DravidDavid:

Glassboy:

heylinb4nz: 

LOL Oh yes you would be wouldn't you :)
Disarm the population give all control to the government :) sounds like an awesome idea, history has no bad examples of where that model went wrong.

Two things

- Show as a good example of an armed population

- What's your opinion on 1080?

Switzerland.  From what I understand, they have the highest gun ownership in the world and the lowest crime rate.  Probably because, errr.  They are all packing!
Robberies where the offender was arrested dropped 20% compared to previous years when Chicago legalised concealed carry permits last year in August.  From what I remember, the local police department could not keep up with all the applications.

heylinb4nz:

You don't need to go back as far as 1775, and what makes you think that people in power today are any different ? the methods may have changed but they are still fallible to taking advantage of their population. 

Glassboy:

DravidDavid:

Glassboy:

heylinb4nz: 

LOL Oh yes you would be wouldn't you :)
Disarm the population give all control to the government :) sounds like an awesome idea, history has no bad examples of where that model went wrong.

Two things

- Show as a good example of an armed population

- What's your opinion on 1080?

Switzerland.  From what I understand, they have the highest gun ownership in the world and the lowest crime rate.  Probably because, errr.  They are all packing!
Robberies where the offender was arrested dropped 20% compared to previous years when Chicago legalised concealed carry permits last year in August.  From what I remember, the local police department could not keep up with all the applications.

It's a fallacy.  Switzerland has in first world nation terms a high rate of murder by firearm.  Very easy to murder your annoying wife when you have a service rifle in the cupboard.

Glassboy:

heylinb4nz:

You don't need to go back as far as 1775, and what makes you think that people in power today are any different ? the methods may have changed but they are still fallible to taking advantage of their population. 

You don't need to go back to 1775, he was just exposing your ignorance of history as well as parliamentary process.

Oh and for everyone who keeps saying the Police don't make legislation.  If you you actually look at the Arms Act 1983, it says "This Act is administered by the New Zealand Police."  The Police have a policy branch, and obviously have a part to play in the drafting of legislation.

 

Glassboy:

DravidDavid:

Glassboy:

heylinb4nz: 

LOL Oh yes you would be wouldn't you :)
Disarm the population give all control to the government :) sounds like an awesome idea, history has no bad examples of where that model went wrong.

Two things

- Show as a good example of an armed population

- What's your opinion on 1080?

Switzerland.  From what I understand, they have the highest gun ownership in the world and the lowest crime rate.  Probably because, errr.  They are all packing!
Robberies where the offender was arrested dropped 20% compared to previous years when Chicago legalised concealed carry permits last year in August.  From what I remember, the local police department could not keep up with all the applications.

It's a fallacy.  Switzerland has in first world nation terms a high rate of murder by firearm.  Very easy to murder your annoying wife when you have a service rifle in the cupboard.

heylinb4nz:

Glassboy: 

It's a fallacy.  Switzerland has in first world nation terms a high rate of murder by firearm.  Very easy to murder your annoying wife when you have a service rifle in the cupboard.

If it was so easy why don't we have more firearm murders in NZ ? surely some  250,0000 rifle\shotgun and 6000 pistol owners have annoying wives. And besides shooting is sooooo overated, neighbors can hear it, it spreads DNA all over the place, ruins your carpet, leaves holes in walls, and god have you seen the price of ammo !!!! nearly 65 cents a round for .223.

KiwiNZ: 

Administer the act yes, MSD administers the SSA, IRD the Taxation Acts, they also will draft changes etc and make recommendations to their Ministers but at the end of the day it is the Minister that decides to table legislative changes and Parliament legislates

heylinb4nz:  surely some  250,0000 rifle\shotgun and 6000 pistol owners have annoying wives.

heylinb4nz:

KiwiNZ:

heylinb4nz:

KiwiNZ:

heylinb4nz: 


You don't need to go back as far as 1775, and what makes you think that people in power today are any different ? the methods may have changed but they are still fallible to taking advantage of their population. 

RE: Police legislating, they may not write \ sign off the legislation themselves but they are the ones that come up with the basis and for it to serve their agenda, and how quickly you forget the MSSA thumbhole stock saga, or the hand in policy, police policy sold to the public as law, even used our own money to advertise it. The judge in the case even quoted Police are there to enforce law not to make it.


       

honestly, you are just writing fantasy, unless I am missing the action of our totalitarian regime we have here.

As for military style rifles?  the only place for them is in the hands of the military.  

Oh hear we go. "My son was in the army so I know all about firearms" . Dont even get me started on NZ Police definition of MSSA and the misguided legislation they have forced onto us trying to control these so called "Evil Guns". 


 

Dont misquote.

And again for the last time  The Police DO NOT LEGISLATE that is done by the fine folks that occupy the fine buildings on Bowen and Molesworth streets

Read the case LINCOLN vs NZ Police and tell me that police didn't try to pass off policy as law (legislation).

Geektastic:

heylinb4nz:

KiwiNZ:

heylinb4nz:

KiwiNZ:

heylinb4nz: 


You don't need to go back as far as 1775, and what makes you think that people in power today are any different ? the methods may have changed but they are still fallible to taking advantage of their population. 

RE: Police legislating, they may not write \ sign off the legislation themselves but they are the ones that come up with the basis and for it to serve their agenda, and how quickly you forget the MSSA thumbhole stock saga, or the hand in policy, police policy sold to the public as law, even used our own money to advertise it. The judge in the case even quoted Police are there to enforce law not to make it.


       

honestly, you are just writing fantasy, unless I am missing the action of our totalitarian regime we have here.

As for military style rifles?  the only place for them is in the hands of the military.  

Oh hear we go. "My son was in the army so I know all about firearms" . Dont even get me started on NZ Police definition of MSSA and the misguided legislation they have forced onto us trying to control these so called "Evil Guns". 


 

Dont misquote.

And again for the last time  The Police DO NOT LEGISLATE that is done by the fine folks that occupy the fine buildings on Bowen and Molesworth streets

Read the case LINCOLN vs NZ Police and tell me that police didn't try to pass off policy as law (legislation).

From first hand experience I can say that the Police do in fact attempt to do this all the time when firearms are involved.

For example, they recently attempted to introduce a requirement that if travelling with a pistol (say to a match 200km away) you have to get a permit to do that. You don't. You already have one - it's called a Firearms Licence. They also claim you have to shoot 12 times a year at a pistol club to keep a B licence but the law actually says only that you have to be a member of a club.

heylinb4nz:

dejadeadnz:

heylinb4nz: I think you'll find it WAS them laying the charges.

Although I agree (based on professional knowledge and experience) that the police can/do decide alone to lay charges, especially on lower level charges, your Greg Carvell rant is just bizarre and based on crappy logic. That guy wasn't ever charged for shooting the robber. He was charged with unlawfully possession of a gun, the elements of which involve the man having physical possession of a gun, intending to have physical possession AND lacking a legal justification for having the gun at the relevant time. Now I don't know the timeframes involved for the charge but if, for example, he was charged with unlawfully having the gun in his possession for time periods BEFORE the shooting (which can certainly happen), the fact that he found it necessary to shoot the robber subsequently is just irrelevant at worst or significantly irrelevant at best for the man.

That he might have been justified in shooting someone does not mean he was for ever justified in having a gun in his possession. You can't just link these two things together. Again, people, for the love of all things good and holy: try not to comment on the specifics of charges, actual legal practice, and the like unless you actually know some law.

I was meaning the secondary charge that they pursued months later after dropping the first charge. Thats the problem with NZ law though


a) you can legally use a firearm to enact self defence (provide force justified) b) they get you on firearms charges


Laws are wrong if they contradict each other, defending ones life legally should not line you up for a lesser charge on the flip side.


Notice to how the law (Arms Act) doesn't explicitly prohibit a firearm for self defence (its only mentioned in The Code which is essentially police policy not law). It does however contain a pile of other gotchas.


FYI you cannot deny people the right to self defence (its a breech of human rights). Police will just keep trying for case law on the lower charges to make people think twice.

jsw11984:

heylinb4nz:

dejadeadnz:

heylinb4nz: I think you'll find it WAS them laying the charges.

Although I agree (based on professional knowledge and experience) that the police can/do decide alone to lay charges, especially on lower level charges, your Greg Carvell rant is just bizarre and based on crappy logic. That guy wasn't ever charged for shooting the robber. He was charged with unlawfully possession of a gun, the elements of which involve the man having physical possession of a gun, intending to have physical possession AND lacking a legal justification for having the gun at the relevant time. Now I don't know the timeframes involved for the charge but if, for example, he was charged with unlawfully having the gun in his possession for time periods BEFORE the shooting (which can certainly happen), the fact that he found it necessary to shoot the robber subsequently is just irrelevant at worst or significantly irrelevant at best for the man.

That he might have been justified in shooting someone does not mean he was for ever justified in having a gun in his possession. You can't just link these two things together. Again, people, for the love of all things good and holy: try not to comment on the specifics of charges, actual legal practice, and the like unless you actually know some law.

I was meaning the secondary charge that they pursued months later after dropping the first charge. Thats the problem with NZ law though


a) you can legally use a firearm to enact self defence (provide force justified) b) they get you on firearms charges


Laws are wrong if they contradict each other, defending ones life legally should not line you up for a lesser charge on the flip side.


Notice to how the law (Arms Act) doesn't explicitly prohibit a firearm for self defence (its only mentioned in The Code which is essentially police policy not law). It does however contain a pile of other gotchas.


FYI you cannot deny people the right to self defence (its a breech of human rights). Police will just keep trying for case law on the lower charges to make people think twice.

The law doesn't contradict itself, they are two seperate agendas.

If the gun was legally possessed then there would have been no issue.

Using illegal means to defend yourself from death does not mean you won't get prosecuted because you still broke the law.

gzt: It seems to me the biggest problem here may be transparency.

Why did the Police decide not to charge? We don't know.

I suspect this is the case for any decision not to charge. Should it be different? Should it be different for police only?