The Sporting Shooters Association of New Zealand is disappointed that the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill doesn’t bring positive change to landholders who are collateral damage thanks to Labour’s "shoot first ask questions later" approach to gun laws.

When SSANZ was able to submit for the preliminary stakeholder consultation process a few months ago, we noted that landholders, not gun clubs, were most exposed to Labour’s ill-advised Clubs and Ranges regulations on a technical by-catch. What this Bill does not change is Labour’s definition of a ‘shooting range’ so it is disappointing that the Minister retains this flawed definition rather than addressing the problem.

This definition does not regulate all ‘shooting ranges’ in New Zealand. It only regulates them if the place in question meets all three of the criteria. It needs to be either a facility or a designated area, it also needs to be used by a shooting club or members of the public, and for the primary purpose of carrying out shooting activities.

What SSANZ believes this Labour-era definition does not capture is a private landholder setting up their own range on their own land, as they are not a shooting club or member of the public. SSANZ believes that this is a good outcome. However, the current law and Bill do not clarify what a member of the public is, in relation to the landholder. A range is free to exist on private land, and only becomes ‘regulated’ if a friend visits and uses that range. If the visitor were to set up their own range temporarily, in that they set up and remove their targets after use, on somebody else’s private property, this would be entirely lawful.

Firearms Safety Authority (FSA) policy guidance is contained within the Shooting Range Manual in sections 2.3(b) and 8.1. Reaffirming that temporary ranges operated by people who aren’t a Gun Club are exempt from regulation beyond usual Arms Act obligations regarding safe firearms use. This interpretation implies that despite members of the public (such as friends) engaging in shooting activities in a designated area, the primary purpose of the area hasn’t changed due to the temporary existence of the range. SSANZ agrees with this analysis, but it means if a ‘member of the public’ were to use a target that was left by the landholder it may have the effect of bringing that range into the Act’s regime in the eyes of the FSA. SSANZ believes that this is absurd, as the law is not regulating the existence of ranges, but merely who can use them. The law and Bill’s refusal to define who a ‘member of the public’ is, as far as their relationship with the landholder, is a source of great uncertainty for landholders who were never considered range operators or gun clubs to begin with.

Ginny Andersen, in the first reading, claimed “The Wild West is coming to a backyard near you, ladies and gentlemen.” But Labour’s law never prevented the creation of private ranges on suitable plots of land to begin with, which leads SSANZ to once again question Andersen’s understanding of firearms law.

All the law does is force ‘members of the public’ to set up improvised ranges on third-party land that they are forced to dismantle after they have been used. If they used a landholder’s preexisting targets that are never removed, the landholder may be deemed to be ‘operating’ a range illegally and be liable for up to a $10,000 fine. This technicality applies to every landholder in New Zealand and needs to be addressed.

© Scoop Media