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

Networkn
32208 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451819 16-Dec-2015 18:49

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.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1417 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451821 16-Dec-2015 18:51

Talkiet:
mdooher:
networkn:
mdooher:
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.

Have you ever tried to pick up a parcel from the depot? last time I tried it they couldn't even find it. They then told me to go out the back and search through the bays myself... I couldn't find it. It took them two more days to find it after that

Still not hearing a single valid argument.

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, it appears you missed my links to the police site where this question was clearly answered.

Cheers - N

Not at all, you missed the part where I mentioned that the Police are not permitted to make laws. Their job is to enforce the ones we have.

Matthew

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1417 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451825 16-Dec-2015 18:55

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.

There in lies the problem: We have rights (and responsibilities) given to us by parliament. By your logic the Police can take away Firearms licences, Liquor Licences etc. just because they don't like someone. or because someone stands up for those rights

Down that path darkness lies

Matthew

hashbrown

463 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1451826 16-Dec-2015 18:56

Talkiet:
hashbrown:
vexxxboy:
hashbrown:
loceff13: I hope she actually gets prosecuted for what she did.

Why? Best case tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars spent securing a $1000 fine and a boatload of cheap publicity for the reporter and the show.

because she impersonated a police officer and committed fraud in doing it, you try it and see if the police give you a slap on the hand. And it is more than a fine, 7 years in jail is the maximum sentence for what she did .

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

I'd agree jail time is an over-reaction here, but the crime was basically committing fraud by forging a Police Officer's identify on an official document (or something like that)... The police were correct to lay the charge because being a journalist isn't a free pass to BREAK THE LAW. If convicted then there's the sentencing to happen.... I'd guess community service or a fine plus perhaps a suspended sentence.

But not being prosecuted because of being a journalist? No thanks, that's a bad place to live.

Cheers - N

Sure, there's a process to be followed, and the police may not have an option here. What I don't understand why why people on the one hand claim this was a stunt, but on the other are lusting for a prosecution, which will IMO only be great publicity and make the "stunt" even more effective.

Talkiet

4787 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1451828 16-Dec-2015 18:58

mdooher:

Not at all, you missed the part where I mentioned that the Police are not permitted to make laws. Their job is to enforce the ones we have.

If you really believe that this is not an appropriate use of police discretion, then I encourage you to test the law / regulations and report back.

I believe that this is entirely reasonable. I believe the vast majority of ~~people~~ New Zealanders would think this is entirely reasonable and I'd expect to have this discussion with a gun-totin' member of the NRA rather than a New Zealander.

Cheers - N

(Edit - changed 'people' to 'New Zealanders')

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Talkiet

4787 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1451832 16-Dec-2015 19:03

mdooher:
Not at all, you missed the part where I mentioned that the Police are not permitted to make laws. Their job is to enforce the ones we have.

I hope you don't think that's their only job... There are heaps of components of their job that could be easily and reasonably be used to justify getting involved in firearms and firearm license supply/review.

http://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/nz-police/overview

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1417 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451833 16-Dec-2015 19:04

Talkiet:
mdooher:

Not at all, you missed the part where I mentioned that the Police are not permitted to make laws. Their job is to enforce the ones we have.

If you really believe that this is not an appropriate use of police discretion, then I encourage you to test the law / regulations and report back.

I believe that this is entirely reasonable. I believe the vast majority of people would think this is entirely reasonable and I'd expect to have this discussion with a gun-totin' member of the NRA rather than a New Zealander.

Cheers - N

Police discretion is about deciding not to prosecute someone if they have broken the law in some way, say not prosecuting HDPA

The Police are not permitted to make up their own laws. If they want the law changed they just need to show parliament a good reason for it and have it considered by the appropriate people. I'm not stopping them.

Matthew

Talkiet

4787 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1451835 16-Dec-2015 19:08

You'll never convince me that freeing up access to guns, or making them IN ANY WAY easier to get, is a good idea. I don't give a damn if you feel your rights are being trampled on. I don't give a damn that you Believe that the police are wrong. I don't give a damn if you think they are misusing powers that CLEARLY the VAST MAJORITY of people in NZ are happy for them to use in this way...

You can feel aggrieved all you want, you can get upset, you can campaign to make access to guns easier (or to not have it made harder)...

But please, move to the US and do it there.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1417 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451857 16-Dec-2015 19:35

Talkiet: You'll never convince me that freeing up access to guns, or making them IN ANY WAY easier to get, is a good idea. I don't give a damn if you feel your rights are being trampled on. I don't give a damn that you Believe that the police are wrong. I don't give a damn if you think they are misusing powers that CLEARLY the VAST MAJORITY of people in NZ are happy for them to use in this way...

You can feel aggrieved all you want, you can get upset, you can campaign to make access to guns easier (or to not have it made harder)...

But please, move to the US and do it there.

Cheers - N

Ok, You do know that Gun ownership in New Zealand is about hunting, target shooting etc don't you?

I see you don't believe that the people that have been vetted by the Police as fit and proper people to have guns should be able to get them easily. I disagree.

This is not the Wild West where everyone has the right to buy a gun for self defence, thank God.

But If you really think the Police should be able to override laws/rights that parliament has given its citizens please at least think about what that really means.

Matthew

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451945 16-Dec-2015 22:25

So it's fine for guns to sit around in an insecure delivery depot, possibly for days, but not to have them delivered into the hands of the licence holder at his workplace?

Makes sense to me....not.

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451946 16-Dec-2015 22:27

Talkiet: You'll never convince me that freeing up access to guns, or making them IN ANY WAY easier to get, is a good idea. I don't give a damn if you feel your rights are being trampled on. I don't give a damn that you Believe that the police are wrong. I don't give a damn if you think they are misusing powers that CLEARLY the VAST MAJORITY of people in NZ are happy for them to use in this way...

You can feel aggrieved all you want, you can get upset, you can campaign to make access to guns easier (or to not have it made harder)...

But please, move to the US and do it there.

Cheers - N

I don't give a damn that you don't give a damn...

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451947 16-Dec-2015 22:30

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....

Talkiet

4787 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1451948 16-Dec-2015 22:32

mdooher: [snip]

But If you really think the Police should be able to override laws/rights that parliament has given its citizens please at least think about what that really means.

In this case, yes I do think it's fine... In a different circumstance, perhaps on a different topic, I might not. I try to respect as much of the law as practical considerations and my conscience allow - but there are times it is an ass. There are occasions where I am thankful that the police have particular interpretations and cases where I think they are applying it too slavishly.

My point is that taking one situation and one opinion about one law and trying to twist that into making me look like I support a course of action that could lead to a police state (perhaps without realising it myself) is a bit disingenuous.

In this case, with specific reference to the recent changes where the police require guns to be delivered to an address that matches the address on the firearms license used for the purchase, I support the police actions.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1451950 16-Dec-2015 22:37

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.

Talkiet

4787 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1451951 16-Dec-2015 22:40

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

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5