains etc, his attitude to that was that they're ok for occasional use but he doesn't like the idea of people using them for permanent long-term storage, especially with multiple guns. Mind you I knew someone who used a chain around a rafter to secure an old shotgun that only got used about once a year, it was probably safer than most safes because any would-be thief would have to climb into the ceiling cavity to find it!

I have had a rack built for Mums place. AO was happy. It is only so when I go up that end of the country I have somewhere to put my shooter(s) if I need to do some grocery shopping etc. It is OK for a few days etc but I would never leave one there if I was not staying there at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Have to agree with that. You could have a safe/gun room built into the house with reinforced concrete on 3 sides and a wooden door but a "metal safes only" rule would make it fail, sure you could hack through the door with an axe but it wouldn't be any quicker or easier than opening many commercial A-cat safes with the same axe.

Maybe AOs need clearer guidelines because you do hear of some strange interpretations of what is acceptable or not, but every time I've had gun security examined the AO has been practical and interested in it being fit for purpose rather than just ticking off a checklist of 'features'.

Had a good chat with one of them about racks/chains etc, his attitude to that was that they're ok for occasional use but he doesn't like the idea of people using them for permanent long-term storage, especially with multiple guns. Mind you I knew someone who used a chain around a rafter to secure an old shotgun that only got used about once a year, it was probably safer than most safes because any would-be thief would have to climb into the ceiling cavity to find it!

---

This is what amazes me about vetter's and AO's opinions/interpretations/attitudes - why would a rack be OK for occasional but not long term when the opportunist thief could happen to be in your premises on day one of your short term use of a rack. The rack is either a tick or a cross, time in use shouldn't come into it.

And yes, strong guidelines/standards are required to overcome this vetter variability. Said standards would turn into a nightmare but there has to be a better system than exists now.

I also perceive that the newer vetters and AO's are less likely nowadays to have a mechanical or practical background.

When you have some nice older rifles that rarely get used, to have them on display is a lot better than in the back of some dark safe. Trying to find ammo would be hard for me, let alone some loser who stole one. Money wise would be the prob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zimmer

This is what amazes me about vetter's and AO's opinions/interpretations/attitudes - why would a rack be OK for occasional but not long term when the opportunist thief could happen to be in your premises on day one of your short term use of a rack. The rack is either a tick or a cross, time in use shouldn't come into it.

And yes, strong guidelines/standards are required to overcome this vetter variability. Said standards would turn into a nightmare but there has to be a better system than exists now.

I also perceive that the newer vetters and AO's are less likely nowadays to have a mechanical or practical background.

---

I do see your point. In the some situations the rack is there to comply with the security requirements as required by the current law- That is to secure against people who are in the dwelling who you need to make sure are unable to access or play with said firearm. The law around A cat security is NOT aimed at preventing burglars to access but stopping opportunistic or curious hands from causing harm to those nearby. (Think visitors, children etc rather than burglar) This is because these situations were the ones most likely to cause harm. Whether this is the best position moving forward, that is not the point. The point is a rack that secures a rifle to the wall so it cannot be easily removed and discharged is the law as it stands.

Long term a safe to protect against theft is common sense, and warranted given the value of some firearms and the lengths to which some will go to get them, nut if traveling to go hunting away from home, do you put a 6mm safe in the boot so you can secure your firearms at your unlicenced mates place on the way? Its not practical and likely not to happen.

I'll be ok now
The Minster wishes me the best.

Dear ............*
Thank you for writing to Minister Bennett on the recent Government response to firearms select committee report.
*
The Minister has noted your email and asked me to pass on a quick note to thank you for taking the time to write in.* She really appreciates the feedback and passes on her best wishes.**
*
Kind regards
*
Salote
Ministerial Secretary | Office of Hon Paula Bennett
Deputy Prime Minister | Minister for Climate Change Issues | Minister of Police
Minister of State Services | Minister of Tourism | Minister for Women | MP for Upper Harbour
Executive Wing 7.6 | Private Bag 18888 | Parliament Buildings | Wellington 6160 | New Zealand

*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zimmer

This is what amazes me about vetter's and AO's opinions/interpretations/attitudes - why would a rack be OK for occasional but not long term when the opportunist thief could happen to be in your premises on day one of your short term use of a rack. The rack is either a tick or a cross, time in use shouldn't come into it.

---

I disagree, if a gun is only there occasionally then the probability of an opportunist thief happening to be there at the same time is massively lower than if guns were there regularly.

Lets make some simplified numbers up and assume there is a chance any house will be burgled once a year... so call it a 1/365 chance of a burglary happening on any given day (reality would be a far lower chance but for arguments sake).

If a gun is there 360 days of the year then the probability of a burglary when its there is (1/365)*(360/365) = 1/370 chance the burglary will happen when the gun is there.
If a gun is there 5 days of the year then the probability of a burglary when its there is (1/365)*(5/365) = 1/26645 chance the burglary will happen when the gun is there.

Its quite reasonable that the level of risk mitigation is related to the probability of being needed.

Yeah, but you know murphy , he always strikes when you forgot to lock door , or chain your gun up or anything like that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maca49

When you have some nice older rifles that rarely get used, to have them on display is a lot better than in the back of some dark safe. Trying to find ammo would be hard for me, let alone some loser who stole one. Money wise would be the prob.

---

Problem is the loser who knicks it won't have a clue. Your antique 16 ga hammer shotty would have the hacksaw on it in no time. End up as a crappy "stand and deliver" type pistol and swapped to it's meth dealer for fuck all. Meth dealer then uses it as a patu to beat loser when he can't fit the 12 ga shells into it.

Horse.
Flog
goddam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulyc

Yep looks good, So now can I get my gun list back from the Police ?

---

That should be quite straight forward, 'sell' them to a trusted licensed friend.

Submit an Official information act request for the records. Submit an update request based on the previously mentioned 'sale' submit another OIA request to confirm record of your holding's has been updated and perhaps subsequently re-acquire ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve123

Problem is the loser who knicks it won't have a clue. Your antique 16 ga hammer shotty would have the hacksaw on it in no time. End up as a crappy "stand and deliver" type pistol and swapped to it's meth dealer for fuck all. Meth dealer then uses it as a patu to beat loser when he can't fit the 12 ga shells into it.

---

There's a film on that!

Yep, and a bloody good one it is! Northern Monkeys!

I have 2 steel safes one E cat rated one not.
With my tools of choice either of them would be empty in under 2 minutes.
I am not a safe cracker and do not have any superpowers. The skills and knowledge required are nothing that would not be learned in a prison workshop.

One has to be realistic about security. You can ONLY stop the opertunist thief.

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

I've seen some shocking security arrangements. I will never understand why some of us are so flippant about security. Personally I wouldn't leave 25 grand lying around in a shitty old cabinet that will take two seconds to Smash into.
It's irresponsible not to have a decent safe. I'm ok with the rest of the recommendations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jakewire

I'll be ok now
The Minster wishes me the best.

Dear ............*
Thank you for writing to Minister Bennett on the recent Government response to firearms select committee report.
*
The Minister has noted your email and asked me to pass on a quick note to thank you for taking the time to write in.* She really appreciates the feedback and passes on her best wishes.**
*
Kind regards
*
Salote
Ministerial Secretary | Office of Hon Paula Bennett
Deputy Prime Minister | Minister for Climate Change Issues | Minister of Police
Minister of State Services | Minister of Tourism | Minister for Women | MP for Upper Harbour
Executive Wing 7.6 | Private Bag 18888 | Parliament Buildings | Wellington 6160 | New Zealand

*

---

I got the same,wonderful

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheChosenOne

100 lashes in public?

---

Put in the stocks and pelted with rotten fruit by passers-by?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

I have 2 steel safes one E cat rated one not.
With my tools of choice either of them would be empty in under 2 minutes.
I am not a safe cracker and do not have any superpowers. The skills and knowledge required are nothing that would not be learned in a prison workshop.

One has to be realistic about security. You can ONLY stop the opertunist thief.

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

---

And I already have all the tools they'd ever need on the premises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

I have 2 steel safes one E cat rated one not.
With my tools of choice either of them would be empty in under 2 minutes.
I am not a safe cracker and do not have any superpowers. The skills and knowledge required are nothing that would not be learned in a prison workshop.

One has to be realistic about security. You can ONLY stop the opertunist thief.

---

Absolutely correct. You're never going to stop a determined pro. Just as well most firearms thefts are of the opportunistic kind or at least they are in my district.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jexla

Like I already said, we do not need more legislation. Legislation is not the answer to everything. Like you said yourself, the inspectors need easy to understand guidelines that make it clear that a shitty wooden box wouldn't be okay.

I will note that I have a friend who made a safe out of wood and some brick that goes on the wall behind a fire place and I have no doubt it would have been harder to get into than some A category safes sold commercially. (He replaced this as soon as he could afford to with an E category compliant safe even though he has no endorsements).

Therefore I don't think it's okay to just outright ban the use of wood itself.

---

There seems to be about one decent wooden gun cabinet for about every forty or more crap ones. Therein lies the problem. I'm pretty sure that any law change made for A-Cat security re gun cabinets will require a construction of a minimum of 2mm mild steel. Regarding security gun racks nearly all I've come across offer good security against opportunistic thieves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

So do I. But that all gets locked in another safe. It would really piss me off if they used my gear to break in to my safe.

---

But a bit hard to do with a couple of welding plants/plasma cutter/grinders/saws/....