 I want to say thank you very much for coming along. They can get some young fella, just go here and get a hot dog pee tomorrow. He's got to pee tomorrow, he's got to borrow it. You can go and buy a gala for me tomorrow and give it to them. I can sell tea and gum for you tomorrow and you can go and sell whatever you want That's what's happened to me, I think a lot of farmers have disappeared because once I've sold them and I'm saying that you guys have some legally, if you sell them, you'll make some things that's fine. We've got licenses but this guy here might not be, trust me, he can buy 10 of me today and go and sell them to the mongrel mob tomorrow. They have very much of luck attracting back so on and you're going to see where you're going. No, if you have to procure it and the police are here immediately, you've got to look at that data and say ok, well this guy had it originally, come and this guy get it and they're saying in their report that they can't use the registration system that sort of thing to do. If there was a database that allowed them to do this quickly and easily, would that change the view at all? No, look at me, I've got five heads. I'm a big cat with the USA and all my life I've had human rights, I've got pistols in it and I'd tell you about it, there's a 50% chance that they'll break them into place if they enter into the serial number. Really? Is it that bad? So when I've sold them, they're going to sell them to a dealer and then again they'll say oh yeah they've sold everything out and they don't sort things out. Both the cinnamon overhead, of course they've been tried and counted, it doesn't work I mean we're going to get big from the issue about keeping the guns out of the game which is really what the issue was and I can't understand how gang members are going to get a gun license so I mean that just seems to be the worst. I can help you there, there's about 3,500 known gang members to the police 26 of them have firearms license, alright? So they're always going to get guns, they've been proven and everyone's been proven and so on. So you're not going to stop them getting them? Being a gang member is a category that sees you are not a very good person so the courts have actually ruled on that. If you steal a gun, you're then charged with having a gun unlawfully. If you also steal a car and a couple of other things and what have you and something else more valuable, you're charged for stealing all those as well. When it comes to court, do you see many people get charged and get time that's incurring with his other charges? No, they're all bloody lumped in together and you might as well not bloody bother. That if you get caught poaching fish, you lose your boat, your car and a whole lot of other stuff. You lose your head. Well, Kenyan, if you get caught with a gun then you get slipped on the hand with a wet bus ticket. I think if you go back to some basics here, one is when you sit before a firearm license and anyone correct me here if I'm wrong, but safety is drilled into people when you sit and test. There's actually not a huge emphasis on security. Now I work in agriculture for a little time, I do a lot of farming and I hear time and time again too many people lack stories and lack security with them. So that's where they get stolen. Secondly, regarding safety and security, I still think there needs to be better measures of security than you hear of too many stories of safes just being ripped off of you. If they take a hold of you, it doesn't matter what you do, they're determined. They're going to take it. They're going to take it. If they make it harder, then that's all better. But rather than spending a ton of money on frivolous things that actually aren't going to change anything, maybe they should get a government subsidised for higher quality heavy duty safes. I'm not any of you guys in this room, I'm sure he can be holding a ring of thinking. Which is, I don't know a lot of you guys around and you've already got you, he can be, and my biggest concern if they change the serial amount of T-22s to serial rate rifles, a shotgun, then all of those guys and thousands of them, they shouldn't dance. They're going to say, well now my $3,000 breed is going to be worth $500 because I can't afford the $12 safe. I won't get my get-relicence because I'm not a fit of a good, if you've got a trip driving charge or an assault charge or something, anything. You've got to give them a reason to get their get-relicence. You can't just give them a good production. You guys have really worked hard to get yours, but I'm talking about thousands and thousands of people. I'm going to say to you now, my single mother and my wife are in T-22s. I wasn't just hiding, going around with it or selling it in the black market. That's where they're going to go. You're going to find out more. You guys already got your licenses and you don't have, you want to look after them and you want to look after your rifles and things like that. What you've got, you want to protect. And it's amazing how many of you guys have already got it. You understand that. It's something where there's way more guys than you guys that aren't here to stand up for what they're going to lose. The magazine at the moment, when does it go to make it? Seven shots. Seven shots. I think if you read this, guys, the police have come back and seen it. They would like to make U.C.S.A.s and leaving shots and over. Okay, so T-22 roogers, all the shotguns. It's not a war. The police get to change, this is half the thing. The police are changing their policies. You can go to one area of New Zealand and the firearms guys got one. Yes. The interpretation of the war. Yes. If you go to another one, he's got another one. The police shouldn't be setting this stuff. So there's one really important point to say, and this kid did come through with some of the mountain safety training actually, is that the firearms officers need a much stricter guidelines about what they should be doing and should be looking at and should be testing because the lack of consistency is real consuming. So this total inconsistency, it's a war as we've got, but I think it's one of the best in the world. Here, here. We set them up, because of the spot. Same gun safe, same paper thing, and passed because of gold. When the gun came in the next time, I had to do it just for 10 slides of shotgun ammunition. He took one look at it, started using the word like Armageddon and how could I possibly need that in our ammunition. And I failed about 4 or 5 times. And I said to him, I'm going to look at your file and see what I passed last time. Then he came back the next day and said, well, it says in your file that you wanted to do the arm. You should have seen that. He said, sit your head, pins in your door. He said, well, they're still there. He'd come back and seen what he thought was an excessive amount of ammunition. It depends on the person. You get their interpretation. You get some guys telling you what to say and the answer. Would you use a gun to defend yourself? He said, if you answer no, you get a straight to question 27. If you answer yes, you've got another hour of questions. The guy doesn't even come and see me anymore. He rings me on the goddamn phone and says, what do you think about this fight, John? Blah, blah, blah. And I go, well, he's good as God because he drank too much. Nah, he's fine. Well, what I've tried to do is outline what feedback I've got, which I will take back to the committee and take back to my caucus. And that is the recommendation that we look at to censors. We'll not look at review and revise the censors for people who are using firearms to commit a crime. The second thing is that fit and proper person, we've got to ensure that if someone is in a gang, they are automatically ruled out of that fit and proper person category. All prospect or associate. That's what we said, all prospect or associate. Absolutely. The third thing is what I was trying to explain before is to make the firearms act more prescriptive. So the arms officers actually have a lot less discretion, but they know exactly what they've got to do and it's not up to the discretion or the interpretation, which varies right across the country. People are asking me, on the white feet, they want you to clarify what your position is on registration. In terms of registration, again, what I've heard loud and clear is that it doesn't work. But that's not emphatic, am I right in saying that? But in terms of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, it doesn't work. If you guys are saying that fit is the number one way that criminals can farm firearms, and we haven't actually seen any evidence, any dialogue to suggest that. I can give you data. I have got data on how many firearms the police have recovered. Okay, so let's say it's employed that, the number one way that criminals can farm firearms and registering the guns is going to do nothing to fit. If we did register firearms, would it be easier for the police to trace where those firearms have come from? Your own example answers that question. You said there were 14 MSSAs found at the gang headquarters. They don't know where any of them came from. MSSAs have been registered for how long? It's been since 1992. Since 1992. Out of the 14 firearms that they found, surely the cause of one of them has been since 1992, and they couldn't tell you where it came from. And what I will do is I will go and ask the police about that raid, and find out if they had managed to track where any of those guns had come from. Can we go back to what you were saying before about you've come here tonight, you've talked about what you're going to go away with. You know, partial penalties, what we talked about, security. What were the other points you were going to raise? Just making the firearms a lot more prescriptive. So we didn't leave it to... So secondly, taking things out of regulations and putting it into the Arms Act, which would mean the Arms Act, it's obviously a bigger piece of legislation, but what it would do is it would take discretion, first of all, out of the hands of firearms officers and police, but what it would also do is whenever the police wanted to change the rules, it would have to be an amendment to the Arms Act, and it couldn't be done through regulations, i.e. MPs don't debate it and New Zealanders don't have their business met on it. We entered this in good faith, and I didn't start this by saying, okay, how can I f**k off $200,000? I was... No, you heard exactly. But now, I genuinely... I'm genuinely concerned, or want to note, how we can do things better so firearms don't get in the hands of criminals and gangs. We've got subject... We read all these, and we also heard from people who were... If you say there were... I read everything. And what we did is we had the police as our expert advisers, and on every single committee with every single report, whether it's tax you have expert advisers from the IRD, if it's a law and order you have expert advisers from the police, and so on and so forth. So, you know, what I am doing here is saying that the feedback I've received from right across the country is we've got that wrong, but what we now need to do to get it right, what we now need to do is have a different conversation around how we actually achieve the outcomes that we set out to achieve in the next one. I think the concern here, Mr... is that you go back to Wellington and say those things, and they say, in the other nine, say, no, we've got a spot on, let's carry on. Okay, well, I'll tell you what happens. I'll tell you what happens. Okay, so the process is the police receive this report, and then they write a report for the minister, and they don't have to agree with any of this. That report is going to take about three or four weeks, so it will nearly be on her desk. The minister then makes a decision around whether she accepts that police report or not, and so if she accepts it, or doesn't, if she doesn't accept it, then this ends up in the bin and we all move on and it's like this didn't happen. If she accepts it, or there are certain aspects of the report that the police accept and the minister accepts, then that is codified in legislation. So what you'll end up with is an amendment to the Arms Act, which then goes through the parliamentary process, which then allows Kiwis another chance to submit on any of the changes to the Arms Act. And what I will do is I'll probably write a one to two page report for my corpus, and saying, hey, on all the feedback I've got, this is what I've heard, and this is now what I believe our view on this should be. So they're acting in that manner. And you know what, that is a very good point actually. In one of the police association magazines, a number of the association members, i.e. police, said, I think it might have been sixty percent, but it's quite a high percentage of them, that we do not believe we're getting an understanding of firearms. So my takeaways of what I've said a couple of times and what I'll take away from this, and what I would do if I was a police minister, I promise you that the police won't make change in regulations because I have no control over that. But what I would say is unless they push a bill through under urgency, then no legislation will be passed before the election. And unless the bill goes through under urgency, then anything has to go to a select committee, and the select committee has to call for submissions. And what I would urge every single person to do is if a bill does go to select committee and you have real concerns about it, then you're going to say to write in and let the committee know. How do we find out if that's happening? I'll let you know. In fact, all you guys are here that have got big networks says that if there is a piece of legislation with changes to the arms act, it will get out there. I have no doubt about that.