New Firearms Mail order Rules: Gun must go to home address

Forums › Off topic › New Firearms Mail order Rules: Gun must go to home address

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1451952 16-Dec-2015 22:41

Geektastic:
networkn:

Ok, Why should a person who is legally entitled to purchase a Gun by mail order and legally have It delivered to him wherever he is in the country have the Police arbitrarily override the arms act and impose a condition that is not legally enforceable.

Well sounds like you should try and ignore the rule and see where it lands you. (May not be legally enforceable, but since the police can without giving a reason, object to a person owning a license, you'll find it's quite an effective deterrant.

I just spoke to a friend of mine who is pretty into guns, he thinks it's a great idea and doesn't have an issue with it.

People who make such a big deal about such a minor things, are the exact people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns in the first place in my opinion.

So, as we all know (and as has been commented on a myriad of times here on GZ) couriers merrily leave packages with no signature all the time.

Sounds like a great idea to have them doing that with firearms to me....

The other thing is, are the actual couriers checked by police, as they are handling and delivering them? It probably isn't too difficult to know what is in the parcel, as they would deliver thousands of things, so would build up a good knowledge of parcel contents.

Ruphus

465 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1451956 16-Dec-2015 22:53

Geektastic:

Given that I cannot legally give my wife (who has no FAC) the combination of our safe because it contains both restricted and non-restricted firearms and doing so would place her "in control" of same according to the police (the safe contains all sorts of non-firearm items like jewellery and passports as well) I can't see how a courier can be in possession unless they have a dealers licence and I can't see how your wife/husband/cleaner/gardener/pool guy or the receptionist at your workplace can take delivery legally either.

I fixed that up for you.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451977 17-Dec-2015 00:35

Talkiet:
Geektastic:
networkn:

Why? the licence holder is legally allowed to possess it for a sufficient purpose...like receiving it from the courier. So why should they have an extra condition imposed? particularly one that doesn't make it any more likely that the gun will not be stolen.

All these protests, not a single decent reason why it's even a problem. You'll find little sympathy for your "plight" as safety will trump convenience in almost every sane situation.

If you have a problem with the new rules, don't buy guns. Your choice.

It's a problem because if the licence holder is not at home, no one else can receive the firearm (I'm not even sure if technically a courier can be legally in possession of it).

Now, do we believe that the typical courier will

a) Never leave such a package unattended at an address
b) Give it to the person who answers the door whether they have a licence or not
c) Leave the package outside, fake the signature and get on with his day

If you answered "(b) & (c)" you are correct!

Given that I cannot legally give my wife (who has no FAC) the combination of our safe because it contains both restricted and non-restricted firearms and doing so would place her "in control" of same according to the police (the safe contains all sorts of non-firearm items like jewellery and passports as well) I can't see how a courier can be in possession unless they have a dealers licence and I can't see how your wife/husband/cleaner/gardener/pool guy can take delivery legally either.

Sounds like you're suggesting banning all transport of guns except by specialised secure couriers with appropriate certification - which I presume means actually banning online sales (except for pickup orders obviously)

Cheers - N

Not really. Merely suggesting that the so-called 'improvement' of only sending them to an address where the licence holder may not be is in fact not any kind of improvement.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1451989 17-Dec-2015 06:20

Inphinity: A good start. Needs to tighten up more, still, though.

Yep need to tighten up on a problem that didn't exist prior to the media getting involved.

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1452087 17-Dec-2015 09:05

hashbrown:

First time offender. No criminal intent to use the weapon. Nobody is doing jail time here.

HdPA allegedly committed the following offences in the course of producing her show:

1) Impersonating a Police Officer (Policing Act)
2) Using an altered or reproduced document with intent to deceive (Crimes Act)
3) Obtaining a firearm without a license (Arms Act)
...plus likely a few other minor related offences.

So, let's break down your post...

First time offender. I'll accept that may be the case for 1) But, beyond that she went on to persist with a premeditated pattern of offending over a number of days/weeks. I don't accept that different crimes committed at different times on different days meet the threshold to be grouped together under a single "first offence" umbrella.

No criminal intent to use the weapon. This is true, but it only relates to offence 3). There certainly appears to be "criminal intent" in offence 1) the intent being to avoid a police check. Also, there seems to be clear criminal intent with offence 2), namely to unlawfully acquire the firearm. Also note that "lack of criminal intent" generally has no bearing on determining innocence or guilt, it really only comes into play during sentencing.

Nobody is doing jail time here. Unfortunately, I believe that you may be right about this. But in the interests of maintain even a thin veneer of respect for our justice system, I sincerely hope that you are wrong.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1452173 17-Dec-2015 10:46

Ruphus:
Geektastic:

Given that I cannot legally give my wife (who has no FAC) the combination of our safe because it contains both restricted and non-restricted firearms and doing so would place her "in control" of same according to the police (the safe contains all sorts of non-firearm items like jewellery and passports as well) I can't see how a courier can be in possession unless they have a dealers licence and I can't see how your wife/husband/cleaner/gardener/pool guy or the receptionist at your workplace can take delivery legally either.

I fixed that up for you.

I don't disagree and neither did I suggest it would be received by anyone other than the FAC holder at his/her workplace.

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1452285 17-Dec-2015 13:51

Geektastic:
I don't disagree and neither did I suggest it would be received by anyone other than the FAC holder at his/her workplace.

Have you ever had anything delivered to a workplace?

Generally they pull in, unload all the boxes and satchels into a pile and get the closest person to sign for them. They get pissy if you even take too long to count the boxes and the number you are signing for are the same.

Richard rich.ms

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1424 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1452292 17-Dec-2015 13:57

richms:
Geektastic:
I don't disagree and neither did I suggest it would be received by anyone other than the FAC holder at his/her workplace.

Have you ever had anything delivered to a workplace?

Generally they pull in, unload all the boxes and satchels into a pile and get the closest person to sign for them. They get pissy if you even take too long to count the boxes and the number you are signing for are the same.

Actually with guns Fastway has a big red sticker that says "Red Alert" and it must be signed for by the addressee

Matthew

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1452385 17-Dec-2015 16:23

dickytim:
Inphinity: A good start. Needs to tighten up more, still, though.

Yep need to tighten up on a problem that didn't exist prior to the media getting involved.

Uh.. It DID exist before the media got involved, it's how there is even a story to start with.

hashbrown

463 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1452751 18-Dec-2015 01:08

6FIEND:
hashbrown:

First time offender. No criminal intent to use the weapon. Nobody is doing jail time here.

HdPA allegedly committed the following offences in the course of producing her show:

1) Impersonating a Police Officer (Policing Act)
2) Using an altered or reproduced document with intent to deceive (Crimes Act)
3) Obtaining a firearm without a license (Arms Act)
...plus likely a few other minor related offences.

So, let's break down your post...

First time offender. I'll accept that may be the case for 1) But, beyond that she went on to persist with a premeditated pattern of offending over a number of days/weeks. I don't accept that different crimes committed at different times on different days meet the threshold to be grouped together under a single "first offence" umbrella.

No criminal intent to use the weapon. This is true, but it only relates to offence 3). There certainly appears to be "criminal intent" in offence 1) the intent being to avoid a police check. Also, there seems to be clear criminal intent with offence 2), namely to unlawfully acquire the firearm. Also note that "lack of criminal intent" generally has no bearing on determining innocence or guilt, it really only comes into play during sentencing.

Nobody is doing jail time here. Unfortunately, I believe that you may be right about this. But in the interests of maintain even a thin veneer of respect for our justice system, I sincerely hope that you are wrong.

So we agree that she's probably guilty of a bunch of stuff and probably not going to jail for it. My question is why people keep expressing hope for this outcome?

I despair the wasted taxpayer dollars and police time. You should despair at the fact it will only serve to further publicise the journalist, her show and network.

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1452768 18-Dec-2015 02:53

hashbrown:
6FIEND:
hashbrown:

First time offender. No criminal intent to use the weapon. Nobody is doing jail time here.

HdPA allegedly committed the following offences in the course of producing her show:

1) Impersonating a Police Officer (Policing Act)
2) Using an altered or reproduced document with intent to deceive (Crimes Act)
3) Obtaining a firearm without a license (Arms Act)
...plus likely a few other minor related offences.

So, let's break down your post...

First time offender. I'll accept that may be the case for 1) But, beyond that she went on to persist with a premeditated pattern of offending over a number of days/weeks. I don't accept that different crimes committed at different times on different days meet the threshold to be grouped together under a single "first offence" umbrella.

No criminal intent to use the weapon. This is true, but it only relates to offence 3). There certainly appears to be "criminal intent" in offence 1) the intent being to avoid a police check. Also, there seems to be clear criminal intent with offence 2), namely to unlawfully acquire the firearm. Also note that "lack of criminal intent" generally has no bearing on determining innocence or guilt, it really only comes into play during sentencing.

Nobody is doing jail time here. Unfortunately, I believe that you may be right about this. But in the interests of maintain even a thin veneer of respect for our justice system, I sincerely hope that you are wrong.

So we agree that she's probably guilty of a bunch of stuff and probably not going to jail for it. My question is why people keep expressing hope for this outcome?

I despair the wasted taxpayer dollars and police time. You should despair at the fact it will only serve to further publicise the journalist, her show and network.

Because, any enlightened legal system (and public) should consider the motives and outcomes of any 'offence'.

There was no direct financial gain, no one was harmed. People being embarrassed/annoyed isn't harm.

The Police changed their processes. So there is a clear argument that the Story article benefited the public.

hangon

397 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1453130 18-Dec-2015 16:40

JWR:
Because, any enlightened legal system (and public) should consider the motives and outcomes of any 'offence'.

There was no direct financial gain, no one was harmed. People being embarrassed/annoyed isn't harm.

The Police changed their processes. So there is a clear argument that the Story article benefited the public.

In that logic buying any knife with blade longer than 2 CM should obtain a knife license first and character/background checked. how many people died from stabbing last year? how many guns have been illegally obtained with the method the story "exposed"?

the whole thing is about some imaginary problem that has never happened and probably never will. like no criminal would rob a shop with face exposed and leave an address for contact.

the police may have changed their process for good but it's targeting the wrong group, and it's not changed to solve any existing problem. if they did it to prevent a non existing problem from happening, so could they consider bio-chip every one and every car with bio readers installed so no one can steal a car or drive under influence. the cost/benefit doesn't add up.

the firearm license holders are carefully vetted and should be trusted within the arms code. any slight mistake means they'd lose their license and police already take that very seriously.

why gun control laws won't pass in the state? cause criminals are never bothered with law anyway.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5