Does NZ need better gun laws?

Forums › Off topic › Does NZ need better gun laws?

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16

398 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 41

#1121756 4-Sep-2014 12:24

TimA:
I have seen many people denied for not having one in an urban area. These days i would suggest its required. The process is extremely comprehensive. The MSSA firearms need to be bolted to the ground etc.

You'd be surprised, for cat a there is minimum requirement on secure storage. Almost anything would do.

Cat b/e are a totally different ball game.

gzt

18724 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7860

Lifetime subscriber

#1121758 4-Sep-2014 12:31

Dratsab:
hangon: What are we questioning for? What can be done to the gun law that would've prevented John Henry Tully from doing what he did?

The original post, which has been excessively deviated from, asserted the gun laws needed updating in light of the Ashburton shooting and past similar tragedies, then asked for peoples thoughts on the matter.

Yeah we still don't know where he got it. My guess it was an unsecured firearm which he obtained. Or maybe it was loaned to him for an agricultural purpose. He was apprehended on farmland area and may be familiar with that environment. People tend to be a bit looser in the backblocks with that sort of thing.

I'm aware police have stated he did not have an approved storage method in his vehicle (which he lived in). But I have not seen anywhere a statement that he did not have a firearms license. It is possible at this stage he is a licensed user. Hypothetically, if that is the case - is there a mechanism in place to revoke a licence if that person makes general threats of harm? As he may have during his relationship with WINZ.

hangon

398 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 41

#1121770 4-Sep-2014 12:44

gzt:
I'm aware police have stated he did not have an approved storage method in his vehicle (which he lived in). But I have not seen anywhere a statement that he did not have a firearms license. It is possible at this stage he is a licensed user. Hypothetically, if that is the case - is there a mechanism in place to revoke a licence if that person makes general threats of harm? As he may have during his relationship with WINZ.

WINZ killings: Accused Russel Tully didn't have firearms licence, say police
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11317725

Geektastic

18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1121772 4-Sep-2014 12:47

hangon:
gzt:
I'm aware police have stated he did not have an approved storage method in his vehicle (which he lived in). But I have not seen anywhere a statement that he did not have a firearms license. It is possible at this stage he is a licensed user. Hypothetically, if that is the case - is there a mechanism in place to revoke a licence if that person makes general threats of harm? As he may have during his relationship with WINZ.

WINZ killings: Accused Russel Tully didn't have firearms licence, say police
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11317725

I've seen licences revoked within hours for doing that.

Someone at our club once uttered the words "i'll bloody kill you!" to some committee members he had fallen out with.

The police raided his house within 3 hours and took all his firearms.

Geektastic

18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1121774 4-Sep-2014 12:48

hangon:
TimA:
I have seen many people denied for not having one in an urban area. These days i would suggest its required. The process is extremely comprehensive. The MSSA firearms need to be bolted to the ground etc.

You'd be surprised, for cat a there is minimum requirement on secure storage. Almost anything would do.

Cat b/e are a totally different ball game.

Yes. A steel ring and a cable lock would suffice for A cat, as would a locked room with brick walls and a solid door.

Geektastic

18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1121775 4-Sep-2014 12:50

KiwiNZ: It amuses me and annoys me how folks criticise and insult the Police from the safety of their basements or bedrooms, if these same people had to face and deal with what the Police do daily they would run crying to their basements and or bedrooms.

Then when they hear at noise at night they call who? Those very people they put down.

Nah. Why call them when they will take a bare minimum of 30 minutes to get here and more likely 45 minutes?

We have alternative procedures...!

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1121837 4-Sep-2014 13:49

Some examples of bad law\police procedure we as firearms owners have to deal with a) we need a permit to import a front or rear sight because they class it as a part, but you can buy in NZ without a permit. Sights dont even have serial numbers so what are they trying to track \ prevent ? b) I can order a foregrip from overseas for my A-cat rifle, paintball gun, airsoft gun......but if I intend to use it on my pistol or carbine, I need a permit, again if I buy in NZ I dont need anything.

c) my AR15 with a fixed stock is classed as A-cat, the same AR15 with adjustable stock is E-cat (regardless of magazine size) Simply being in possession of a compatible stock is cause for prosecution, even if I had something it could legally fit on....they still get you for intention.

d) I can buy 30 round mags if I want legally, but cant legally fit them to an A-cat rifle (making an MSSA)....see point a) yet I need a permit for something as inane as a front sight. Duh !!!

e) If I want to run a 20 round mag on my A-cat Ruger 10/22 I need to sign it up as an E-Cat. If I sell the mag, and then want to sell the rifle..I can only sell it as an E-Cat (the change is permenant)..even though the same rifle can be brought as an A-cat in the shop.

f) a pistol shooter had to attend a pistol club 12 times a year to keep their licence and jump through many hoops to gain their licence and permits galore to buy a handgun, the owner of a A-Cat dragunov sniper rifle (7.62 caliber) simply needs a basic firearms licence, rudimentary storage and doesnt need to belong to any shooting association.

Obviously the police have to much time on their hands and are certainly focusing on the wrong people and things.

hangon

398 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 41

#1121855 4-Sep-2014 14:03

heylinb4nz:
Obviously the police have to much time on their hands and are certainly focusing on the wrong people and things.

Does NZ need better gun laws?

Yes we do. But probably not what OP had in mind.

mattwnz

20521 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1121899 4-Sep-2014 15:14

Geektastic:
hangon:
gzt:
I'm aware police have stated he did not have an approved storage method in his vehicle (which he lived in). But I have not seen anywhere a statement that he did not have a firearms license. It is possible at this stage he is a licensed user. Hypothetically, if that is the case - is there a mechanism in place to revoke a licence if that person makes general threats of harm? As he may have during his relationship with WINZ.

WINZ killings: Accused Russel Tully didn't have firearms licence, say police
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11317725

I've seen licences revoked within hours for doing that.

Someone at our club once uttered the words "i'll bloody kill you!" to some committee members he had fallen out with.

The police raided his house within 3 hours and took all his firearms.

That's good to hear. Hope he didn't get ever get them back.

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 305

#1122053 4-Sep-2014 18:22

Just heard about a TAB worker held at gunpoint after exchanging money who then got away with an accomplice in a Ford flatbed truck.

I wonder what price is going on whether or not that guy had a license for the firearm he was using in an illegal life threatening manner...

mattwnz

20521 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1122060 4-Sep-2014 18:30

I think my topic really should have been 'should gun use be more restricted'. The problem with any laws is enforcement and policing, and the current laws maybe some of the best in the world as some have said, and I don't disagree with this. But they are falling into the wrong hands. So there must be something that can be done to restrict access to gun to only those who need to use them.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 305

#1122062 4-Sep-2014 18:40

You cant force people to follow the law. Drugs are illegal too, but you can grow them in your backyard and buy them on the street. Flick knives are illegal too, but I know several collectors that honestly don't give a hoot.

Guns are probably the most regulated and controlled out of the both...But with the right amount of money, you could pick whatever you liked off of the street.

The internet has made it easier for trafficking of illegal goods too. You no longer have to have that friend of a friend who's cousin's Dad has a gang connection.

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 272

#1122109 4-Sep-2014 19:46

heylinb4nz:
What rock have you been living on ? Did you forget about the whole THumbhole grip saga ? then the police having the law changed via AAB3 to allow them to classify anything as an MSSA at the stroke of a pen ? Import permits required for Roni Kits (an accessory under law) just beacause police hq wanted to know who was getting them in.

The hand in policy (illegal) for e-cats and e cat parts.

Deliberately misinterpreting law to suit your own agenda is effectively changing law.

They also do it for boy racers and anyone they deem to be a boy racer.

Ooh, bring on an attack when you can't argue fact! The NZ Police DO NOT MAKE LAWS. They can, and do, institute amendments and they do interpret the laws (often inconsistently) but they don't make law. Proposed amendments can always be submitted upon and lobbied against, even when public submissions are not called for.
The law does not change when someone misinterprets it. Misinterpretation and incorrect application can be challenged and every licensed firearms owner should stand up for their rights if they fall foul of an overeager arms officer.

The argument that because some arms officers that are not well-informed, or accidentally/deliberately misinterpret the law means that all NZ police misinterpret/misapply the laws is as erroneous as saying all firearms owners are irresponsible just because a few may be.

Generalisations are dangerous things to play with when discussing firearms laws.

Elpie

1304 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 272

#1122113 4-Sep-2014 19:59

mattwnz: I think my topic really should have been 'should gun use be more restricted'. The problem with any laws is enforcement and policing, and the current laws maybe some of the best in the world as some have said, and I don't disagree with this. But they are falling into the wrong hands. So there must be something that can be done to restrict access to gun to only those who need to use them.

It's actually not possible. NZ had so many firearms in the country before there were laws governing their ownership and even now we have classes of firearms where the owner is licensed but there is no accounting for the number of guns they own. Nobody really knows how many guns are here. Adding to this, firearms are usable for a very long time. A 100-year-old gun (and there are some still in use here) can kill just as well as a new one. Guns are around. Probably far more guns than any of us could guess at. People who really set out to acquire one illegally will always be able to.

This thing about restricting them to people who need to use them is tough to legislate. Who would define "need"? The farmer that keeps a gun to humanely kill injured stock? The clay target shooter that shoots for fun but will never make it to NZ competition representative level? The guy in the backblocks that uses them to feed his family? The history buff that recognises the amazing engineering and beauty in a well-crafted firearm? The collector? See the problem?

Instead of focusing on the rare occasions that gun crime hits the news here perhaps we would be better off if we stopped to think about million(s) of firearms in a small country that has very few gun-related incidents. Someone will always break the law and gun crime makes a big splash when it happens but we are lucky here because it doesn't happen very often.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1122168 4-Sep-2014 21:27

Elpie:
heylinb4nz:
What rock have you been living on ? Did you forget about the whole THumbhole grip saga ? then the police having the law changed via AAB3 to allow them to classify anything as an MSSA at the stroke of a pen ? Import permits required for Roni Kits (an accessory under law) just beacause police hq wanted to know who was getting them in.

The hand in policy (illegal) for e-cats and e cat parts.

Deliberately misinterpreting law to suit your own agenda is effectively changing law.

They also do it for boy racers and anyone they deem to be a boy racer.

Ooh, bring on an attack when you can't argue fact! The NZ Police DO NOT MAKE LAWS. They can, and do, institute amendments and they do interpret the laws (often inconsistently) but they don't make law. Proposed amendments can always be submitted upon and lobbied against, even when public submissions are not called for.
The law does not change when someone misinterprets it. Misinterpretation and incorrect application can be challenged and every licensed firearms owner should stand up for their rights if they fall foul of an overeager arms officer.

The argument that because some arms officers that are not well-informed, or accidentally/deliberately misinterpret the law means that all NZ police misinterpret/misapply the laws is as erroneous as saying all firearms owners are irresponsible just because a few may be.

Generalisations are dangerous things to play with when discussing firearms laws.

LOL you cant deny the whole Lincoln vs NZ Police thing didnt happen, the police were found guilty then simply launched AAB3 to save face.

You are a fool to think that its even worth an individual challenging anything they do, they have your tax $$$ and unlimited legal time at their disposal. Even if a firearms owner wanted to challenge they would not have the cash or would soon run out.

as for AOs dont be so naive to think they dont co-ordinate based on what police HQ want, the e-cat hand in policy is just one of those things....and I hope to god Richard Lincoln \ NSANZ stick it to them and get the compensation they seek.

PS: Misinterpretation is just as bad....these are the police..our law enforcers....if they cant interpret the difference between a thumbhole stock and a military style pistol grip they are idiots and shouldnt be in the job they are in.

1 | ... | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16