AMENDING ARMS ACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20331, 12 August 1929, Page 11

AMENDING ARMS ACT.

VIEWPOINT OF DEALERS*

OBJECTIONS TO REGULATIONS.

CHANGES WOULD BE WELCOMED.

The foreshadowed amendment of the .Arms .Act, 1920, is viewed ■with satisfaction by sports dealers in the city, who have for some, time sought to secure simplified regulations dealing with the purchase and ownership of firearms. It is stated the .Act bristles with petty regulations, which greatly hamper trado and restrict the liberty of those in possession of arms.

The regulations do not apply to shotguns or shotgun ammunition, but have reference to rifles used in deer and pigshooting. The carrying into effect of the provisions of the Arms Act is in the hands of the police, and although there is nothing to prevent anyone obtaining a firearm, various regulations make the purchase of a rifle an awkward business. 'The same restrictions apply to the purchase of ammunition. It is claimed that the operations of the Act have cost dealers in New Zealand the loss of some thousands of pounds through the irksome restrictions which surround tho purchase of rifles and ceriain varieties of ammunition. Any rifie which discharges a cartridge requires the possession of a permit by the owner. Kestrictions Quoted. Some of the outstanding restrictions were mentioned by one city dealer on Saturday. He said if anyone wished to lend a rifle to a friend he was not legally entitled to do so until tho friend had a permit. If the friend kept the rifle longer than a week he had to register it. Under the provisions of the Act, if a man went on a shooting trip for a longer period than a week he was required to register the firearm wherever ho happened to be. Thero was a greatdeal of difference of opinion among police officers as to how the Act, should be interpreted. It was very often found that an officer would not issue a permit until he was in possession of all details of the rifie proposed to be purchased. I'his imposed a great hardship on the man who was undecided on the exact nature of the rifle he proposed to buy. A man from the country would have to choose his rifle v.hen in town, and then obtain a permit from the constable in his district before purchasing it. This would mean a second trip to town. Some constables took a broader view of the regulations, and required merely notification of the calibre of the rifle it was proposed to purchase. This was considered a reasonable precaution. Suggested Changes.

It was stated there was a great objection on the part of many peoplo to visiting a police station to register a firearm or obtain a permit. There was no limit to the number of firearms a man could register. The dealer quoted the case of n- friend in the South who kept a stock of rifles as curios. He had 45 in his collection, and for each of these he had obtained a permit. 'So questions were asked of him when he obtained a permit for each new rifle purchased. The dealer also pointed out that the eost of putting •the Act in operation must be fairly large, necessitating special arms officers in the larger centres.

Pealrrs claim that the whole purpose of the Act could be achieved by (]) licensing dealers as at present, but-elimin-

ating the " general authority

abolishing the permit, system; (5) abolishing the present system of registration; (4) dealers to keep a register of sales of rifles and rifle ammunition on the lines of the present arms register. It is stated that the system suggested would enable, as at. present, any firearm to be traced. Dealers claim that the Act serves no purpose that cannot be attained more, cheaply and as effectively by the suggested method.