The Great Media Gun purchace Beatup

Forums › Off topic › The Great Media Gun purchace Beatup

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1411498 23-Oct-2015 08:30

MaxLV:
mdooher: Well well well, I wondered how they did it.

Heather du Plessis-Allen would have us believe she "made up" a firearms licence number and sent it to Gun City on the from and they just sent her a gun.

No she didn't, she used the name, firearms licence and credit card of a person who already had their details and firearms licence registered with Gun City and had the Gun sent to her.

So, so far no problem. But the naughty bit was to fill out the "police" section of the form and forge those details.

The end result is the person whose firearm licence they used got the gun (he was there) so he is in legal possession but the way he got it was illegal.

You dont see any problem with Gun City sending a firearm without knowing or verifying who it was actually sent to?

What checks do they (Gun City) have to verify their online orders go to the licensed gun owner who the order is (supposedly) from? I wonder how many crims have used this 'method' to get firearms illegally?

Gun City are not required to do more than request the appropriate form, signed by an authorised person. There is no onus on them to carry out further checks on the bona fides of the recipient.

Whether this is 'enough' or or not is a matter for Parliament to decide, not Gun City or a second-rate 'news' program populated by mediocre journalists....

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1424 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1411503 23-Oct-2015 08:43

Geektastic:
MaxLV:
mdooher: Well well well, I wondered how they did it.

Heather du Plessis-Allen would have us believe she "made up" a firearms licence number and sent it to Gun City on the from and they just sent her a gun.

No she didn't, she used the name, firearms licence and credit card of a person who already had their details and firearms licence registered with Gun City and had the Gun sent to her.

So, so far no problem. But the naughty bit was to fill out the "police" section of the form and forge those details.

The end result is the person whose firearm licence they used got the gun (he was there) so he is in legal possession but the way he got it was illegal.

You dont see any problem with Gun City sending a firearm without knowing or verifying who it was actually sent to?

What checks do they (Gun City) have to verify their online orders go to the licensed gun owner who the order is (supposedly) from? I wonder how many crims have used this 'method' to get firearms illegally?

Gun City are not required to do more than request the appropriate form, signed by an authorised person. There is no onus on them to carry out further checks on the bona fides of the recipient.

Whether this is 'enough' or or not is a matter for Parliament to decide, not Gun City or a second-rate 'news' program populated by mediocre journalists....

True, but they do go further by viewing firearms licences on first purchases and requiring the official police stamp on their form

In this case however there is no police stamp in the form, I'm not sure why they accepted it.

Don't get me wrong they were completely within the law to accept it

In fact earlier on Wednesday their lawyers had been in contact with Police national HQ because the Police were insisting that Gun City must use the Police form. The Police were incorrect, the act allows either the prescribed form or a form substantially the same (the Gun City one).

My feeling is Greg O'Conner set this up by telling HdPA how to do it. The Police knew what was about to happen so they (illegally and belatedly) prevented the use of Gun City form to stop it.

Matthew

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#1411508 23-Oct-2015 09:06

Geektastic:

Whether this is 'enough' or or not is a matter for Parliament to decide, not Gun City or a second-rate 'news' program populated by mediocre journalists....

Because this would be the first time ever a news program informing people has lead to the government/company/anyone reconsidering the way they do something.... Its what news agencies do, inform the public.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1411810 23-Oct-2015 13:38

That gun store owner really creeps me out.
Shootin' for Jesus - with a criminal past (not just in the US).

"I'm ready for the battle," he told the New Zealand Herald.
"She's going down 100 per cent."

Hmmmm....

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1411822 23-Oct-2015 13:44

itxtme:
Geektastic:

Whether this is 'enough' or or not is a matter for Parliament to decide, not Gun City or a second-rate 'news' program populated by mediocre journalists....

Because this would be the first time ever a news program informing people has lead to the government/company/anyone reconsidering the way they do something.... Its what news agencies do, inform the public.

It is not a matter about which the public required information. It is, if anything, a matter which government and the police required information, which could easily have been supplied without actually carrying out the illegal purchase.

hashbrown

463 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1413130 24-Oct-2015 11:25

Geektastic: It is not a matter about which the public required information. It is, if anything, a matter which government and the police required information, which could easily have been supplied without actually carrying out the illegal purchase.

ahem.

Geektastic:
Mark:
Geektastic:

Fly one over our house and I will accidentally mistake it for a magpie...

No you wouldn't, you're just being a keyboard warrior at the moment, I'm sure in reality you are like 99.999% of people and will just look at it and wonder why it's there.

Oh no - my Beretta would be out of the cupboard very quickly if someone was flying one over my house.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413238 24-Oct-2015 17:57

hashbrown:
Geektastic: It is not a matter about which the public required information. It is, if anything, a matter which government and the police required information, which could easily have been supplied without actually carrying out the illegal purchase.

ahem.

Geektastic:
Mark:
Geektastic:

Fly one over our house and I will accidentally mistake it for a magpie...

No you wouldn't, you're just being a keyboard warrior at the moment, I'm sure in reality you are like 99.999% of people and will just look at it and wonder why it's there.

Oh no - my Beretta would be out of the cupboard very quickly if someone was flying one over my house.

Irrelevant to the discussion to be honest. We are discussing whether breaking the law by obtaining firearms by deception is a matter of public interest.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413266 24-Oct-2015 18:26

Fred99: That gun store owner really creeps me out.
Shootin' for Jesus - with a criminal past (not just in the US).

"I'm ready for the battle," he told the New Zealand Herald.
"She's going down 100 per cent."

Hmmmm....

David has a colourful past. I used to buy reloading supplies way back in the day when he had a teeny shop in ChCh. He's done well. But, this issue isn't him being a tard,
he's going after what is just another stunt by the news creators, I mean reporters.

tdgeek

29751 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413268 24-Oct-2015 18:30

Geektastic:
hashbrown:
Geektastic: It is not a matter about which the public required information. It is, if anything, a matter which government and the police required information, which could easily have been supplied without actually carrying out the illegal purchase.

ahem.

Geektastic:
Mark:
Geektastic:

Fly one over our house and I will accidentally mistake it for a magpie...

No you wouldn't, you're just being a keyboard warrior at the moment, I'm sure in reality you are like 99.999% of people and will just look at it and wonder why it's there.

Oh no - my Beretta would be out of the cupboard very quickly if someone was flying one over my house.

Irrelevant to the discussion to be honest. We are discussing whether breaking the law by obtaining firearms by deception is a matter of public interest.

It is. With the regular shootings in the US, and again here in our news this morning, stunts with guns and gun laws is in poor taste. Had they raised this on their show (I used the word Show intentionally) with a discussion with Tipple on the issue of firearms purchases, and weaknesses in the purchase laws, it would have been a topical, current, and informative news item. Deserving the term, news item. But no, the journo's stooped yet agin to news-tainment

hashbrown

463 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1413324 24-Oct-2015 23:03

Geektastic: Irrelevant to the discussion to be honest. We are discussing whether breaking the law by obtaining firearms by deception is a matter of public interest.

As opposed to breaking the law by damaging property using your firearm, and then attempting to deceive the police by claiming you identified the target as a magpie?

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413326 24-Oct-2015 23:15

hashbrown:
Geektastic: Irrelevant to the discussion to be honest. We are discussing whether breaking the law by obtaining firearms by deception is a matter of public interest.

As opposed to breaking the law by damaging property using your firearm, and then attempting to deceive the police by claiming you identified the target as a magpie?

Defending your property against spying and illegal intrusion into private airspace, I think you meant.

gzt

17149 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1413328 25-Oct-2015 03:56

I have not watched any of the items but I am finding it hard to understand why the retail owner is so upset. The retailer followed the police/govt mandated procedure exactly. The weakness was in the mandated procedure and that fault has now been fixed.

Without the investigative reporting of the reality of this issue this change would not have occurred.

I'm guessing the retailer might be more concerned with some hypothetical future restriction of mail order / internet sales, or a possible technical prosecution for being slack on licence verification. Verification remains in the hands of police and is now prior to delivery instead of after delivery. It will not affect the business at all.

The possibility of private prosecution looks like a lot of huffing and puffing to generate some smoke. It is hard to see anything except a discharge without conviction being the final result.

hashbrown

463 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1413340 25-Oct-2015 07:15

Geektastic:
hashbrown:
Geektastic: Irrelevant to the discussion to be honest. We are discussing whether breaking the law by obtaining firearms by deception is a matter of public interest.

As opposed to breaking the law by damaging property using your firearm, and then attempting to deceive the police by claiming you identified the target as a magpie?

Defending your property against spying and illegal intrusion into private airspace, I think you meant.

Chuck "Illegaly" on the front of that sentence and sure. Now justify you plans to subsequently lie to the police as anything but self-interest.

jmh

458 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1413354 25-Oct-2015 08:13

gzt: I have not watched any of the items but I am finding it hard to understand why the retail owner is so upset. The retailer followed the police/govt mandated procedure exactly. The weakness was in the mandated procedure and that fault has now been fixed.

Without the investigative reporting of the reality of this issue this change would not have occurred.

I'm guessing the retailer might be more concerned with some hypothetical future restriction of mail order / internet sales, or a possible technical prosecution for being slack on licence verification. Verification remains in the hands of police and is now prior to delivery instead of after delivery. It will not affect the business at all.

The possibility of private prosecution looks like a lot of huffing and puffing to generate some smoke. It is hard to see anything except a discharge without conviction being the final result.

True. So few people watch the show that the story would have died if not given the oxygen of publicity by the retailer which then led to it being in the Herald which is read by a few more. He should have just kept his head down.

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1413397 25-Oct-2015 10:00

Geektastic:
itxtme:
Geektastic:

Whether this is 'enough' or or not is a matter for Parliament to decide, not Gun City or a second-rate 'news' program populated by mediocre journalists....

Because this would be the first time ever a news program informing people has lead to the government/company/anyone reconsidering the way they do something.... Its what news agencies do, inform the public.

It is not a matter about which the public required information. It is, if anything, a matter which government and the police required information, which could easily have been supplied without actually carrying out the illegal purchase.

But, that is not really the way things work.

You can provide all the information you want. But, generally government institutions will not respond to unsought information.

They want to appear in control of any situation. New information tends to undermine that view.

I think you can use terms like 'second-rate', 'mediocre' etc. to describe TV3 in this instance.

However, there have been changes in the Police process for handling online gun purchases.

I don't believe those would have occurred without the TV3 Story program.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7