checks, registration of shotguns (which had been abandoned) and individual licensing

This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. (November 2007)

Firearms first arrived in New Zealand with European traders and were traded in large numbers to the native Maori. This lead partly to the Musket Wars of the early 19th century. The first gun control laws were enacted in 1845, but early regulations were ineffective until the passage of the Arms Act in 1860, which required licences and registration of firearms and firearm dealers. Early laws were mainly targeted at Maori during the land wars in the Waikato and Taranaki, and were largely suspended at the end of the 1880s. By about 1910 the laws were ignored and unenforced, as crime and the threat of political unrest were minimal.

Strikes in 1912 and 1913, a Communist revolution in Russia, and large numbers of ex-military guns coming into the country after World War I were used as justification for a new law in 1920. The new law required the registration of all firearms and issuance of a "permit to procure" before a firearm was transferred. Semi-automatic pistols were banned and a special permit was needed for other pistols (e.g. revolvers), with the intent of discouraging the carrying of concealed weapons. Few changes were seen for the next forty years as crime remained low and the country avoided political violence.

Increasing gun crime in the 1960s led to greater police use of registration records, which were generally inaccurate or out-of-date. A project to check the register began in 1967, and found that 66 percent of entries were inaccurate in some way, with many guns not be found at all. Police thought that the register was largely useless, and that substantial resources would be needed to keep it up-to-date. It was believed that the government would be unlikely to provide the resources required to update the register and that it would be politically difficult to demand registration information from firearm owners. Various new laws were introduced in the 1970s and 80s, proposing more government checks, registration of shotguns (which had been abandoned) and individual licensing.

An internal police report in 1982 criticised the proposals, saying there was no evidence that registration helped to solve crimes, and that registration would use time and money better spent on other police work. This policy was adopted by the government in the 1983 Act.[5]
The 1983 Arms Act

Anyone buying firearms or ammunition, whether privately or from a dealer, needs to show their firearms licence. In addition

E Endorsement – Military Style Semi-Automatics (M.S.S.A)

New class of restricted weapon that was created after the Aramoana tragedy. At the time anyone with an M.S.S.A that wanted to keep it in that configuration was given a E endorsement (after going through the vetting and extra security requirements). But presently few are issued. Common reasons for wanting an E endorsement are professional pest destruction, collecting, 3-gun and service rifle shooting. Those people that did not want the extra hassle and expense of the endorsement converted their rifles into 'A' configuration by removing the components that made it an 'E'.

F Endorsement – Dealers Staff Licence

This class allows a person working for a dealer to demonstrate a Pistol, Military Style Semi Automatic or a Collectable weapon without having to have that class of licence. They can demonstrate one but not possess one for personal use. This is not a well known endorsement
Buying and selling

Anyone buying firearms or ammunition, whether privately or from a dealer, needs to show their firearms licence. In addition, a permit to procure must be obtained prior to the transfer of pistols, military-style semi-automatics and restricted weapons. Sales can be made by mail-order, but a police officer must sign the order form to verify that the purchaser has a firearms licence.
History

The Pensions Act 2004 governs a separate system for protecting pension claims, through the Pension Protection Fund

In most corporate insolvencies, it is likely that a large number of people's jobs rely on continued business. Accordingly, UK labour law touches corporate insolvencies in three main ways. First, employment contracts cannot be changed except when there are good economic, technical or organisational reasons under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. This matters particularly in the case of a sale of a business' assets. Second, special provisions concern the adoption of employees' contracts by an administrator or other insolvency practitioner, but apparently with various limits on the obligations that survive. Third, employees and their pensions have preferential claims above other creditors' rights, and if this is exhausted may claim money from the National Insurance Fund or the Pension Protection Fund.

Often business transfers take place when a company has plunged into an insolvency procedure. If a company enters liquidation, which aims to wind down the business and sell off the assets, TUPER 2006 regulation 8(7) states that the rules on transfer will not apply.[191]

If employees are kept on after an administrator is appointed for more than 14 days, under paragraph 99 the administrator becomes responsible for adopting their contracts. The liability on contracts is limited to "wages and salaries".[192] This includes pay, holiday pay, sick pay and occupational pension contributions, but has been held to not include compensation for unfair dismissal cases,[193] wrongful dismissal,[194] or protective awards for failure to consult the workforce before redundancies.[195] If the business rescue does ultimately fail, then such money due employees achieves the status of "super priority" among different creditors' claims.

Employees wages and pensions have preferential status, but only up to an £800 limit, a figure which has remained unchanged since 1986.[196] Employees having priority among creditors, albeit not above fixed security holders, dates back to 1897,[197] and is justified on the ground that employees are particularly incapable, unlike banks, of diversifying their risk, and forms one of the requirements in the ILO Protection of Workers' Claims (Employer's Insolvency) Convention.[198] Often this limited preference is not enough, and can take a long time to realise. Reflecting the Insolvency Protection Directive[199] under ERA 1996 section 166 any employee[200] may lodge a claim with the National Insurance Fund for outstanding wages. Under ERA 1996 section 182 the amount claimable is the same as that for unfair dismissal (£350 in 2010) for a limit of 8 weeks. If an employee has been unpaid for a longer period, she may choose the most beneficial 8 weeks.[201]

The Pensions Act 2004 governs a separate system for protecting pension claims, through the Pension Protection Fund. This aims to fully insure all pension claims.[202] Together with minimum redundancy payments, the guarantees of wages form a meagre cushion which requires more of a systematic supplementation when people remain unemployed.