The Firearms Safety Authority has publicly rebuked the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners (COLFO) over claims that police have bullied and used standover tactics against licensed gun owners. The authority's acting director, Superintendent Bruce Bird, described the lobby group's stance as "inflammatory" and questioned how many firearms owners COLFO actually represents.

The clash comes as the Justice Select Committee — a cross-party group of MPs who scrutinise proposed laws — has recommended that the Arms Bill be passed, according to RNZ. The bill progresses alongside the establishment of a new independent regulator, Firearms Safety and Education New Zealand, which the Firearms Safety Authority said would likely begin operating from September.

The new regulator will be hosted by New Zealand Police for operational support, but sworn police officers will no longer be involved in day-to-day decision making. That structural change goes to the heart of COLFO's long-running complaint: that police should not serve as the firearms regulator, because of a perceived conflict of interest.

Hugh Devereux-Mack, a COLFO representative, told RNZ that trust and confidence in police among licensed firearms owners had declined since 2019. He said police had begun viewing licensed owners as potential criminals. He claimed police used standover and bullying tactics, raided licensed firearms owners' houses for non-criminal reasons, and now attend homes armed with pistols by default as general policy. Devereux-Mack also claimed police were trying to influence lawmakers to make firearms rules more restrictive.

Bird responded directly to RNZ. He said he was "incredibly disappointed" by COLFO's "inflammatory position" and noted that COLFO's membership is less than 5% of New Zealand's 220,000 firearms licence holders. He said COLFO annually asks its members through a Facebook page to fill in a "non-scientific questionnaire" that invariably concludes there should be less regulatory oversight and that police should not be the regulator.

Bird countered that the Firearms Safety Authority's own surveys showed an increase in trust in the regulator from both licensed gun owners and the wider public. He said the overwhelming majority of firearms licence holders in New Zealand are law-abiding, and the authority makes no apologies for revoking licences from those found no longer fit and proper due to criminal offending, domestic violence, or psychological challenges.

The Firearms Safety Authority operates as a separately branded business unit of New Zealand Police, according to Bird. The authority's rebuke of COLFO was delivered in response to RNZ's reporting rather than through a formal press release or separate statement.

The broader context here is a regulatory system in transition. The Arms Bill's passage through the select committee stage, combined with the imminent stand-up of Firearms Safety and Education New Zealand, is the most significant structural reform to firearms administration since the post-Christchurch reforms tightened ownership rules. The decision to host the new regulator within Police for operational support while removing sworn officers from day-to-day decision making is a deliberate compromise: it addresses the perception of a conflict of interest without fully severing the institutional link to Police.

For those working in the firearms policy space, several things are worth noting. COLFO's claims about armed visits and house raids are serious and specific, and whether they gain traction will depend on whether the lobby group can produce evidence beyond its own membership surveys. Bird's counter-framing positions COLFO as a small, self-selecting group whose findings are predetermined, which is a calculated effort to limit the lobby group's credibility in the select committee and public debate. The authority's own trust surveys, which Bird says show improving confidence, will likely be scrutinised by COLFO and potentially by MPs on both sides of the House.

The separation of operational support from regulatory decision making within the new authority is the detail that will matter most to licence holders and to officials designing the transition. How that boundary is drawn in practice, and whether it satisfies critics who want a fully independent regulator outside Police entirely, will shape the political reception of the Arms Bill as it moves toward its third reading.