It looks like NZ Labour Party via NZ Police, are bent on burying the shooting sports in paperwork & proscriptive regulation. Take a look at these range compliance guidelines and please send your feedback to us at ssanzsec@gmail.com
LICENSED FIREARMS OWNERS DON’T WANT TO HARM ANYONE.
So why is $1 Million a week being spent over regulating us?
As a shooting community we are very conscious of firearms safety and practice it carefully and consistently because we understand firearms and the potential dangers.
That is why there are so few serious incidents involving properly vetted and licensed citizens who own and use firearms for sport and recreation.
Anyone who looks at the evidence will be aware that many more people are harmed or killed every year due to the unsafe and irresponsible use of motor vehicles than the use of firearms. Legislation and enforcement should be beneficial but it does not appear to solve the problem of traffic violations, driver errors, collisions, injuries and deaths.
Improving roading, identifying and rectifying potential hazards and encouraging better driver competence and safety would reduce the risks of being injured by people driving motor vehicles that we are all exposed to everyday.
In comparison, firearms are not a great risk because they are used less frequently, by less people and not in public places where they might endanger other people.
Utilizing our scarce public resources (when we are already encumbered by national debt we cannot repay) where they can provide the most benefit for the most people, is the only practical and sensible course of action for people in government to follow.
The people of New Zealand would derive vastly more benefit from improvements in health services, education, affordable housing, dealing with violent criminals, public works and road safety, rather than imposing and trying to administer more restrictive regulations on owners and users of firearms (who are very conscious of their responsibility to use their firearms safely and in places where other people are not at risk of being harmed).
We do not need, and will not derive any benefit from this diversion of public money and resources, from more serious issues, to the regulation of responsible firearms owners who do not want to harm them.
Our tax money, national debt and government resources are being wasted and voters should be aware and concerned about the competence and responsibility of the people in government who are wasting that resource.
The ‘othering’ of a minority group is as old as society.
Throughout the ages groups have been picked on, singled out (‘othered’) and marginalized, stigmatized for their differences, invariably to deflect attention from some other flaw in society.
Licensed firearm owners have long been the subject of this ‘othering’ process. A process which has been used relentlessly and with great effect by the news media, who have without analysis or rationale leapt on the bandwagon initially inspired by our central government.
Let’s go back three years or so, to the immediate aftermath of the mass-murders in Christchurch on the dreadful day in March 2019. Within days, our Prime Minister was quoted as saying, “…the gun lobby will not dilute the planned crackdown on firearms following the Christchurch mosque massacre…’There is resolve and Cabinet has already made its decisions’, she said at Parliament yesterday.” (Young, 2019, p. 3).
Within 24 hours of the massacre, an MP was heard to indicate that the government had to be seen to do something, adding that whatever it did would not prevent another such incident.
The government duly did – it rapidly enacted a ban on centrefire semi-automatic rifles, and magazines with a capacity of more than ten cartridges. In so doing, it included a multitude of 19th century pump, lever, semi-auto and even a few bolt action rimfire rifles whose magazine capacity exceeded 10, and also included a handful of historic century- old centrefire rifles too.
Of course, as is common for such sweeping laws, only the law abiding complied. Gang leaders indicated they would not comply, despite threats from the then Minister of Police, “Hand in MSSAs or face jail….” (Cheng, 2019a), quoting the Police Minister).
Guilt by association is what this is called, and the fact that a licensed firearm owner was convicted for the mass murders enabled the news media to, without any justification at all, happily link all licensed firearm owners with crime, violence and gangs.
Ask yourself, where have you seen a newspaper article or heard or watched a news story about firearm-armed violence, where the storyline indicated that an unlicensed firearm user committed the offence?
This tends to link all firearm users (I am referring to those licensed for firearm ownership) with all kinds of mayhem involving firearms).
It’s time it stopped!
references below:
Cheng, D. (2019a), “Hand in MSSAs or face jail”. Otago Daily Times, 02/04/2019, (pp. 1 & 4). Forsyth, C.I.H., (2022), Firearms in the New Zealand community: A study of place, socio-economic considerations and urban-rural contrasts. PhD thesis (in preparation).
Young, A. (2019), “Swift gun reform justified; tackling social media a long haul”. Week in Politics. Opinion, in Otago Daily Times, 06 April 2019, p. 27
Police poor administration is jeopardizing legitimate business people.
Here in his own words is a story from a Firearms Dealer typical of the many complaints we are receiving says Neville Dodd, President of the Sporting Shooters Association.
“ The licence for this year, applied for back in August 2021, arrived in June 2022….. Ten months….for an annual licence…. the mind boggles.
Surely they can do better than this?
It used to take six weeks max before the government made all the rule changes…..
The bottleneck seems to be the dearth of vetting personnel, most of them having been dismissed it seems. The record keepers in Kapiti seem to be very efficient I have to say, but that avails us nothing if it takes months for vetters to fit you in, and now that ALL referees are re-interviewed every year, that makes it all the worse.
We live, nevertheless, in hope.”
The value of a registry as a crime prevention and crime solving tool has repeatedly been advanced by its supporters.. The police on many occasions before the recent law changes have argued that a registry is not necessary for their operations, so the decision to embark upon a registry seems to be political, not a pragmatic one. The late Sir Thomas Thorp qualified his support for a firearm register by noting that “…unless a compliance rate of not less than 90 percent can be achieved, the benefits derived from registration would be significantly reduced” (Thorp, 1997, p. 184).
Licensed firearm owners already offend if they illegally possess or sell firearms
Five offences exist in law for illegally supplying or possessing firearms. These attract penalties of up to two years of imprisonment or fines of up to $15,000.
Limited crime prevention potential of full firearm registration
The police, in 1996, noted in their evidence-in-chief to the Thorp Review (1997) of firearms that there was little evidence that universal registration provided any real benefits unless it was accompanied by regular checks every 2-3 years on the firearms held by every firearm owner.
The police also noted that, “…there is little evidence that a registration system would be instrumental either in solving serious crime involving firearms or preventing them. The majority of firearms used in serious crime do not belong to the offender and are usually stolen, unlawfully in their possession or supplied by other than a licensed owner.
Proponents for this measure also overlook the fact that although registration of motor vehicles for road use is near-universal, more than 20,000 motor vehicles are stolen annually, some of which undoubtedly feature in reported offending (Otago Daily Times 30 April 2022). This is for a motor vehicle fleet of some 4.5 million vehicles. Compared to firearms (for which an estimated 1.2 million are in private ownership in New Zealand), the annual total reported stolen is approximately 1,000, testament surely to the greater security afforded these items?
Just what we want – another waste of taxpayer’s money!
References:
Otago Daily Times (2022), “Security roller door didn’t stop latest ram-raid”, Otago Daily Times, 30 April 2022.
Thorp, T.M. (1997) Review of Firearms Control in New Zealand – Report of an Independent Inquiry Commissioned by the Minister of Police. Wellington, New Zealand: GP Print. (281 pp.).
Why? We give you one simple example.
The new Registry requires firearms owners to enter details of the rifles they own. That includes the make model and serial number of each rifle. Essential if the Register is to fulfil its design purpose.
That sounds easy enough – BUT – it isn’t. Police haven’t taken the trouble to learn from all the other (failed) firearms registers around the world.
Take an obvious example the humble “Lee Enfield .303”.
Probably the second most common rifle in New Zealand, having been used by thousands of hunters throughout the 20th century. These ex military rifles will definitely have a serial number. BUT Where on the rifle is that serial number or even the name of the manufacturer for that matter.
Is it made by Lee Enfield?
No, because the manufacturer could be a Small Arms Factory at Enfield, BSA, Sparkbrook, LSA, Long Branch, Savage, Maltby, Fazakerly, Lithgow, Ishapore, Pakistan, Nepal to name a few and often only indicated by a war time code letter rather than the name.
Is the model LE (Lee Enfield) or LM (Lee Metford)? Depending on the type of rifling.
Not necessarily because the model could be: LE I, LE I*, LEC, Sht LE III, No 4 Mk I, No 4 Mk 1/3, No 5 Mk I, etc. etc.
Which is the Serial No and where does the owner find it?
On early ones it is on the RHS of the receiver ring, with the same or sometimes a different number on the barrel. On No 4s (WW II) onwards it is on LHS of the receiver body or on the butt socket.
BUT in those same places are also unit marks and numbers. So which number will the naive owner choose – always assuming he can find it.
A few hundred serious collectors will know which is which but the many thousands of lone hunters out there won’t know these subtleties. Don’t believe us? Just look on Trademe to see them simply listed as 303 rifle.
Magazines: thousands (literally) have no manufacturers marking of any form.
So if an innocent owner enters in the register say a unit rack number or Home Guard No are they providing false information to the registry? Will they be charged with an offence?are they providing false information to the registry? Will they be charged with an offence?
On Saturday the new long range shooting season opened at Trentham in Upper Hutt. It was great to see the Minister of Police Hon Chris Hipkins attend and participate in the opening match with Nicole McKee, the Mayor of Upper Hutt Wayne Guppy and Mayoral Candidate Angela McLeod.
Full info’ here:
https://l-to.com/lq1125cy
But are politicians aware that their changes to the Arms Act will result in the closure of many ranges and prevent many firearm owners from taking part in this sport?
Let them know we care!
Update 20220907; response from COLFO
Recent reports about the finding of contraband firearms, ammunition and cash at an Auckland bail facility suggests once more that police enforcement of these and similar facilities is either lacking, or lackadaisical.
This underscores how police treat as ‘poor cousins’ anything that is not regarded as a priority, including the administration of firearm control measures – for decades.
We now learn facilities for holding offenders who have gained bail (also, a privilege, surely?) may well be under-scrutinised to the extent they not only access firearms but get to store them there.
We must ask if anyone at the facility was licensed for firearm ownership, and if the firearms and ammunition were being stored correctly, i.e. in accord with the police recommendations and the requirements of Regulations 19 or 28 of the Arms Regulations (1992).
The situation also begs the question of exactly how full firearm registration will prevent the subsequent re-occurrence of this situation in the future?
Clearly, without enforcement, crime and criminal behavior will flourish!
Why is it taking so long (12 months or more) for police to renew a firearms licence?
Could it be that Police are swamped in a mess of their own making. A more important question is why is it the job of Police to renew a licence? These questions are being asked by responsible firearm owners who are compromised and inhibited by the scandalous delays within police.
Really, compromised, inhibited? Yes because under the huge volume of new and convoluted law, police have dumped on fully vetted New Zealanders.
A firearms owner whose licence has expired before police issue the replacement licence can no longer use or even have possession of his or her firearms and must transfer them to another licenceholder’s secure storage. Not an easy task by any means. Very few licence holders have excess secure storage and transferring bulk firearms adds to the risk of theft or loss.
Act Member of Parliament (MP) Nicole McKee recently questioned Police Minister Chris Hipkins about the long delays in issuing new licences. The answer she got can be summed up as platitudes. Clearly it is not a top priority for Police or their master the Hon Mr Hipkins.
Well, it is not good enough Mr Hipkins. Please note that Police should police the law and not administer that law and Parliament should only pass law that can be easily understood and complied with by the average law abiding citizen
