Thread: Secure Storage Requirements Police Consultation

"...a strong room or a
room of stout and secure construction, and steel safe, box or cabinet."

Strong room being just that, something built to high and strong specs.

"OR A"

'Room of stout and secure construction (in a safe)" Meaning a secured garage (or house), not a small tin shed from mitre 10 with no decent lock on the door, that has an E cat safe in it.

So, had some time today and jotted down some my feedback. Thank you, @muzza for drawing attention to this.

[My Name and letters after my name, address, email etc]

November 24, 2017

For attention of
Committee on Firearm Secure Storage Policy
New Zealand Police
By email: secure-storage-firearms@police.govt.nz


Dear Madam, Dear Sir,

Re: Invited Feedback on November 2017 Draft Firearm Secure Storage Policy

Thank you for your invitation to feed back on the draft proposal for Secure Firearm Storage.

I am a FAL holder (A-cat) and mainly enjoy target shooting. I own only bolt-action rifles and keep these in a safe so proposed changes in the draft document leave me with no personal axe to grind, apart from a shared interest in public safety.

It is my view that a secure storage policy should be simple, explicit and effective, to both prevent child and criminal access to working firearms, which also means that it should not impose ineffective burdens on firearms owners.

That said, once someone has been identified in advance by a motivated thief as a firearms owner, there is a substantial risk that any reasonable level of security will be defeated. Meaningful security against targeted gun theft is thus chiefly through obscurity... but rules forcing gun owners to equip homes with security worthy of a drug dealer's pad may invite unwanted attention.

Points that I wish to draw your attention to are as follows:


3.7 Doors of Buildings.
===================

Size 12 boots and a walking kick can overcome many a door constructed according to requirements listed. It is a waste of resources to specify strengthening of areas less prone to failure. Better to simplify door requirements. while addressing one weak area of most door assemblies: the superficially anchored lock strike plate. Simply specify that

"The lock strike plate must be secured with at least two 5mm diameter steel screws of at least 120mm length."

This cheap, easy and effective increase in security also has the advantage of invisibility.

A simple example of it being applied to a domestic dwelling door:
Burglar Proof Your Doors - Striker Plate Failure - Kick In Door Burglaries Tip

A graphic testing performed by a helpful US Police Department SWAT team:
Inexpensive and Effective Door Security



3.7 Windows of Buildings.
=====================

Steel bars on the face of it seem to increase security, after all, they are used in prisons aren't they? But requiring steel bars on windows can also be counterproductive by forcing firearms owners to invite trouble upon themselves. It will advertise to thieves that something extra is stored behind the bars... and in New Zealand that is most likely restricted firearms! Invisible security is surely desirable in order to avoid targeted firearms theft.

Having windows locked, by key or permanent screws is a useful, practical (and inconspicuous!) defense. Burglars do not like having to pick out all broken glass before pushing their bodies through a hole. Aside from a personal risk of leaving some glass and cutting themselves, it also adds a significant delay which increases discovery risk. Double glazing, now standard in NZ dwellings, makes ingress through a smashed but still unopenable window even less likely as two panes need to get broken resulting in twice the noise and twice as much glass to clear out.


Rack Specifications (pages 3 and 4)
=============================
"1. Used only for shotguns and bolt action rifles. 2. Not being used for the secure storage of centrefire or rimfire semiautomatic rifles."

Two separate implicit issues:

(a) An assumption that racks are LESS secure than a locked sturdy cupboard / safe, which is generally true. That does not necessarily mean that racks are insecure.

(b) The idea that shotguns (presumably including semi-autos and pump actions) and bolt action rifles somehow need less secure storage than semi-auto rifles is, on the face of it, insane. ANY firearm accessed without permission by a child, or possessed by a person not "fit and proper" is unacceptable. It may be insensitive to ask any Police Officer or shop owner who have had a presumed-loaded firearm pointed at them if the firearm type made any difference!

Criminals may possibly have a "wow!" feeling about semi automatic firearms, but such excitement is irrelevant as it will be felt upon encountering the guns during a burglary, but they are unlikely to know in advance what they will find (NB comment above re steel bars advertising the presence of restricted firearms). Such criminal preference (if it indeed exists) is a separate issue to the notion of levels of dangerousness of different firearms.

Regarding a higher relative risk from certain firearm types, consider:

- For single murders and mass murders most guns can do, and have done. They must all be stored safely.

- A bullet fired from a full bore centrefire rifle can kill or injure through a thick tree trunk, through a car body, through a brick wall, through most body armour, and from hundreds of metres away. They are potentially dangerous devices and must be stored equally securely irrespective of whether their barrels are attached to a pump- lever- bolt- or semi-automatic action.

- In New Zealand the legal restriction on magazine capacity has rendered A-cat semi-autos on a par with manual repeating rifles in their overall rate of fire. Bolt, pump and lever action repeating rifles and shotguns may have a slower rate of fire than an autoloader, but that does not mean they have "slow" rates of fire! The British Empire was slow to adopt a semi-automatic rifle as it already had a fast bolt action rifle, and thousands of these .303s went into NZ private ownership post-war. There is constantly half a dozen .303s up for sale on TradeMe for $75 upwards, known as "deer guns". This is the most ubiquitous bolt action rifle in NZ, has terrifying potential and must be stored as securely as A-cat autoloaders.

Dangerousness grading of different A-cat firearms is uninformed fantasy at best, at worst passive aggression, and risks resentment and loss of the respect most firearms owners have for NZ Police. Much better to just come out and declare, "Racks are not good enough!" Some may disagree with such a statement, but at least a rational debate can be had over that one.


Receipt - Page 13.
===============

The way this is worded makes the signatory enter into a civil contract with the NZ Police, rendering police guidance in the document a binding obligation, something which is above and beyond current legislation. If that is the intent, that is improper as NZ Police should not usurp the role of the NZ legislature.

That said, it is a reasonable practice to request someone to sign for having read a document and to confirm that they have had a chance to ask for clarification about anything not understood.


On the "separate" keeping of ammunition / essential working parts of guns - several references through document.
================================================== =========

Security can become an imposing financial barrier on prospective participants in the shooting sports, an obvious example being of renters (of whom we have more and more) who may have difficulty getting permission to install higher security safes, etc. Some expensive steps may add little to security, yet other inexpensive steps can add significant gains.

One step is DISTANCE. This can be included simply by NZ Police interpreting the "SEPARATE" storage of parts including ammunition, magazines, bolts to mean "IN A SEPARATE ROOM" in addition to usual storage requirements. So, if a gun safe is in the cellar, bolt and ammunition must then be stored in a suitable storage either in the house or the garage. If a gun safe/rack is in the bedroom, the bolt/ammunition is in the laundry, etc. Such separation would significantly add to public security, at no significant extra cost and with only minor inconvenience to gun owners. Separating working parts between rooms would also implicitly affirm the ethos that firearms ownership is not intended as a means of self-defense.

Thank you for noting my submissions.

Yours sincerely,

[double-base spaghetti]

double base spaghetti?

Originally Posted by Savage1

http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/defa...age-policy.pdf

Am I misreading this? To me it reads that you need both a steel cabinet and a strong room/stout construction, I'm happy to be wrong, I sucked at English at school.

Also look at the grammer "police is required to" on two occasions, incomplete sentences, poor sentence structure, reference to items that are not included for reference etc. It this was an english NCEA answer it would get a fail.

What thoughts are there on letting " contractors" come into your house to check you security? I don't like anyone apart from a bonifide employee, under the control of the AO visiting. What security check will be in place with a "contractor"?like, Amour guard? Normal security companies? Nope I don't think that's right?

Originally Posted by Maca49

What thoughts are there on letting " contractors" come into your house to check you security? I don't like anyone apart from a bonifide employee, under the control of the AO visiting. What security check will be in place with a "contractor"?like, Amour guard? Normal security companies? Nope I don't think that's right?

Contractors that have done this that I met here were both ex police officers doing this part / full time in "retirement". Not sure if this is the same around the country. After having a friendly chat with one, it sounds like (but I could be mistaken) that they are considered contractors as they get paid by the inspection. I am reasonably comfortable that these "contractors" are pretty well vetted by the arms officer or Police for the job at hand. I now here that they report back directly to the Arms officer.

Yes agree with what we have now, but I read “contractors” now as something different?

Just dont procrastinate with your submissions , folks. Time is running out .

Interestingly COLFO appears to be keeping a low profile on its efforts in this direction , I hope they have some usefull input despite not informing us of it . I may be wrong , of course....

My inspector is ex AOS

Originally Posted by timattalon

Contractors that have done this that I met here were both ex police officers doing this part / full time in "retirement". Not sure if this is the same around the country. After having a friendly chat with one, it sounds like (but I could be mistaken) that they are considered contractors as they get paid by the inspection. I am reasonably comfortable that these "contractors" are pretty well vetted by the arms officer or Police for the job at hand. I now here that they report back directly to the Arms officer.

Originally Posted by 308

double base spaghetti?

@308

Look at my avatar pic. (-:=

Originally Posted by gonetropo

a light steel cabinet lined with mdf or play is damn nasty to break into, or vice versa a mdf cabinet lined with light steel. the dissimilar types of materials involve make entry harder

@gonetropo

Maybe you should write in and submit a suggestion that A-cat safes have to be lined with at least 3mm MDF. Still need to get round to doing that myself.

My security is a metal safe 2mm walls and 3mm
door. Ammo and bolts are stored separately in a locked cabinet. The location is covered by an alarm sensor and is not obvious. This is allowed in the arms act and is more than the minimum.

Sent from my SM-G388F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by timattalon

Contractors that have done this that I met here were both ex police officers doing this part / full time in "retirement". Not sure if this is the same around the country. After having a friendly chat with one, it sounds like (but I could be mistaken) that they are considered contractors as they get paid by the inspection. I am reasonably comfortable that these "contractors" are pretty well vetted by the arms officer or Police for the job at hand. I now here that they report back directly to the Arms officer.

Firearms Licensing Vettors are not contractors as such but police casual employees and defined as members of the police under the Arms Act 1983 with reference to the Policing Act 2008 (without constabulary powers) - a non sworn authorised officer. Such employees are usually ex police officers; however, not all are. All Firearms Licensing Vettors are extensively vetted by the police prior to employment. They come under the direct control of the Arms Officer in their area.

In some more remote or sparsely populated areas of NZ the local police officer may do the vetting for a firearms licence or security check.

Only a couple of days left people. Please make some sort of submission.

Divide and conquer will be the end of us all.