# Hunting > Firearm Safety >  The anti gun lobby

## nelpop

Is see that the anti gun lobby is at it again after the incedents during the duck shooting opening weekend. The idiots that are involved are just giving them more ammo to give the resposible firearms owners a bad name and make gun ownership harder. When are people going to wake up.

----------


## AzumitH

Got some links?

----------


## dogmatix

Rising number of accidents prompts calls for gun control - National - NZ Herald News

Hunting injuries: Here we go again - Opinion - Wairarapa Times-Age News

----------


## Bryan

Uneducated, ill researched dribble with no academic backing. Can't believe that crap was published. 

Sent from my GT-I8190T using Tapatalk

----------


## kiwijames

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/05/ev...#disqus_thread

----------


## smidey

Anti gun lobby is like anti gay marriage protestors. If you don't like it don't buy a gun or marry a gay person, that'll show em haha

 Sent from my work bench

----------


## big_foot

wtf are these people some form of retarded?

"We would like it to be like a driver's licence — every five years it has to be renewed because people's circumstances change. Currently there is no review, which is crazy."

----------


## Rushy

I wonder how well a journalist would do in his or her trade by thoroughly researching and then printing the truth.  As a group they need a massive kick up the arse and as an individual the one that wrote this dribble deserves an E minus.  Oh and just a point because it annoys the fuck out of me - if there are 1.1 million guns in New Zealand I wonder how many fire arms there are as I have one gun and seven rifles making a total of eight firearms. Dickheads.

----------


## Maca49

> Rising number of accidents prompts calls for gun control - National - NZ Herald News
> 
> Hunting injuries: Here we go again - Opinion - Wairarapa Times-Age News


Its the Wairarapa! Theres fuck all to write about in places like that. I lived there for 30+ years :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## ebf

Not really sure why some of you guys are getting your nickers in a knot about those 2 articles. I've read them both, and neither of them stood out as particularly bad...

It has always amazed me that you can simply walk into the bush and hand your buddy (who does not have a license) a firearm. We all know that "supervision" in the bush or maimai is not the same thing as supervision by a RO on a range...

Also, as in previous threads of this nature, keep in mind that there are more people out there that are either indifferent or opposed to firearms. Firearms owners make up a tiny fraction of the population(and that is A, when it gets to B or E it is ridiculously small percentage). We need to convince them that it is ok, not the other way round.

----------


## 308

When you want to despair of the intelligence of your fellow NZers, no need to go as far as WhaleOil or the Kiwiblog troll farm, just read a few Stuff comments - that'll do the trick

----------


## Beavis

These people are just making noise. Close to 1/4 million licensed shooters, 19 deaths in 10 years - what's the drama? That's fuck all. They could at least have the common decency to tell the truth - we hate everything about you and your sport, so we will use any pathetic excuse to put the boot in.

----------


## steven

> Uneducated, ill researched dribble with no academic backing. Can't believe that crap was published. 
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8190T using Tapatalk


The trouble is that this drivel forms public perception....like "no checks should be every 5 years", when in fact we have 10.  No balance to pieces....also "unlimited guns", well bugger me but all these incidents happen with a single firearm, the quantity simply doesnt matter.  And this is a researcher? absolute rubbish.

regards

----------


## Nick-D

> The trouble is that this drivel forms public perception....like "no checks should be every 5 years", when in fact we have 10.  No balance to pieces....also "unlimited guns", well bugger me but all these incidents happen with a single firearm, the quantity simply doesnt matter.  And this is a researcher? absolute rubbish.
> 
> regards


You mean you dont hunt with 1 gun in each hand?  :ORLY:

----------


## AzumitH

> You mean you dont hunt with 1 gun in each hand?


Get back to me when you've mastered shuffle-action 12 gauge moccasins  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Beavis

Lol if our current systems mandated 5 year checks, they would be crying for 2 year checks. There is no limit to what these morons want. We concede semi auto's, they'll whinge cuz we still have pump actions. No compromise.

----------


## gadgetman

> No compromise.


That's not really correct, there are quite happy for us to compromise everything we have.

----------


## Beavis

That's why we shouldn't compromise

----------


## 199p

> Uneducated, ill researched dribble with no academic backing. Can't believe that crap was published. 
> 
> Sent from my GT-I8190T using Tapatalk


Its the media for ya mate. Bunch of one sided cocks

----------


## BRADS

> Its the media for ya mate. Bunch of one sided cocks


Speaking from experience lately mate :Sad: 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## steven

Beavis, at the COLFO AGM this "noise" was discussed and the Pollies are saying that the pro-Gun lobby is all but invisible, meanwhile Amnesty International, and other anti-gun organisations are lobbying all the time.  So really apathy could lose us our privaledges...that worries me.  I mean look at the UK, every gun on a licence and anally applied rules. eg if the licence says 7.62x51 you cant buy a 308winchester, do we really want to end up there? Because with these bozoes lobbying against us that's what will happen.  Also the stupidity of some and especially young males in ignoring the rules is going to f*** us over IMHO. 

regards

----------


## ebf

In at least half of the "incidents" over the last couple of years where so-called responsible gun owners have been given a bad name or more ammunition provided for the anti lobby, the person responsible was not a youngster.

In fact, until the incident, several of them would have been held up as examples of safety conscious, responsible firearms users...

----------


## Banana

> So really apathy could lose us our privaledges...that worries me.


People referring to firearm ownership as a privilege worries me.

----------


## Trevs

So far in May 7 people have been killed on our roads. these lobby groups really need to look at themselves and focus on where people are getting killed.

Personally, please don't bite my head off on this, but I would like more focus on firearms safety when getting your licence. Maybe there needs to be a Learners endorsement on a firearms licence if your under a certain age. That way they can spend some time with an experience Licence holder.

----------


## Moutere

> It has always amazed me that you can simply walk into the bush and hand your buddy (who does not have a license) a firearm. We all know that "supervision" in the bush or maimai is not the same thing as supervision by a RO on a range...


If an unlicensed shooter is under your 'immediate' supervision as defined in the arms code, what does it matter where supervision is undertaken.
There should be little to no risk involved when someone is supervised in the manner required buy law.




> Personally, please don't bite my head off on this, but I would like more focus on firearms safety when getting your licence. Maybe there needs to be a Learners endorsement on a firearms licence if your under a certain age. That way they can spend some time with an experience Licence holder.


I'll bite, what you suggest above is the exact system we have now. A licence holder can 'directly' supervise a licenced, or unlicenced individual. The idea is to mentor their approach to safety and proficiency. That person can be a father, a neighbour, a friend or club member. A simple system for us, the end user, with no need for additional controls. The arms code provides a crystal clear definition of immediate supervision.
As stated above, experience has little to do with the outcome of many of the most recent hunting incidents.
People need to stop with the graduated licence rubbish. I for one don't wish to have the current licencing system restricted or complicated unnecessarily at the request of an outspoken few.

Firearm deaths and injury are typically a hunting issue, leave the licensing criteria out of it.
I challenge anyone to identify an incident where at least one of the 7 safety rules has not been followed to its fullest, sadly hunter safety should be that simple.




> People referring to firearm ownership as a privilege worries me.


Better check the bottom of the first page of the arms code.

----------


## Banana

> Better check the bottom of the first page of the arms code.


The Arms Code is the Police's interpretation of the Arms Act, the Code itself has no legal standing.  Privilege, implies that the police/government own our freedom and are fully entitled to restrict it for whatever reason they feel.  People viewing firearm ownership as a privilege that we should be grateful for, is why we will get screwed each time the police want to enact more pointless gun laws.

----------


## Sidney

> Better check the bottom of the first page of the arms code.


A document produced by the police written from their perspective, and swallowed without apparent thought by those duped into believing that they should be grateful for such consideration.

This is not legally clarified as a privilege.  Only by the police who want to make you dependant on their decision making.

The granting of permission for the ownership and use of a firearm is a regulatory function, and providing that you meet the legal criteria, the police have no right to deny your rights under the law.

The conditions that attach/control access to your rights are a lot harder to change or alter if we are talking about individual rights, as opposed to "privileges"

It would appear that the brainwashing is very successful... because we constantly hear this BS... and from our own fraternity...

We need to change the terminology....

----------


## Ryan

> I'll bite, what you suggest above is the exact system we have now. A licence holder can 'directly' supervise a licenced, or unlicenced individual. The idea is to mentor their approach to safety and proficiency. That person can be a father, a neighbour, a friend or club member. A simple system for us, the end user, with no need for additional controls. The arms code provides a crystal clear definition of immediate supervision.


A particular problem facing many new tyro FAL holders is that they simply don't have someone to mentor them in the correct (read: safe) use of a firearm. I would argue that competence in safe handling procedures should be proven _before_ being issued a FAL, which is why I continue to advocate the introduction of a proficiency test as part of the FAL application process.

----------


## Moutere

> The Arms Code is the Police's interpretation of the Arms Act, the Code itself has no legal standing.  Privilege, implies that the police/government own our freedom and are fully entitled to restrict it for whatever reason they feel.  People viewing firearm ownership as a privilege that we should be grateful for, is why we will get screwed each time the police want to enact more pointless gun laws.


Fair enough, Are you insinuating firearm ownership is some right then?
Firearm ownership is a privilege exercised by being appropriately licenced.
You have to have one to get the other. Any one is 'free' to apply for a licence, thankfully there are measures to determine their suitability.
NZ has a good balance.

----------


## Nick-D

Totally agree, I grew up shooting and have just recently completed my licence. I though the course was well though out and well presented, with good applicable information, but was based to much in the theoretical. It would take bugger all more time and $ to include a portion of the test that includes actual handling and simulated firarms use, across a couple of common scenarios. 
That being said, you will never completely remove human error from any activity, and in terms of injuries and deaths, hunting and shooting is still nowhere near as dangerous as many other common past times. And I do think at least in my experience, that the test does a good job of providing you with the right knowledge to be a safe/responable firearms owner.

The application of that knowledge is up to the end user. And you will always get those who are to arrogant/stupid to adhear to the rules even when dealing with something with such a high potential for danger as a firearm.
I just hope like hell we dont end up like ausi or the UK. No semi's and a million restrictions around every aspect of firearms.

----------


## Moutere

Well said.

----------


## steven

> People referring to firearm ownership as a privilege worries me.


That is it...it isnt a right, nor should it be IMHO.

----------


## Rushy

> People referring to firearm ownership as a privilege worries me.


In New Zealand, firearms ownership is absolutely a privilege.  It is not a right.  The only right that we have is the right to make application for a firearms license. It is not a given that the application will be allowed.

----------


## kotuku

rubbish .banana firstly google 
Regina vs R grant(palmy nth high court)Decision of Justice Mallon.J. In short Justice Mallon delivers a massive arsekick to Police over the freestanding pistol grips issue.THEY CANNOT BE JUDGE JURY&EXECUTIONER.i make noapologies for that emphasis because that is the axis of thecase.
 Once youve digested that .google "prof gary mauser",specifically his peer revjew of research published by one Adjucnt prof Philip Alpers of sydney university fame(ytes alpers previous was TVNZ fairgo reporter). a froggy nuclear weapon is akin to a soggy jelly bean when you read this.
  now bear in mind the twat above.
 in my final reference John Howat of COLFO- the UN hosts a conference on ARMS control. The govt at the time (Herr Clucks mob_specifically the weak chinned Alliance MP minster of disarmament Matt???????? sends Alpers FFS.
   The Outcome
  after a 2week jawfest -a 2 sentence Press release. "noone can agree on anything"
 the reality was half of them didnt have the remotest why they were there ,of that, half ,wanted to know when the coffee &cakes would be served -half of that didnt evenknow where the bloody tea lady was located.
 oh the other half- most of them are living on under table payments from the worlds biggest arms retailers ,who like the annual civil war to showcase the latest means of shagging human beings.

 have you finished laughing yet-sorry if you fell off your stool but theres more.The last time the wellington woolshed .mickey mouse politicians debated our arms issues guns were referred to as "Rambo ak47s" FFS.If i spoke those words in my maimai your average mallard would hoever and shit on me ,and it wouls be richly deserved.

 dont take it my criticism is universal ,theres a lot who work for my targets who are good honest knowlegeable people for whom ive the greatest respect,but as for the body corporate ,in a lot of cases it simply shows the limitations of DNA.

 youyr arms code statement is a red herring for its always made very clear itsa merely a police guide to relevant sections of the arms act no more.

----------


## Sidney

> In New Zealand, firearms ownership is absolutely a privilege.  It is not a right.  The only right that we have is the right to make application for a firearms license. It is not a given that the application will be allowed.


They cannot refuse to give you a firearms licence unless they can establish that you are not a fit and proper person, that decision is made firstly by the police and their decision is subject to court review if the applicant pursues it.

That is the law.

You have a right to apply, and a legal right to be granted a firearms licence, if you are not disqualified by not being fit and proper in the courts opinion, and not the police's - that is purely a regulatory function.

The word privilege is a made up concoction, to suit a purpose.  It is not and never has been a reality.  But it is used by the police to keep us firearms owners tame and quiet and dependant, just hoping that they will let us exercise our legal freedoms and rights.

The paternalistic BS that comes with its application should be avoided at all costs.

I do understand the reason that its use has grown... it is about responsibility..... why don't we use that term...?

The ownership and use of firearms is both a right and a responsibility.  If you are irresponsible your legal rights are removed....

This is the legal position... the use of the word privilege is an uninformed, and harmful practice.  Something which only has a benefit in conveying the seriousness of the way that we exercise our rights.  We can do that in other ways without instilling in ourselves a subservient and harmful attitude...

You all have a legal right to your own property,  and yet the Govt can come along and put a motorway through under the Public Works Act, and can grant a mining licence if oil is found..... maybe your property ownership is really just a "privilege"    :Grin: 

Half of you complain about apathy, while not even really understanding why..... there would be considerably less if we weren't all so bloody brainwashed...

----------


## Banana

> In New Zealand, firearms ownership is absolutely a privilege.  It is not a right.  The only right that we have is the right to make application for a firearms license. It is not a given that the application will be allowed.


If you meet the criteria for a firearms license, then it is a given that the application will be allowed.  The police can't just refuse to issue you a licence because they feel like it.  If you're up to spec, then you have a right (legal entitlement, whatever you want to call it) to a firearms license.  A firearms license gives you the right to own firearms, as no one can refuse you access to firearms if you have a license.

----------


## Rushy

I am afraid I do not agree with the contention that firearms ownership in New Zealand is a right and find nothing in either of the above posts to convince me otherwise so will agree to disagree and leave it at that.

----------


## Sidney

> I am afraid I do not agree with the contention that firearms ownership in New Zealand is a right and find nothing in either of the above posts to convince me otherwise so will agree to disagree and leave it at that.




If you have an argument, then make it.. the contention that it is a privilege has never been justified, and apparently you cannot either.  If you can't make a logical argument then stop using the term.

If you "feel" that its a privilege, then I can't argue with that.  Fortunately feelings don't mean squat in a court room.  Feelings are not a legal concept and feelings have nothing to do with logic.

You are perfectly entitled to disagree Rushy and if it didn't matter what terminology we used, then I wouldn't give a flying f... But thats not the case here. 

There is no legal argument for your position... there is no legal application of the word privilege in this context, and you are attempting to discuss legal principles...

It does harm to misunderstand the legal position, and the police are certainly motivated to minimise the strength of our position at law, but why are you?

Is it just to convey the seriousness of the responsibility?  Can we do that some other way other than by denying our rights?  Does the possession of legal rights minimise our legal responsibilities?  If we have legal rights, are we suddenly no longer culpable?  Are we only culpable if we have "privileges?"

What is the problem with having legal rights?  Do we all need to go and beat ourselves with sticks or something to make ourselves feel better.. bit of self flagellation anyone?

Shooting ourselves in the foot, might not be "fit & proper" they could come and take away all of our "privileges."    :Grin: 

The english language is a bitch..... _I feel privileged to live in a country where the right to own and use firearms is recognised in law, while acknowledging that many people live in countries where that right does not exist in law, and those countries citizens are not privileged in the same way.._  is that more helpful?

Semantics are important... the denial of rights, are usually the premise of authoritarian powers...

----------


## 308

Also, if you guys want to insist on telling people what your rights are, it would help to convince others if you didn't froth at the mouth quite so much.

If you want to talk about a "fraternity" of firearms users I would put it to you that we all have a responsibility to at least appear to be rational, not like those Dads for justice guys.

Incoherent arguments, different coloured lettering and capslock speeches are the internet forum equivalent of driving a RAV4 with a personalised plate and a stick figure family on the back window whilst wearing crocs and participating in airsoft sports



There. That should do the trick.

----------


## Sidney

> Also, if you guys want to insist on telling people what your rights are, it would help to convince others if you didn't froth at the mouth quite so much.
> 
> If you want to talk about a "fraternity" of firearms users I would put it to you that we all have a responsibility to at least appear to be rational, not like those Dads for justice guys.
> 
> Incoherent arguments, different coloured lettering and capslock speeches are the internet forum equivalent of driving a RAV4 with a personalised plate and a stick figure family on the back window whilst wearing crocs and participating in airsoft sports
> 
> 
> 
> There. That should do the trick.


So a bit above your head huh?

----------


## Banana

*right*
_noun_
a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something

Everyone is legally entitled to apply for a firearms license.  Everyone who meets the criteria is legally entitled to a firearms license (police cannot refuse if criteria met).  Everyone with a firearms license is legally entitled to buy, possess and use firearms.

----------


## Rushy

You fail to convince me and for as long as there a single person who having the right to apply for a firearms license does not get that license for whatever reason (be it inability to pass a simple test process or having been determined to be an unfit individual) then you will not ever convince me that that individual or any of the rest of us have the right to own firearms as you assert. 

I simply do not agree with you.

----------


## Sidney

Do the rest of us a favour Rushy.... remain convinced internally....

The mind numbing number of times that the "privilege" crap comes out is not helpful.....

----------


## EeeBees

Goddammit, the day the right to own a firearm is deemed a privilege will be the end of society as we know it...the greatest killer by accidental death in this country is the motor vehicle...who in their right mind views motor vehicle ownership a privilege...

But I do not want to discuss that, I want to get back to the original subject matter...anti-gun lobbyists...theirs is the same as just about every lobby group there is...rabid  zealots who blather their gobbledegook with the hysterical eyes of a wounded cape buffalo...I just wish that they could discuss their concerns in a logical, calm manner...just as the rest of touchy feely groups who have as much commonsense and practical knowledge of basically anything as a mealy bug.   The poor brainwashed people...yes, I know, I know, we are all entitled to the privilege and right of having OUR own opinion...but you are not going to enlighten anyone with hysteria.

----------


## Moutere

> Do the rest of us a favour Rushy.... remain convinced internally....
> 
> The mind numbing number of times that the "privilege" crap comes out is not helpful.....


Chill man.

----------


## ebf

sidney, do you think it is possible for you to get involved in a discussion without it ending in insults or you calling at least one other person dumb/an idiot etc ?

you obviously have a wealth of knowledge (being a law student), but treating the rest of the world like intellectual lepers is a bit sad

think of it as practise for dealing with future (non legally educated) clients...  :Wink:

----------


## Sidney

EBF - I'll think that I save the dispassionate platitudes for the paying cliental.... 

who exactly did I use those words on again...?  if it was 308 u are feeling sorry for read his post.... yes I could have ignored him..... but pretty sure he couldn't have expected much different....

But thanks for the help anyway...

----------


## Maca49

> You fail to convince me and for as long as there a single person who having the right to apply for a firearms license does not get that license for whatever reason (be it inability to pass a simple test process or having been determined to be an unfit individual) then you will not ever convince me that that individual or any of the rest of us have the right to own firearms as you assert. 
> 
> I simply do not agree with you.


I agree with you Rushy, it's a privilege, not because of the police, but because with the strike of a pen, any government of the day can remove that privilege. For you that are not quite as old as a few of us probably don't remember the plans of one government to have all firearms surrendered a held in armouries that they could be withdrawn from and returned after use. Not a privilege? It certainly ain't a right, enjoy it while you can, and be prepared to defend ownership as a combined group when that time comes. Mr Alpers was bad news for us all, a few of him could cause real harm?

----------


## Maca49

> sidney, do you think it is possible for you to get involved in a discussion without it ending in insults or you calling at least one other person dumb/an idiot etc ?
> 
> you obviously have a wealth of knowledge (being a law student), but treating the rest of the world like intellectual lepers is a bit sad
> 
> think of it as practise for dealing with future (non legally educated) clients...


Learning to be a lawyer has it challengers :Thumbsup:

----------


## gimp

> People referring to firearm ownership as a privilege worries me.


It's not a "privilege", it's a "right" if fit and proper.


Saying "it's a privilege not a right" is a bullshit pervasive meaningless soundbite used by the police to further intimidate firearms owners into submission + fear of asserting lawful rights.

----------


## gimp

> Also, if you guys want to insist on telling people what your rights are, it would help to convince others if you didn't froth at the mouth quite so much.
> 
> If you want to talk about a "fraternity" of firearms users I would put it to you that we all have a responsibility to at least appear to be rational, not like those Dads for justice guys.
> 
> Incoherent arguments, different coloured lettering and capslock speeches are the internet forum equivalent of driving a RAV4 with a personalised plate and a stick figure family on the back window whilst wearing crocs and participating in airsoft sports
> 
> 
> 
> There. That should do the trick.


It's perfectly rational if you, y'know, read the words in the post

----------


## gimp

> I agree with you Rushy, it's a privilege, not because of the police, but because with the strike of a pen, any government of the day can remove that privilege. For you that are not quite as old as a few of us probably don't remember the plans of one government to have all firearms surrendered a held in armouries that they could be withdrawn from and returned after use. Not a privilege? It certainly ain't a right, enjoy it while you can, and be prepared to defend ownership as a combined group when that time comes. Mr Alpers was bad news for us all, a few of him could cause real harm?


That's true of any legal right. The government can, with the "strike of a pen" remove your Right to free speech, freedom of religion, etc, and in some places they do. Doesn't make it less of a Legal Right while it exists.

----------


## gimp

Presumably the anti-gun lobby is just inside the entrance to the anti-gun building.

----------


## Sidney

> I agree with you Rushy, it's a privilege, not because of the police, but because with the strike of a pen, any government of the day can remove that privilege. For you that are not quite as old as a few of us probably don't remember the plans of one government to have all firearms surrendered a held in armouries that they could be withdrawn from and returned after use. Not a privilege? It certainly ain't a right, enjoy it while you can, and be prepared to defend ownership as a combined group when that time comes. Mr Alpers was bad news for us all, a few of him could cause real harm?


That is true of any existing legal rights under the law in any area... what is your point?  Are we supposed to feel grateful that the govt doesn't take away our "privileges"

Is everything just a privilege...?  When did we lose the conceptual understanding that the govt is supposed to represent the people, and supposed to protect individual freedoms and rights?


In what other areas do we think that a possible incursion against individual legally recognised freedoms for some sort of perceived societal benefit, is simply a taking away of privileges?

Are we going to be any better at resisting changes to our existing rights under the law, if we simply think of them as privileges rather than existing legal rights...?

Do we have any argument that the wider community would understand if we are simply beneficiaries of privileges, rather than being legal and lawful citizens and having the law discriminate specifically against individual freedoms?

The discussion has to be formulated in a manner that provides the strongest argument.... the word privilege is not only inaccurate, it is detrimental.


IS that OK EBF.... no insults there?

----------


## Maca49

Your right Gimp, live in the moment as it may not be there tomorrow, it's a right under current law, it's a privilege at the hands of those that wield the axe. There's safety in numbers, as in the states, it could become the same situ here at any time. How's your life time licences? Rights are being ripped away every year, I've seen shitloads disappear in my short life.

----------


## Maca49

> That is true of any existing legal rights under the law in any area... what is your point?  Are we supposed to feel grateful that the govt doesn't take away our "privileges"
> 
> Is everything just a privilege...?  When did we lose the conceptual understanding that the govt is supposed to represent the people, and supposed to protect individual freedoms and rights?
> 
> 
> In what other areas do we think that a possible incursion against individual legally recognised freedoms for some sort of perceived societal benefit, is simply a taking away of privileges?
> 
> Are we going to be any better at resisting changes to our existing rights under the law, if we simply think of them as privileges rather than existing legal rights...?
> 
> ...


The dream starts in the second paragraph! :Yaeh Am Not Durnk:

----------


## Sidney

> Learning to be a lawyer has it challengers



There has been more than one in this thread... :Have A Nice Day:  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Sidney

> The dream starts in the second paragraph!


The've beaten us if we don't at least remind ourselves and them occasionally.....  we may as well call everything a privilege....lol

----------


## gimp

> Your right Gimp, live in the moment as it may not be there tomorrow, it's a right under current law, it's a privilege at the hands of those that wield the axe. There's safety in numbers, as in the states, it could become the same situ here at any time. How's your life time licences? Rights are being ripped away every year, I've seen shitloads disappear in my short life.


That really doesn't mean that we should give them up or use the terms applied to them by those that attempt, through bureaucratic/institutional obfuscation and intimidation, to take them from us.

----------


## Maca49

Fuck I love you young guy, keep fighting the good fight, and I'll join ya, but right now I need to go to sleep! :Thumbsup:

----------


## Rushy

> Fuck I love you young guy, keep fighting the good fight, and I'll join ya, but right now I need to go to sleep!


Jeez Maca you have staying power.  I had been asleep for a couple of hours when you posted that. Ha ha ha ha

----------


## rs200nz

Isn't it our God given right?   :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Maca49

> Jeez Maca you have staying power.  I had been asleep for a couple of hours when you posted that. Ha ha ha ha


The older I get the faster I go,on less sleep than when I was younger!

----------


## 308

Hahaha - add in "from my cold, dead hand" and you have the trifecta



> Isn't it our God given right?

----------


## Maca49

> Isn't it our God given right?


If its from God its a privilege! just like your FAL :Thumbsup:

----------


## Ryan

Damnit, can't start embedded YouTube from a certain time point. Rather than retype what this man says, just skip to 4:19 for information on "rights".

----------


## rs200nz

> Hahaha - add in "from my cold, dead hand" and you have the trifecta


lol

----------


## ebf

Yup, "rights aren't rights if someone can take em away"  :Grin:

----------


## rs200nz



----------


## Savage1

privilege:

1.a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.

Last I checked a FAL was only available to those that the Police and the courts deemed to be fit and proper, would that make them a particular group? It must if not everybody in New Zealand can obtain a FAL, which I guess means that not everybody in New Zealand has a right to a FAL, which means that in NZ it's not a right to have a FAL.

The way I see it is that any pleasure we participate in that endangers other innocent parties, directly or indirectly, is always going to be a privilege.

I'm with you Rushy and Maca.

----------


## Maca49

> privilege:
> 
> 1.a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
> 
> Last I checked a FAL was only available to those that the Police and the courts deemed to be fit and proper, would that make them a particular group? It must if not everybody in New Zealand can obtain a FAL, which I guess means that not everybody in New Zealand has a right to a FAL, which means that in NZ it's not a right to have a FAL.
> 
> The way I see it is that any pleasure we participate in that endangers other innocent parties, directly or indirectly, is always going to be a privilege.
> 
> I'm with you Rushy and Maca.


Welcome!

----------


## ebf

So I disagree with Sidney that the word privilege is inaccurate or detrimental.

Taking Carlins example, we the people grant the government the temporary privilege of making up rules (laws) that govern our lives. If they go overboard or do something that we don't like, then we either vote them out of power, or revolt. It is a "contract" if you like, but like any contract, requires both parties to play by the rules...

I don't think there are any god given rights or that any man made "right" is permanent.

Off to go and do some manual labour, so have fun debating legal theories while some of us are doing real work  :Grin:

----------


## Maca49

Your right and its been a privilege! :Thumbsup:

----------


## Sidney

Funny guy, but I would hardly define his analysis as credible...  rights conveyed in law have always been intangible, and are almost never permanent.... water rights, land ownership, tenancies, leases, firearms licences...... all legal rights until the rules get changed...

The only salient point that he made was that if we call them privileges, it just gets easier to take them away..... kind of my point...

We should all just bend over and wait for the outcome.... keep on being grateful....

----------


## Savage1

> Funny guy, but I would hardly define his analysis as credible...  rights conveyed in law have always been intangible, and are almost never permanent.... water rights, land ownership, tenancies, leases, firearms licences...... all legal rights until the rules get changed...
> 
> The only salient point that he made was that if we call them privileges, it just gets easier to take them away..... kind of my point...
> 
> We should all just bend over and wait for the outcome.... keep on being grateful....


Whether you like it or not, a FAL isn't an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth in NZ. Therefore it's a privilege. It is what it is.

----------


## Sidney

> Whether you like it or not, a FAL isn't an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth in NZ. Therefore it's a privilege. It is what it is.




Yeah well, you rely on comedians for your legal analysis... 

I will maintain my rights under the law while they exist in the law.  Pretty sure I have a more complete argument..

I am a bit concerned that you don't seem to know what legal rights are.  Wandering around with the idea that everything is just a privilege is going to get you in a power of shit.

Lets just ignore the "God given" red herring, and the somewhat weird idea that legal rights can somehow only exist if they apply to all people for all time, and are irrevocable....  

...


You know stepping back a little from this....

I haven't seen a concise definition of the word privilege that includes the following but it would seem to me that there is a component that we haven't talked about in the meaning of the word....

     If a privilege is extended, it would seem that it is discretionary, and not obligated..... feasibly it can be withdrawn at whim (not being subject to obligation)...

          - The granting of a firearms licence cannot be withheld without the applicant failing to meet the required standard - not discretionary

          - The cancellation of a Firearms licence cannot be at the whim of the policing authority, it again is subject to the law before that can occur - not discretionary


Damm - don't think its a privilege after all.... everybody who does, please reassume the position. :Grin:

----------


## Maca49

Sidney, we are all safe as long as you are carrying the cudgel! FALs are in good hands, just keep it swinging and hit the right people! :Thumbsup:

----------


## Sidney

I doubt that Macca... but I do love a good argument ....

I am however aware that the ole internet is not a particularly good conveyance of body language and tone, and apparently my style of prose may be more direct/abrasive than its intention.... for that I apologise to those feeling abraded ....

----------


## Maca49

Mate we need people like you whatever we think. There is a common goal here as you well know, older guys I think just get a little cynical about these and other matters. :Thumbsup:

----------


## Banana

> Whether you like it or not, a FAL isn't an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth in NZ. Therefore it's a privilege. It is what it is.


A right is defined as _a legal entitlement to have or do something_.  Nowhere does it say that a legal entitlement has to be inherent, irrevocable and applied to all humans to be classed as a right.  No rights would meet that definition.

The fit and proper have a legal entitlement to be issued a FAL.  A FAL is therefore a legal right for the fit and proper.

privilege
_an advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted or available only to a particular person or group_

Something can be both a right and a privilege.  The problem with referring to rights as privileges, is that privilege usually refers to a permission, allowance, benefit, etc that is not legally guaranteed. ie. the privilege to hunt on someone elses land.

Saying a FAL is a privilege and not a right is incorrect.  A FAL is a legally guaranteed right for the fit and proper.

----------


## Rushy

> Mate we need people like you whatever we think. There is a common goal here as you well know, older guys I think just get a little cynical about these and other matters.


Who you callin old Willis?

----------


## Rushy

I am becoming concerned that a deity often referred to by the dyslexic as dog is being mentioned so frequently in this thread.

----------


## res

> I am becoming concerned that a deity often referred to by the dyslexic as dog is being mentioned so frequently in this thread.


Some folks like fairy tails

Or they are just superstitious 

Rights are only rights as long as you stand up for them-the only person who gives you them is you and your actions

----------


## Banana

> Rights are only rights as long as you stand up for them-the only person who gives you them is you and your actions


Exactly.  Purposely referring to your rights as privileges shows that you aren't prepared to stand up for them.

----------


## Rushy

> Purposely referring to your rights as privileges shows that you aren't prepared to stand up for them.


Banana there are a number of forum members here who have family that have given the ultimate sacrifice so that you can live in this country and enjoy the freedom to say what you want on this forum and a number of them who have themselves survived serving in theatres of war to further preserve that position for you. On behalf of them all I take considerable exception to what you have said above.

----------


## Banana

Now that I re-read it, it did come off a bit cunty.  I didn't intend it to.  What I'm trying to say is, privilege gives the impression that you acknowledge you aren't legally, socially or ethically entitled to something, and would be prepared to relinquish it without issue.

----------


## ebf

Privilege could just as well give the impression that you are thankful for those freedoms, and appreciate the sacrifices of those that fought to ensure them.

Remember as well that different people attach different levels of importance to these "rights". If I had to choose between the privilege/right to a decent education, functioning justice system, ability to vote in democratic election versus owning firearms that I use for recreational purposes, it would not take me all that long to choose...

----------


## Maca49

Don't worry guys another good war will sort our rights without privileges, your rights to own a firearm as as good as you collecting a pension, be nervous

----------


## Maca49

> Who you callin old Willis?


Cap fit?  :Thumbsup:

----------


## Rushy

> Cap fit?


Snugly.

----------


## res

[QUOTE=Maca49;good as you collecting a pension, be nervous[/QUOTE]

I for one never expect to get one, even if I live to a ripe old age. Even tho I'm paying for others to get theres.

----------


## Banana

> Privilege could just as well give the impression that you are thankful for those freedoms, and appreciate the sacrifices of those that fought to ensure them.


True, but this entire time we have been debating rights vs privileges purely in the sense of legal entitlement.  It should have been abundantly clear that I didn't mean it in sense of thankfulness in that comment.

----------


## Maca49

> I for one never expect to get one, even if I live to a ripe old age. Even tho I'm paying for others to get theres.


I collect in AUGUST oh shit

----------


## Maca49

> True, but this entire time we have been debating rights vs privileges purely in the sense of legal entitlement.  It should have been abundantly clear that I didn't mean it in sense of thankfulness in that comment.


Why not?

----------


## res

> I collect in AUGUST oh shit


I hope you make the most of it,you are obviously one of the generation who has both paid for the previous generation and who will be paid for by the following ,eg your getting back what you put in. 
I don't think those of us under 40 who look out for our selfs are going to get so fairly treated as it's a clearly unaffordable system.

----------


## Beavis

This thread is a circle jerk. Who cares about the wording, it's not an English class. How much do you value firearm ownership? Pretty high up there for me. I'll fight for it.

----------


## Maca49

You just keep working you arse off so I can enjoy, I'll appreciate all you do, yep I really will. But I'll be working into my 70s health permitting so the mongrels will get most of it back. It's called incentives

----------


## Maca49

> This thread is a circle jerk. Who cares about the wording, it's not an English class. How much do you value firearm ownership? Pretty high up there for me. I'll fight for it.


Agree Beavis and a good reason for this forum to exist and grow! :Thumbsup:

----------


## Gapped axe

Enjoying this. I don't believe that owning a fire arm in NZ is a privilege, if you meet the correct criteria then it's your right to own a fire arm. How ever if you abuse this right then you lose your right to own a fire arm. People may feel that it's a privilege to own a fire arm but in fact in law, providing the box's are ticked then guess what !! It's your right. The police can and will judge and access you as they are tasked, but at the end of the day box's ticked they and the juridical system have to grant the license. Be a sad place to be if we were a police or nanny state. Give nothing to the anti's, stay firm, it's your right. Right

----------


## misfire

Holy Hell! Gapped Axe, you've taken us full circle with this thread and you win the box of piss! Well done mate!

----------


## Rushy

> it's your right. Right


You need to throw in a couple of lefts GA or you will be marching in very tight circles.

----------


## Gapped axe

Threw a couple of lefts last night, right down a female clients throat to dislodge a fish bone that had become wedge there. Pretty scary getting called into that as the woman had breathing difficulty and was panicking. Managed to calm her down enough to be able to get a finger down there and dislodge the bone with out her chomping my finger off. Had a medicinal whisky with the husband afterwards and then came home to rant on here about rights and privileges associated to fire arm ownership. Hope I wasn't to onerous, but Sidney may be on to it.

----------


## Maca49

Good work GA, Taraweras a dangerous place! Re right or privilege ,I think we are discussing two perspectives here and both have merit :Cool:

----------


## Colorado

We fought a war with the crown over this very subject. With a win a privilege became a right. Now our government is trying to pass laws, that violate the highest law, to turn the right back into a privilege. Res is right. The only rights you keep are the ones you are willing to fight for.

----------


## Beavis

Yip, the battle of Lexington and Concord was sparked by the British army's attempt to confiscate the colonists gun powder and canons (most of which were privately owned).

----------


## steven

In some ways we are splittng hairs here.  My take is, it is a privledge granted to a fit and proper person. As long as you are and remain a fit and proper person the police cannot reasonably refuse to grant you a licence. If you cease to be a fit and proper person the police can take away your licence.  You cannot simply own or be in possession of a gun because you want to, ergo I cant see it as a right.  If you odnt agree then sure you can go to court to get their determination justified.  Not sure what the case law is on that but Ive read the odd Judge's comments, for instance you could cease to be a fit and proper person, but that doesnt make you so for the rest of your life.  Bear in mind the Police often need case law to tell them how to proceed or work on a legal opinion given to them that might be overturned.  On top of that the Police are there to protect innocent 3rd parties from those acting irresponsibly be it with a gun, driving a car over the speed posted speed limit, or drink driving, whatever.  So I consider I have a right to be safe from dangers imposed by ppl not fit to utilise any good or do an action in a safe manner that might impact me.   Oh and finally thinking of it as a privaledge that can be removed should help those who are overly casual realise their stupidity will cost them and others in their "fraternity dear.

----------


## scaggly

Privilege as far as I can recall, dates back a very long way and originally meant a 'private law', where particular groups had the rules/laws set up so they had special dispensation to do particular things.  Normal people of course, couldn't do those things.  Rights belong to everyone (although that seems to be chipped at every year), privilege is for a few (e.g. parliamentary privilege where the laws of slander or libel do not apply).  

The way our gun laws work, everyone is given a license unless they are disqualified (we limit other rights based on similar lines too, you can't vote if you're in prison for example, and freedom of expression or association also have limits put on them).  We don't have to prove we're fit and proper, the police have to prove we aren't to prevent us getting a license.  That is an example of a right.  

If it was a privilege, rather than a right, we would have a system where the onus was on each of us to individually prove our fitness to own firearms, rather than the state proving otherwise, and only a rich/powerful elite, or chosen few would be able to own guns (like a whole bunch of countries we can name all to readily).  

Thankfully we're not that stuffed yet, but that is what the anti's want when they try to label firearms ownership as a 'privilege' and we play into their hands when we buy into the mealy-mouthed, mean-spirited view of things, and by playing into their hands we increase the chances that our kids will never know the things we all take for granted.  

I really hope we don't give in to the anti's, gun ownership is a right under our legal system, and we should all stand up for it, as we would for any other right (suffrage, free speech, freedom of association, private property etc.).  Frankly, when we as shooters buy into the whole idea that shooting is a privilege, we've pretty much lost.  It isn't something that should be restricted to the few, shooting & hunting are a key part of our national identity, our heritage, and something that must be preserved for our kids.

----------


## res

Well said scraggly

I don't care how you fight to keep your rights,just as long as you take some action(fight) be it write a letter to someone in power,give $ to any of the orgs that work to protect them. 
This applies to other rights/freedoms as well,not just firearms-so if you hold something dear/important stand up for it.

----------


## Rushy

> It isn't something that should be restricted to the few, shooting & hunting are a key part of our national identity, our heritage, and something that must be preserved for our kids.


Scaggly your post is rational and level headed and irrespective of our differing points of view regarding the right vs privilege debate, on this much I totally agree with you.  Unlike many that fear the loss of liberty around firearms ownership it his country, I do not.  It will simply never happen as long as there are those among us that are passionate about its preservation regardless of whether it is a right or privilege.

----------


## Maca49

Well said Rushy, I can see a time when it will be very controlled. I think most politicians and the police would love a situ where only the police and military have firearms, like Fiji. Times have changed dramatically in my short life span, freedoms are under pressure on all fronts. When the circle turns a little bit more and the toleration of criminal acts decreases and the good doers wake up a little and penalties are meaningful, maybe, just maybe these freedom pressures might lift I think it's driven from the wrong end at present  :X X:

----------


## Sidney

> In some ways we are splittng hairs here.  My take is, it is a privledge granted to a fit and proper person. As long as you are and remain a fit and proper person the police cannot reasonably refuse to grant you a licence. If you cease to be a fit and proper person the police can take away your licence.  You cannot simply own or be in possession of a gun because you want to, ergo I cant see it as a right.  If you odnt agree then sure you can go to court to get their determination justified.  Not sure what the case law is on that but Ive read the odd Judge's comments, for instance you could cease to be a fit and proper person, but that doesnt make you so for the rest of your life.  Bear in mind the Police often need case law to tell them how to proceed or work on a legal opinion given to them that might be overturned.  On top of that the Police are there to protect innocent 3rd parties from those acting irresponsibly be it with a gun, driving a car over the speed posted speed limit, or drink driving, whatever.  So I consider I have a right to be safe from dangers imposed by ppl not fit to utilise any good or do an action in a safe manner that might impact me.   Oh and finally thinking of it as a privaledge that can be removed should help those who are overly casual realise their stupidity will cost them and others in their "fraternity dear.


We are splitting hairs, but words have differing meanings.  To suggest that we shouldn't consider carefully the words we use seems dangerous to me.  There is a story out there of a man being hanged as a result of an apostrophe being in the wrong place.

Rather than just saying what everybody thinks the word privilege means to them.... think about what it means to wider society as a group.  If we keep telling them that we just hold a privilege, and they are in a position to take it away and wish to do so..... heck its just the loss of a privilege.  You weren't entitled to it anyway.  You had it at our discretion and we changed our minds... tough...

Now think about the same issue in the light of legal rights that recognise individual freedoms.  It gets to be politically more difficult to change the rules.  Even the antis understand the importance of individual freedoms.  However they don't understand why loonies and nut cases are allowed guns as a special privilege.... (cause thats what we are in their eyes)....

Legally speaking to describe the rights we hold in law as a privilege is a nonsense.  The americans have entrenched law in their constitution, and their law, in particular the 2nd amendment, has broader and more highly specified protections for firearms users and owners.  However entrenched law has no greater effect than any other law that is currently in force.  Its just easier to change if its not entrenched.  Rights held are more vulnerable, but of no less importance.  The same law has the same effect and conveys the same rights whether entrenched or not.  You don't hear the american gun lobby talking about privileges, they talk about legal rights.  Guess who talks about privileges in that society?

I understand some of the sentiment around the use of this word, but I cannot for the life of me see a real benefit... so no up side, all downside, why do we do this?  Conveying gratitude that we do have legal freedoms, and that there is a huge responsibility, can be done in multitudes of other ways which are less detrimental. 

I am pissed off about this, cause it does harm.... I am not suggesting that we adopt an american type response to the concept of "legal rights."  That would be unhelpful and culturally inconsistent with our national psyche, it would simply confirm the aforementioned opinions.  But if we stop using the term privilege, and we start using terms like "personal choice"  and "individual freedoms" backed up by "legal and lawful rights".... in our general conversations, it would be less harmful.  

I realise that is more of a mouthful, and very hard not to sound like a right plonker when casually insert that sort of combination into a sentence, but hopeful the point is taken...

----------


## Scouser

> Privilege as far as I can recall, dates back a very long way and originally meant a 'private law', where particular groups had the rules/laws set up so they had special dispensation to do particular things.  Normal people of course, couldn't do those things.  Rights belong to everyone (although that seems to be chipped at every year), privilege is for a few (e.g. parliamentary privilege where the laws of slander or libel do not apply).  
> 
> The way our gun laws work, everyone is given a license unless they are disqualified (we limit other rights based on similar lines too, you can't vote if you're in prison for example, and freedom of expression or association also have limits put on them).  We don't have to prove we're fit and proper, the police have to prove we aren't to prevent us getting a license.  That is an example of a right.  
> 
> If it was a privilege, rather than a right, we would have a system where the onus was on each of us to individually prove our fitness to own firearms, rather than the state proving otherwise, and only a rich/powerful elite, or chosen few would be able to own guns (like a whole bunch of countries we can name all to readily).  
> 
> Thankfully we're not that stuffed yet, but that is what the anti's want when they try to label firearms ownership as a 'privilege' and we play into their hands when we buy into the mealy-mouthed, mean-spirited view of things, and by playing into their hands we increase the chances that our kids will never know the things we all take for granted.  
> 
> I really hope we don't give in to the anti's, gun ownership is a right under our legal system, and we should all stand up for it, as we would for any other right (suffrage, free speech, freedom of association, private property etc.).  Frankly, when we as shooters buy into the whole idea that shooting is a privilege, we've pretty much lost.  It isn't something that should be restricted to the few, shooting & hunting are a key part of our national identity, our heritage, and something that must be preserved for our kids.



Im with this feller 100%

----------


## Sidney

> This thread is a circle jerk. Who cares about the wording, it's not an English class. How much do you value firearm ownership? Pretty high up there for me. I'll fight for it.


What will you fight for it with Beavis?

----------


## res

Words work for me,the day they fail I will look at other options. 

It's good to see beavis feels strongly on the issue all the same

----------


## Beavis

> What will you fight for it with Beavis?


I don't think it matters to "them" how you interpret the English language, they see us as a bug they could squash at their whim. The best we can do is stir up enough people to stall them. After the last select committee hearings affecting us, it is clear that such things are just seen as going through the motions for them. Their minds were made up before they heard the first submission. In future, we need thousands of submissions, not the measly 200 odd. What are we to do Sidney? Every time Richard wants to stir the cops up I donate money. I write letters. I make submissions. What do you do?

These threads I think are ridiculous. They are divisive more than anything. Kiwi's are stubborn pricks by nature, they won't come around to the POV of somebody else easily and it usually ends in toys thrown and name calling.

----------


## Maca49

Beavis I'm unaware, as I'm sure others are, move forward as a combined force but sort out the communication. What we don't know we cannot support?

----------


## Sidney

> I don't think it matters to "them" how you interpret the English language, they see us as a bug they could squash at their whim. The best we can do is stir up enough people to stall them. After the last select committee hearings affecting us, it is clear that such things are just seen as going through the motions for them. Their minds were made up before they heard the first submission. In future, we need thousands of submissions, not the measly 200 odd. What are we to do Sidney? Every time Richard wants to stir the cops up I donate money. I write letters. I make submissions. What do you do?
> 
> These threads I think are ridiculous. They are divisive more than anything. Kiwi's are stubborn pricks by nature, they won't come around to the POV of somebody else easily and it usually ends in toys thrown and name calling.




Yeah it would be nice if everyone was on the same page.... but hundreds of submissions that aren't coherent, from people that have poor technical understanding of the issues doesn't seem to be a solution either does it?  But lets all go into that situation without discussing it so that we create a really unified impression...

It seems like words are the main issue... and here you are suggesting that they are not important.  They will squash you with words if you don't compete with them at that level.

So what if a little blood is shed in the thrashing around of the issues....  more chance of understanding increasing, than by not discussing it.

Have you not noticed that our society is run on words.  Maybe the reason that our fraternity doesn't contribute words to the public debate is because they lack confidence to do so...

Everybody is so dam sensitive about public debate on the net.... yeah there has to be some control but there is plenty of that available isn't there..?   

The net allows the less confident to participate without too much personal investment,  they can 't hit you over the head with a baseball bat through the computer screen if you get something wrong...

I don't expect the staunch opinionated kiwi hunter to ever admit that they were wrong, or that I might be right, and yet we have degrees of that all of the time.  And people go away thinking about stuff, people might think about it the next time the the word privilege pops out....

Lets not discuss it?..... what are u going to fight with again?


You know the largest influence we have is in the individual contacts that we have through work, our social circles and our everyday life...  I am an absolute minority in those areas, and yet people know that I am a hunter, people enjoy the food I prepare for them and when I talk to them (using words) and I say that it is important for them to protect our legal rights, because it also protects their own... they understand that!  They see a rational person even if they don't understand why I hunt, and by inference they think more of the rest of you...  I would appreciate that the favour was returned,,,

Don't hide in circles of the same type of people who are even scared to discuss concerns that they jointly share, learn to engage, try to appear rational, learn the skill of disarming people (work in progress for me) ... practice your words...

----------


## Maca49

Back up the truck, trim out the shit and tell us in simple term wtf you need, I'm sure we are heading the same way.

----------


## Beavis

Basically what I think he is saying is we need to find some common ground and all be singing off the same page, coherently. The cynical side of me thinks we will get fucked over at every turn, even when reasoning behind restrictions is totally ridiculous. Our biggest problem is that those who make the rules on our behalf, have no idea, and they see the police as the only credible source of information regarding firearms, they will eat what the police feed them. We need to change this somehow.

----------


## Nick-D

If there is 250-270k FA's licences in the country then we do indeed have the ability to have a strong voice. Thats 6-7% of the country, politcally speaking that is a pretty large percentage.
If need be, we certainly have the weight to offer up some politcal clout and positively influence firearms legislation in the future. Its just a matter of getting that voice heard.

----------


## Maca49

Now I'm underwater!

----------


## Maca49

But we are splintered into our little groups, how do you combine? Not easy, need one encompassing all

----------


## gimp

> This thread is a circle jerk. Who cares about the wording, it's not an English class. How much do you value firearm ownership? Pretty high up there for me. I'll fight for it.


I didn't read it for a couple of days then skimmed to here

the point is "what are people trying to achieve when saying 'it's a privilege not a right'?" It's a meaningless pedant red herring soundbite

----------


## Rushy

> Back up the truck, trim out the shit and tell us in simple term wtf you need, I'm sure we are heading the same way.


It has actually occurred to me Maca that we have all been violently agreeing with one another on the critical issue in this debate.

----------


## Sidney

> Basically what I think he is saying is we need to find some common ground and all be singing off the same page, coherently. The cynical side of me thinks we will get fucked over at every turn, even when reasoning behind restrictions is totally ridiculous. Our biggest problem is that those who make the rules on our behalf, have no idea, and they see the police as the only credible source of information regarding firearms, they will eat what the police feed them. We need to change this somehow.


Yep... but we have to develop our skills before we can expect to be listened to..... we probably also have to learn to support and not withdraw it on every variation to our own beliefs....  the police love division... they must be sweating with the Black Power and Mongrel Mob starting to talk?

----------


## Maca49

> It has actually occurred to me Maca that we have all been violently agreeing with one another on the critical issue in this debate.


I thought that most of the ways, I think it is two tiered and running in parallel. Applied the KISS principal and it may run more coherently?

----------


## Scouser

This thread has convinced me to change the way i communicate about firearms in public, i agree the nuances are easily confused regarding the general public.....'privledge' v 'right'.......as has been said, we have a majority of people who would like ALL firearms gone from the general public, the police and politicians rubbing their hands in glee.....as regards the hunting & shooting fraternity, we need to be 'together as one', as a concerted movement to keep our 'historical rights'.......as once there gone, we will never get them back.....i can see Beavis's side of the discussion, whatever we do the 'man' will slowly but surely chip away at our rights......but then i see Sidney's passionate retoric to fight with the mighty 'pen' from the legal standpoint......bacause right now in 2014, we FAL owners have the upper hand.........great thread, opened my eyes to this issue.......

----------


## gimp

The thing is that ant-gun people as a rule are not going to vote that as a primary issue. It's hard to motivate anti-gun voters because it doesn't directly effect them. A lot of people (wrongly) vaguely think "yeah gun control is a good idea" but it's not a must-do issue for them. 

Whereas for gun owners, legislation that affects our possessions, interests, hobbies, etc. DOES directly effect us. In theory we should be much easier to motivate on the issue.

----------


## veitnamcam

Except the vast majority firearm users are oblivious to any changes until well after it becomes law.

Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2

----------


## gimp

Well how do we reach + motivate them?

----------


## Southern Man

Motivation is the problem as so many simply cannot and will not believe that their ownership and use of firearms is under threat from many directions. Most simply cannot concieve that anti-gun semtiment is even real plus widespread.

Perhaps many simply fear being singled out if they stand up for their rights?

----------


## Sidney

I really don't know... our interests attract independent people.  I don't think we are by nature inclined to work in groups well.....

Culturally the stoic self contained kiwi who doesn't need your help thanks very much, has probably been concentrated down into our sort of area...

Not helpful really... but all firearms groups that I have been associated with seem very fragmented in their thinking...  each of them distrusts other groups

Forms of community must exist for organisation to have any chance at all...  historically deerstalkers was part of that, but these days there seems to be a reluctance to engage at a political level amongst that membership.

None of us want to appear to have the excesses of the americans... but the problems that we face are actually very similar....



I personally don't think that we can expect any of the existing organisations to step up to the plate.... NSA lacks widespread support, and deerstalkers aren't interested in going down that road...  COLFO  approach is pretty much focused on Wellington..

How about indépendant small group in each area of think tank/lobbyists who would liase and communicate with other user groups, and would actively participate in discussion with electorate MPs and local authorities/Police ...  Not answerable directly to others but charged with building relationships with other user groups and with the authorities.  Putting faces to the issues, rational input into the challenges faced and placing accountability on the people that are potentially making decisions that affect us.

Not a media role, but a co-ordinated local response with communication between areas.  The need for media attention could be achieved by co-ordinating public release of information through Deerstalkers NSA etc etc... with well organised PR information...  Highly selective information release, needing to manage public perceptions...

I don't see these groups as elected political entities... or even representative in formation.  Becoming representative should grow from information, confidence and relationships.  Contribution would have to be voluntary, selection by merit and
communication potential.  We have enough political entities and the dilution of effect through mass opinion...

Some ideas and it sounds a lot of work.  Large scale business has this approach.  There is a real focus of getting in front of the people that matter, and controlling information through the media for the benefit of the sector concerned.  If it sounds manipulative and somewhat smoky.... it probably is..... but we are late starters to this party, the antis have been playing like this for ages...

We need to move from protestation after the fact, to potentially influencing proactively...

 For some thought?

----------


## Rushy

Nine pages of distractive and divisive passion and opposition and now we get to a point where we are aligned with sane and rational focus. All power to your right arm Sidney.

----------


## ebf

Oh crap ! For once I actually agree with an entire post Sidney typed in ! I'm rushing outside to check for snow or tornadoes  :Grin: 

For me personally, I approach firearms ownership from a very individualistic point of view. And to be honest I am more likely to be anti any group seen to favour of the "from my cold dead hands" way of thinking. Whatever the solution is, it needs to attract the moderate middle ground for it to stand any chance of making inroads into the general public's perceptions. It also means it has to avoid at all costs being seen to cater for the lunatic pro fringe that unfortunately are always near this debate.

I just think it is common sense to focus efforts on the large majority of the public who are not in the middle ground. Having one group of rabidly anti arguing with another group of rabidly pro serves absolutely no purpose...

----------


## ebf

> I just think it is common sense to focus efforts on the large majority of the public who are not in the middle ground. Having one group of rabidly anti arguing with another group of rabidly pro serves absolutely no purpose...


That should be who ARE in the middle ground, time run out for editing original post...

----------


## Maca49

Gotta say I've met some strange guys with FALs, or it could be I'm the strange one? There's a few I prefer not to shoot with. They are in the minority I hope! :O O:

----------


## P38

> Gotta say I've met some strange guys with FALs, or it could be I'm the strange one? There's a few I prefer not to shoot with. They are in the minority I hope!


Your not wrong Maca49.

I've met a few like that too.

When they turn up at the range I leave.

Cheers
Pete

----------


## Toby

Are there any websites people have made for banning firearms? 

I know SAFE has a page about why they should ban duck shooting

----------


## Maca49

Is that cause it's mean to kill food?

----------


## Toby

You should have a read Maca. Bullshit on the internet is always good for a laugh

----------


## Dynastar27

seriously I think half the anti gun people are halfwits 

they say its cruel to kill animals for food where the hell do they think the meat they buy in the supermarkets comes from 

cause it sure as hell doesn't come off a tree 

and guns don't kill people people kill people 


ok rant ova

----------


## P38

> seriously I think half the anti gun people are halfwits 
> 
> they say its cruel to kill animals for food where the hell do they think the meat they buy in the supermarkets comes from 
> 
> cause it sure as hell doesn't come off a tree 
> 
> and guns don't kill* people people kill people* 
> 
> 
> ok rant ova


Spot on Dynastar27  :Thumbsup:

----------


## Scouser

> Spot on Dynastar27


Agree, but the anti's argue its easier for 'people to kill people' with guns.......thats their whole point!

they also state their supermarket food is killed quickly & humanely.......had plenty of heated discussion about that one!

Its like religion & politics, as soon as a person reaches a certain age there views are 'set'......hard to move them onto 'your side'......so compromise HAS to be reached......

----------


## Southern Man

Unfortunately firearms owners have not been hurt enough in this country ... yet ... to realise the ultimate truth of the saying" "Extremisim in the defence of liberty is no vice!"

Compromise with those who would enslave you or remove your freedom is simply seen, by them, as a weakness to be exploited.
They have complete contempt for others liberty and will stop at nothing to achive their ends - make no mistake about this!

Credible and effective (and implacable!) opposition is the only winning strategy - being 'nice' is for the losing side in this battle.

I guess it is because the bulk of firearms owners ARE 'fit & proper' and from the 'nicer' sections of society.

But fight we must to preserve even what we have or it shall be taken away - and that does not apply to just firearms.

----------


## Rushy

> Agree, but the anti's argue its easier for 'people to kill people' with guns.......thats their whole point!


In this country the statistics show it is a whole lot easier with a car Scouser.

----------


## Rushy

> But fight we must to preserve even what we have or it shall be taken away - and that does not apply to just firearms.


Surely they aren't thinking about taking away my pineapple lumps.

----------


## steven

> But we are splintered into our little groups, how do you combine? Not easy, need one encompassing all


It is known as COLFO, they lobby ministers etc. on our behalf.

regards

----------


## Southern Man

> It is known as COLFO, they lobby ministers etc. on our behalf.
> 
> regards


Nope - colfo represent less than 2% of firearms licence holders and only have very few individual members.
Voting membership is entirely restricted to member organisations and entities - a maximum of less than twenty.

There is simply no broad-based democratic representation of licence holders.

I know - to get a 'policy' document at all it had to go through a local branch to a national branch to colfo ... and back down the chain of obstrustion at every level.

Other efforts such as NSA are simply not supported or obstructed by vested interests - or ignored at out peril.

Time is running out and much more restrictive laws likely in the not to distant future for even in the US this is apparent.

----------


## Southern Man

> Surely they aren't thinking about taking away my pineapple lumps.


Hmmm - the 'fat' police and the sugar deniers would certainly like to try!  :TT TT:

----------


## Sidney

The problem is that trying to get broad based democratic representation is probably not achievable.  All of our efforts in the past have been along this line.  Trying to keep everybody happy is self destructive.

The model I proposed isn't very democratic, nor is it representative to start with.  If a good job gets done it will become representative.  Initial communication with police MPs etc would be by a small group of affected persons wishing to meet.  This group reports back to all user groups.

While not necessarily selected from each user group outside parties will have no choice but to consider that group representative, if the information flow is organised and professional.

The key factors are the professionalism of the members of the group.  To be seen as disaffected emotional minorities, losing their ability to play with their dangerous toys is not productive.  We have no appeal to the police/govt or the public if that is our response.

It is not about being nice, its about building relationships and requiring accountability.  Its a lot harder to screw people you know and respect, who have a good public image....

Personally I think its too tall an expectation.... we would need around 4-6 suitable people in each electorate who could contribute a lot of their time for beneficiaries that would probably not appreciate the effort and time required....

We don't want another beauracratic national heirachical structure, we want local level autonomy but with co-ordinated approaches to issues... and good organised information flows...

COLFO potentially could reorganise in that way maybe...  huge asks... money time and people

----------


## Beavis

Perhaps we could link up with other special interest groups, organise flash mob submitions for each other

----------


## Southern Man

The most powerful gun lobby in the World - the US National Rifle Association - has 5 million members in a country with about 100 million firearms users.

Nowhere do firearms owners have majority representation.

However it is determined minorities who generally shape the course of legislation. A few 'advisors' or strongly opinionated people who largely by hapenstance are in the right place at the right time.

Soe of us will be in Wellington chewing ears next week ...

----------


## Savage1

Who are the people we are supposedly fighting? I've never seen any evidence of a group that wants to disarm people and are actively pursuing it. I haven't seen any people brandishing signs and approaching parliament. 

Sure the Police and the pistol grip saga but at the end of the day they just want people to go through a bit more vetting and have better security to own a MSSA, which I understand. They aren't trying to disarm the population.

Just because there is the odd article written in a negative way doesn't mean anything. 

Sure I know the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist, but I don't think that's the case here.

----------


## Sidney

So the devil does exist?

----------


## Beavis

> Who are the people we are supposedly fighting? I've never seen any evidence of a group that wants to disarm people and are actively pursuing it. I haven't seen any people brandishing signs and approaching parliament. 
> 
> Sure the Police and the pistol grip saga but at the end of the day they just want people to go through a bit more vetting and have better security to own a MSSA, which I understand. They aren't trying to disarm the population.
> 
> Just because there is the odd article written in a negative way doesn't mean anything. 
> 
> Sure I know the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist, but I don't think that's the case here.


You really believe that? I have heard it straight from the mouth of a very senior police man, and also parroted by local police - they have a real problem with basically all semi automatics, and at the end of the day,  them and their bosses really don't want modern semi automatic firearms in the country. Guess that makes them an opponent.

----------


## Savage1

> You really believe that? I have heard it straight from the mouth of a very senior police man, and also parroted by local police - they have a real problem with basically all semi automatics, and at the end of the day,  them and their bosses really don't want modern semi automatic firearms in the country. Guess that makes them an opponent.


Yes I really do believe it, I have a lot more exposure to Police and their policies than you do and I've never once seen any thing that you could even remotely interpret as being a step to disarming people.

----------


## Rushy

> So the devil does exist?


Rule number one guys. Let's not get into this debate.

----------


## Kscott

> You really believe that? I have heard it straight from the mouth of a very senior police man, and also parroted by local police - they have a real problem with basically all semi automatics, and at the end of the day,  them and their bosses really don't want modern semi automatic firearms in the country. Guess that makes them an opponent.


No offence dude, but exactly 'who' is this to bolster your argument ? Surely they can't be that big a secret, if they're talking to the public making statements like this ?

Plus local Police are just that - local. Your experiences differ from those in other parts of the country, if we use the logic that local Police don't want semi's around, then my local Police and personal Police I know say 100% the complete opposite.  

Ergo, all of this become meaningless comments without verifiable facts, which have the danger of treated as fact - by those who wish for more firearms restrictions, and by those who want less.

----------


## Beavis

The manager of licensing and vetting,.

----------


## Southern Man

Police website 3 September, 2010 

Superintendent John Rivers, of the Operations Support Group, said Police were already acting on all the recommendations made by the Coroner.

"Police will shortly be recommending policy changes to the Minister concerning the Arms Act."

"Police has given careful consideration to the recommendations of the Thorpe Report. Many of them form part of current police practice, although not necessarily expressed in legislation."

"The Thorpe Report recommended the banning of all MSSAs, including those in sporting configuration which are currently classed as Category A firearms."

The case rests ...

----------


## Sidney

> Police website 3 September, 2010 
> 
> Superintendent John Rivers, of the Operations Support Group, said Police were already acting on all the recommendations made by the Coroner.
> 
> "Police will shortly be recommending policy changes to the Minister concerning the Arms Act."
> 
> "Police has given careful consideration to the recommendations of the Thorpe Report. Many of them form part of current police practice, although not necessarily expressed in legislation."
> 
> "The Thorpe Report recommended the banning of all MSSAs, including those in sporting configuration which are currently classed as Category A firearms."
> ...



well thats comprehensive.....  a strategy and agenda, an admission that they already operate outside of the law, and active political interference...

no nothing to worry about.....

----------


## AzumitH

> Police website 3 September, 2010 
> 
> Superintendent John Rivers, of the Operations Support Group, said Police were already acting on all the recommendations made by the Coroner.
> 
> "Police will shortly be recommending policy changes to the Minister concerning the Arms Act."
> 
> "Police has given careful consideration to the recommendations of the Thorpe Report. Many of them form part of current police practice, although not necessarily expressed in legislation."
> 
> "The Thorpe Report recommended the banning of all MSSAs, including those in sporting configuration which are currently classed as Category A firearms."
> ...


Well now that seems pretty conclusive.

----------


## Savage1

Does any of it say that they should ban all firearms and disarm citizens? Have the Police made any moves to ban any type of firearm? 

It says Police has given careful consideration to the Thorpe Report, nowhere does it say they will be enacting all the recommendations from it.

Why would have they mucked around with pistol grips if they were just going to ban them outright anyway, it doesn't make any sense. 

The actions that Police have taken speak a lot louder than those quotes you have put up from four years ago, and I haven't seen any attempts to ban any firearms.

----------


## Beavis

The thumbhole stock issue, the pistol grip reclassification, refusing import of firearms on totally baseless and legally shaky reasons, hand ins...

----------


## Maca49

What sentence do you think the crim in Auck will get for possessing a, i take it stolen, E Cat, MSSA? Probably with no FAL.
How would it compare if  a licensed, "law abiding" person with an A cat had a legit one in their possession .
Crimson get it to easy, I'll watch this with interest , probably won't get another mention in the media though.

----------


## Sidney

> Yes I really do believe it, I have a lot more exposure to Police and their policies than you do and I've never once seen any thing that you could even remotely interpret as being a step to disarming people.





> Does any of it say that they should ban all firearms and disarm citizens? Have the Police made any moves to ban any type of firearm? 
> 
> It says Police has given careful consideration to the Thorpe Report, nowhere does it say they will be enacting all the recommendations from it.
> 
> Why would have they mucked around with pistol grips if they were just going to ban them outright anyway, it doesn't make any sense. 
> 
> The actions that Police have taken speak a lot louder than those quotes you have put up from four years ago, and I haven't seen any attempts to ban any firearms.





Its not a legitimate argument to say that because I don't know about it, it can't exist....

----------


## Southern Man

> Does any of it say that they should ban all firearms and disarm citizens? Have the Police made any moves to ban any type of firearm? 
> 
> It says Police has given careful consideration to the Thorpe Report, nowhere does it say they will be enacting all the recommendations from it.
> 
> Why would have they mucked around with pistol grips if they were just going to ban them outright anyway, it doesn't make any sense. 
> 
> The actions that Police have taken speak a lot louder than those quotes you have put up from four years ago, and I haven't seen any attempts to ban any firearms.


Have a look for Practical Shooting Insititute vs Commissioner of Police where a total ban on the importation of ALL semiautomatics was overturned.

Look at "A Review of Firearms Control in New Zealand" a report made by NZ Police to Thorp

7.4 Such weapon types that should be banned include shotguns with barell less than a certain length, firearms that discharge a bullet of a size greater than .50 calibre, and 'bullpup' firearms of any type.

Have a look through the Police Firearms Manual where the word 'banned' appears numerous times.

Wake up and sniff the 'banning' frevour!

----------


## Savage1

Sure that's not a legitimate argument, but when you piece it together with the actions of the Police then that is a very valid argument, actions speak louder than words and so far there hasn't been any actions or direct statements saying that the Police are aiming to disarm the population or ban MSSAs. Until there is, just get out and enjoy your hobby. 

I get sick of people scaremongering by selecting certain pieces of information and ignoring the big obvious picture.

----------


## Savage1

> Have a look for Practical Shooting Insititute vs Commissioner of Police where a total ban on the importation of ALL semiautomatics was overturned.
> 
> Look at "A Review of Firearms Control in New Zealand" a report made by NZ Police to Thorp
> 
> 7.4 Such weapon types that should be banned include shotguns with barell less than a certain length, firearms that discharge a bullet of a size greater than .50 calibre, and 'bullpup' firearms of any type.
> 
> Have a look through the Police Firearms Manual where the word 'banned' appears numerous times.
> 
> Wake up and sniff the 'banning' frevour!


The Thorp Report was an independent review commissioned by the NZ Police, Thorp produced it. Very big difference to what you are stating.

When I looked at the arms manual the word banned appeared once and the word banning once, neither time was it in reference to taking firearms off people.

I think you are the one that needs to wake up and stop spreading misinformation.

----------


## Southern Man

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/fi...anual_2002.pdf

8.12 Firearms Approved
for Import

The importation of the following shall only be approved through the Manager: Licensing
and Vetting. The applicant is to provide written explanation for wanting to import these
firearms, including why *the general rule banning* their import should not apply.
a) pistols or restricted weapons or parts of pistols or restricted weapons,
b) military style semi-automatic firearms or parts thereof,
c) semi automatic shotguns or parts thereof,
d) pump action shotguns or parts thereof,
e) firearms concealed within another item (eg: walking stick firearms)
f) doubled barrelled exposed hammer shotguns
g) rifles, carbines or shotguns less than 762 mm (30 inches) in overall length
h) firearms with folding, sliding, telescoping or other retractable stocks

Banning their import effectively is a policy banning continued ownership. You are now in denial!

----------


## Sidney

> Sure that's not a legitimate argument, but when you piece it together with the actions of the Police then that is a very valid argument, actions speak louder than words and so far there hasn't been any actions or direct statements saying that the Police are aiming to disarm the population or ban MSSAs. Until there is, just get out and enjoy your hobby. 
> 
> I get sick of people scaremongering by selecting certain pieces of information and ignoring the big obvious picture.



Really?

Having an opinion without knowing what you are talking about is such a strong position to be starting to be an authority on any thing....

A foot soldier in any organisation, is not privy to policy and strategy planning.... however the people that dialog with those that do, certainly know more than you

You have no idea by your own admission what the situation is.....  and when informed, you still don't shut up....

Big picture??

Here's the big picture... the police are actively implementing policies which are outside the law in order to make it difficult for people to acquire MSSa type firearms.  When challenged in court they lose, and then they seek to get the law changed.  They act illegally and they interfere politically.  

.. and your solution is "enjoy your hobby, until the police make a direct announcement."  Will they advise you first?

Please let us know when they do....

----------


## Southern Man

> The Thorp Report was an independent review commissioned by the NZ Police, Thorp produced it. Very big difference to what you are stating.
> 
> When I looked at the arms manual the word banned appeared once and the word banning once, neither time was it in reference to taking firearms off people.
> 
> I think you are the one that needs to wake up and stop spreading misinformation.



The quote is from the Police report to Thorp made by the Opperations Suport Group - not from the Thorp Report itself

Also have another look at the Arms Manual - banned appears more than once.


The statement that I am spreading misinformation is untrue - you are spreading untruths!

----------


## Savage1

> http://www.police.govt.nz/service/fi...anual_2002.pdf
> 
> 8.12 Firearms Approved
> for Import
> 
> The importation of the following shall only be approved through the Manager: Licensing
> and Vetting. The applicant is to provide written explanation for wanting to import these
> firearms, including why *the general rule banning* their import should not apply.
> a) pistols or restricted weapons or parts of pistols or restricted weapons,
> ...


So this one excerpt means that Police are trying to ban civilian ownership?! Since when were the items on that list banned from import? Pretty easy to get a hold of a,b,c,d,f,g,h. Last I checked there were plenty being imported. Not to mention this only applies to the certain firearms that aren't on the approved list. This is far from evidence of Police wanting to disarm the population.

Keep trying.

----------


## Southern Man

1. Before a Permit to Import is issued for any firearm a check shall be made to ensure the
	firearm has been approved for import into New Zealand. A list of firearms approved for
	import is available on the Police website. This list is not exhaustive – if a firearm is not on
	the list a check should be made with the Police Armourer.
	2. The description must be precise. It must specify make/model/type and action
	(e.g.: “Mossberg 500” is an inadequate description as there are many models of Mossberg
	500, *some of them banned* from importation).

Despite the clear fact that PSI vs COP made it abundantly plain that Police do not have and never have had the power to 'ban' any importation. A general rule of banning is pretty plain speaking to me - as I understand plain English.

----------


## veitnamcam

It is blatantly obvious the police want to disarm the population, they are only succeeding in small steps,every police force anywhere would love to be the only people with firearms...makes the job a whole lot easier. 

What police and govt fail to see is disarming the law abiding has no net gain at all unless they fear a civil war,overthrow of police/govt.

Criminals dont obey the law so any law changes to restrict or ban means only the big blue gang and all the other gangs have firearms(the armed forces probably have a couple as well)

Everyone else is trying to disarm their civilian population because its easy to control a angry population armed with rocks,bits of timber,handfuls of their own shit etc when you have firearms.

Its been going on since the dawn of civilization, It is *always* the goal of those in power to disarm anyone and everyone who may oppose.

----------


## Sidney

Oh I don't know....  that could be scaremongering.....   :Grin: 

The thing is in a democracy, the govt does not have a mandate to disarm to people because it is supposed to represent the people interests...

The interests of the people are for accountable govt.  Not that the public has any right to be threatening its leadership by being armed, but the reality is that any population that is disarmed means less accountable govt.

The police just want to make their job easier.  A lot of the antis genuinely believe that less arms in the community will mean a safer community.  You can understand the logic, but reality doesn't seem to work that way....  they ignore that.  

A lot of the political thinking is just about political expediency.  If it is popular to ban firearms, and who doesn't like to be told that they are being made safe, then govt will be incentivised to go down that road... 

Its not always a conspiracy, often its just the mechanics and how it works.

But anybody who doesn't understand that the police do have an agenda, has their head somewhere dark.....

----------


## Colorado

Democracy is nothing more than tyranny of the majority. Two foxes and a chicken voting on what's for dinner. The foxes don't need a gun, the chicken does.

----------


## Beavis

Our mate the police armorer also basically has the power to ban the import of what ever he wants - the option to appeal is there, if you are loaded and have spare time.

----------


## AzumitH

> handfuls of their own shit


They can enjoy prying _that_ from my cold dead hand.

----------


## Savage1

If the Police really wanted to ban firearms from civilian ownership then how do you think they would go about it. They've had over 15yrs since the Thorp report and what actual steps have they really taken? If they wanted to achieve that goal they would stop all imports, stop issuing FALs and endorsements, make licencing fees astronomical, revoking FAL from anybody with any kind of conviction and start pushing bills before the select committee increasing their power to cover all of these things, just to name a few. What have they really done? Tried to reclassify a tiny fraction of firearms so that you need to get an endorsement to own them, and offered that endorsement for no cost and given a grace period, that really sounds like a conspiracy to me. They haven't even tried to implement registration for A-cat. 

When I take in all the facts available I quickly realise that they have no intention to disarm the population, that's just fantasy, unless they have a 200+ year time frame.

If Police were looking at banning any class of firearm I would have thought it would have been the pistols targeted first.

I realise this is just my opinion and I have no hope of changing or influencing anyone else's.

----------


## 308

Hahaha an American telling us about gun control hahahaha

Now this thread has really jumped the shark







> Democracy is nothing more than tyranny of the majority. Two foxes and a chicken voting on what's for dinner. The foxes don't need a gun, the chicken does.

----------


## Southern Man

Read Arms Amendment Act 2012 in toto - the latest legislation pushed before the House ... by Police.

Also be aware that initially it had been written so that ANY firearm could be declared an MSSA by Order in Council (requested by Police) It was only a handful of the wide-awake that stimied that.

The other suggestions as to Police making it harder or more difficult as prevented by the present law ... and the fact that those very same wide-awke persons keep taking them to task when the begin going there. They have tride banning imports have racked up the cost of firearms licences - from $4.00 FOR LIFE to $123.40 for a ten year expiring licence plus $200 for an endorsement.

They admit their practices are not necessarily reflected in legislation ...

I have been involved since before 1983 and since 1990 have seen the gradual deterioration od firearms licence holders position. Three times now have been forced to Court to protest ultra vires behavior and been successful at slowing down the rot. Off to Wellington again to give evidence at a Regulations Review Committee hearing regarding the complaint about the 'Pistol Grips' regulation.
Basically a complaint that the Order is a major extension of the number and style of pistol grips restricted by law and in our view places unreasonable limitations upon the safe use of semi-automatic firearms by restricting the use of a Court acknowledged safety feature.

Cheese! How mcuh clearer does it need to become?

----------


## Maca49

Hey guys circles a good to go round and round, most of us are now on the same page / belief. How are you going forward from here? You need to gel the group and set sail!

----------


## Southern Man

Well - for a start putting our hands in our pockets and raising some serious funding to assist those who do something would be a good way forward ...

----------


## Sidney

> Hahaha an American telling us about gun control hahahaha
> 
> Now this thread has really jumped the shark


If he did he probably knows a lot more about the subject than you do.  But pretty sure he didn't say anything about gun control, he said quite a bit about said a lot about democracy though...

----------


## Maca49

> Well - for a start putting our hands in our pockets and raising some serious funding to assist those who do something would be a good way forward ...


Goodo Who, What, When?

----------


## Southern Man

GunDoc and JayDee from sportshooter forum have set up the "Firearms Fighting Fund" as a non-profit organisation which helps fund the National Shooters Association and other personal firearms law inititives.

Both are recently retired - GunDoc from a career as a Firearms manufacturing Gunsmith and JayDee as a Toolmaker.
Both have been involved in Firearms lobbying and several Court Cases (GunDoc as a Court recognised firearms expert and JayDee giving advice as an 'ordinary man' in several Court matters. Both were involved with PSI vs COP back in 1990 and assisted with Lincoln vs Police in 2009 (the Check Your Stocks reversal) and also in the recent NSA Statemen tof Claims case. I know them both - hence my knowledge of the cases.

Firearms Fighting Fund
WestPac 
03 1599 0030592-00

Any donations are greatfully accepted - presently helping with the Regulations Review Committee 'pistol grips' regulation complaint.

----------


## Maca49

:Thumbsup:  great!

----------


## res

While it is interesting that it's not directly to the worthy but elusive NSA I'll be throwing some $ at that account on payday,as I do to other orgs that fight for our tools from other angles. 

You only get the rights/privileges (whatever you want to call it) that you fight for-and the combo of colfo and NSA fight for it so fund them-even $5 helps. 

I'm not associated with any of them directly for those who may wonder-hell both orgs probably think I'm a pain in there arse

----------


## ebf

res mate, you'll just be sending beer money down to a couple of law students down in christchurch  :Grin: 

"elusive" is an interesting choice of word.

----------


## Sidney

> res mate, you'll just be sending beer money down to a couple of law students down in christchurch 
> 
> "elusive" is an interesting choice of word.


And there we go....  not only inaccurate but part of the problem.. and defamatory

The only organisations that have actually done anything about this stuff, the only reason you can still import firearms products, the only groups that actually challenge the illegal activities of the police...... and thats the support they get from the community they help....

Ebf - if you would prefer that I don't call into question your capacity, then stop giving licence....

----------


## Southern Man

Richard Lincoln of NSA fame is a 50 year old law student - who is working through his 3rd year of a law degree to better be able to conduct Court cases - now that is dedication.

Gundoc and JayDee are very much long term and hard core Gun Lobby personalities who have been at the coalface since before the 1983 Arms Act - and got stuff done or been instrumental in it succeeding. PSI vs COP and the 2009 Touch Our Butts amoung these successes.

They have become used to derogatory comments from the uninformed and plainly jealous BenDover merchants throughout that time.

----------


## ebf

Touchy point Sidney, or should I say Richard ? Want to have another go at answering questions about membership  :Grin:  ?

Res, dude, it is your money, do with it what you want. For me, I choose to support organisations that are happy to publicly disclose their membership numbers (not some fantasy they dreamt up), easily verifiable by dividing the subs income. Can you easily get hold of financial statements for the last couple of years ? How hard is it to get info about organisational structure, regional representatives, background of the leadership team etc. Think of it as buying shares in a company...

----------


## Southern Man

NSA activities:

1) The 2009 court case ensured that we still have thumbholes and Dragunov stocks despite the 2012 Amendment.
[plus the much easier importation of 'sporting configuration' ARs - which continues even after the 'Pistol Grip' regulation]

2) The word 'firearm' was replaced with 'semi-auto' to limit application of regulations to semis 
[revealed by NSA opperative]

3) Attempt was made via SOP 036 to extend rimfire to those less than .22LR
[Introduced by Richard Prosser NZ First MP but opposed by MOP Judith Collins and not adopted]

4) The 'semi-auto' definition loophole has been publicised as was the ability for an endorsement holder to swap configurations

5) 'Free-standing' has a Judicial definition

6) The lack of need for a P2P when 'manufacturing' an MSSA for personal use has been Judicially clarified

7) That the requirement for security to be installed before the issue of an endorsement is 'premature' has been established
[ a discretionary condition cannot be placed upon an endorsement prior to its issue]

8) A formal complaint has been laid with the Regulations Review Committee regarding the new 'Pistol Grip' regulation

9) Research into a Judicial Review of the 'Pistol Grip' (and other possible) regulations is in train

10) Ongoing investigation into 'blanket policy' transgressions underway
[this is a biggie - an attempt was made to get NSA to agree not to persue any more matters in this area - they continue]
[Already case law in this area - way back in 1990's PSI vs COP - some NSA 'oldies' were there too]

11) Information presented on this very website has been ongoing.

12) All 'authorities' efforts to obtain NSA membership lists and number of members have been resisted - It's a SECRET!

13) You can help by continuing to contribute to the advancement of your interests ... or not - that is your choice!
[Thank you for previous assistance]

That is the short list - add to that a considerable number of cases where NSA has given private assistance and been involved in serveral other matters in Court. Plus the NSA submission to the Law & Order Select Committee - and several individual NSA members submissions as well

----------


## Southern Man

From Gundoc:

The NSA exists to fight for the rights of firearms owners, particularly in regard to the government and its various departments acting within the law, and in accordance with the various rights that we have as NZ citizens. I use the words 'rights' advisedly!

The various people that set up the NSA originally, did so against a background of failed attempts to bring about change by the various shooting sports organisations. Their failure was due entirely to their 'give up something in exchange for something else' attitude, even with full knowledge that they were being shafted. Their attitude was one of 'not rocking the boat in case we lose everything' when in fact what they had could NOT be taken away.

Most of the original founders of the NSA had long history of refusing to back down in the face of strong opposition. These people, by their relatively singular efforts had achieved the following for NZ shooters; the introduction of IPSC and 3-gun shooting (against the NZ Pistol Assn. and the NZ Police), the introduction of Metallic Silhouette shooting (against the NZ Pistol Assn and the NZ Police), defining what constitutes the overall length of a firearm in the Courts (against NZ Police), taking the Commissioner of Police to Court over blanket ban policies and winning (a far-reaching decision that made legal history), etc.

Thus the NSA was formed to provide a single entity to pursue these goals, not by negotiating but by drawing a line in the sand. Since then the victories have mounted as outlined in a previous post by JayDee. These efforts have been partly member funded and partly by various NSA founders putting up the balance. The NSA is fortunate to have the services of Richard Lincoln who, despite still being a law student, has performed exceptionally well in Court on our behalf. The initial Court battle in Palmerston North saw the Crown Solicitor shake Richard's hand and warmly congratulate him on a very well presented case. That is not too bad for a student who only had completed one year of study at that stage. I was there in Court to assist with the technical aspects of firearms for the benefit of the Judge.

The NSA seldom meets face to face but uses email and phone calls when a decision needs to be made, takes the appropriate action, and slips back into the lair, watching and waiting. It is not an organisation that has regular meetings, puts out newsletters, etc. The various people who chew these things over all have other jobs to do to keep food on the table, and Richard is very busy with his studies. The NSA funding is used specifically and exclusively to fight these battles when they are identified, and our legal team has all their ducks in a row. Jaydee and I are both laymen but we both have a sharp eye for the written law (and a bit of Celtic fire in our blood), the others are qualified lawyers. First and foremost however, we are all shooters.

I would have define the NSA as a movement, rather than a club.

----------


## Sidney

> Touchy point Sidney, or should I say Richard ? Want to have another go at answering questions about membership  ?
> 
> Res, dude, it is your money, do with it what you want. For me, I choose to support organisations that are happy to publicly disclose their membership numbers (not some fantasy they dreamt up), easily verifiable by dividing the subs income. Can you easily get hold of financial statements for the last couple of years ? How hard is it to get info about organisational structure, regional representatives, background of the leadership team etc. Think of it as buying shares in a company...


Here is the thing Efb.... your wrong again.... so capacity obviously is an issue for you...

I know Richard, but am not him...  I am not a member of the NSA and have not been associated with their legal activities..

I am however a law student, the only bit you have right so far....

If you want to buy shares in a company you should do so.... if you wish to support activates that encourage accountability, that might be a different thing.

Applying your formulae of how to achieve end game results sounds like you are prescribing inactivity...  Analysis of membership and representation is purely a red herring.  I am far more interested in the aims, activities and capacity of the group that I am supporting.  What are our choices here...?  Listening to the likes of you or going with something that actually achieves something?

You do not need large membership to pursue legal remedy, you need funding streams.  Large memberships are more often than not, inefficient and indecisive, just witness your own diversionary opinion.  

We have an extremely diverse community within the recreation firearms users community and getting everybody on the same page will always seem to be an exercise in herding cats....

Thankfully some people just get on with it.... your should go and do some more memberships analysis...

----------


## Kscott

By memory NSA threads have a tendency to go pear-shaped very quickly. Is this what this thread is about ?

----------


## Beavis

Don't think so

----------


## 308

Gosh Sidney, I bet you get a lot of dates

----------


## Sidney

> Gosh Sidney, I bet you get a lot of dates


Are you on here looking for dates?   :Grin:

----------


## Sidney

While not being associated with the NSA.... they have been the most effective of any groups at requiring accountability..

Whether you choose to support them in that approach is personal choice, but bang for buck not a bad deal from past performance...

I see a huge lack of big picture understanding..... a fragmented, uninformed, loosely associated bunch of people whose only commonality is that we happen to enjoy firearm recreation in one form or another...

We have the "nothings happening and you got nothing to worry about bunch."  We have the "its just a privilege anyway" bunch.  We have the "make concessions to keep the police happy and they will look after us bunch" and we have the 'keep your head down and don't draw attention to us bunch."  We also have the "it doesn't directly affect me, cause I don't like MSSAs anyway" bunch.

You probably should be in the 

"really pissed off because the police are deliberately acting outside the law, and getting away with it if we don't do something about it bunch....."

and the "why are the police actively promoting laws that discriminate against law abiding citizens bunch"

Your choice of how you might respond to that big picture reality....  but I would suggest that you don't have to become a member of the NSA to support the work that they do..  You have a perfect opportunity to maintain your elitist non radical persona, while getting others do the dirty work for you..

----------


## ebf

Sidney, tell me something. Is this "if you don't agree with my views you must obviously be mentally deficient or challenged in the intellectual capacity department" something they teach to all 1st and 2nd year law students down in Christchurch ?

Both you and tricky Dicky seem to have an almost mirror image approach when it comes to debating. Maybe you had the same professor ?  :Grin: 

LLB is 4 years right ? Hopefully you guys will be taught a different technique in 4th year...

----------


## gimp

oh man I had something for this

----------


## gimp



----------


## Maca49

Ain't that life! :Oh Noes:

----------


## Rushy

> 


Classic.

----------


## Sidney

> Sidney, tell me something. Is this "if you don't agree with my views you must obviously be mentally deficient or challenged in the intellectual capacity department" something they teach to all 1st and 2nd year law students down in Christchurch ?
> 
> Both you and tricky Dicky seem to have an almost mirror image approach when it comes to debating. Maybe you had the same professor ? 
> 
> LLB is 4 years right ? Hopefully you guys will be taught a different technique in 4th year...


Nope nothing to do with being at law school for me...  maybe its just that I am a cranky old fart who get tired of BS.... 

But hey, lets deflect from the issues again....

----------


## Sidney

> 


aw cmon, we can't get first years to even say boo... u only get really cranky after the next few....

----------


## steven

> Nope - colfo represent less than 2% of firearms licence holders and only have very few individual members.
> Voting membership is entirely restricted to member organisations and entities - a maximum of less than twenty.
> 
> There is simply no broad-based democratic representation of licence holders.
> 
> I know - to get a 'policy' document at all it had to go through a local branch to a national branch to colfo ... and back down the chain of obstrustion at every level.
> 
> Other efforts such as NSA are simply not supported or obstructed by vested interests - or ignored at out peril.
> 
> Time is running out and much more restrictive laws likely in the not to distant future for even in the US this is apparent.


You are wrong here.

a ) COFLO represents ppl who are in gun clubs and the gun industry.   So clubs, and blanket organisations for instance send them a cheque and get to vote. As a rep of one such I had/have a vote at the AGM on issues so there is some democracy going on. Unlike say some organisations such as NSA which can use the funds you give them for anything "related" they think is reasonable.    I also wonder on the legal comeback on you if you donate to NSA and it goes pear shaped so I wouldnt donate to them myself, apart from I think they are nutters.

b) COLFO also approaches such organisations as say small bore (which tell them to "p*ss off") to get them on board but apathy rules.

c) COLFO seems to have some success lobbying but they are one "for" v quite a few "against".

----------


## Beavis

I would happily support Colfo if they like did something other than just gas bagging and engaged with shooters

----------


## res

> I would happily support Colfo if they like did something other than just gas bagging and engaged with shooters


They do very good work at high level,they are just shit at making everyone who pays $ or who could pay $ to them understand what they do. 

As I see it in NZ, colfo work on getting our perspective across on the world stage(who else does this?? All the talk about un crap on forums shows it's important) and NSA draws a line In the sand in NZ. 

I think both orgs could improve a LOT, and have both made bad mistakes but if we want to be able to shoot anything-be it paper,or flesh with firearms of any sort we need the work both do. 

Remember folks, if you value it-fight for it. 
With gun stuff we ate lucky that fighting can be as easy as giving the cost of a pack of ammo every so often. 

I'm very happy to pay less than the cost of a pack of .22 ammo every monthly pay to both orgs to be able to keep doing what I do-hell the work colfo has done probably has saved me a lot more than that amount of $!!

----------


## Sidney

> You are wrong here.
> 
> a ) COFLO represents ppl who are in gun clubs and the gun industry.   So clubs, and blanket organisations for instance send them a cheque and get to vote. As a rep of one such I had/have a vote at the AGM on issues so there is some democracy going on. Unlike say some organisations such as NSA which can use the funds you give them for anything "related" they think is reasonable.    I also wonder on the legal comeback on you if you donate to NSA and it goes pear shaped so I wouldnt donate to them myself, apart from I think they are nutters.
> 
> b) COLFO also approaches such organisations as say small bore (which tell them to "p*ss off") to get them on board but apathy rules.
> 
> c) COLFO seems to have some success lobbying but they are one "for" v quite a few "against".


I'm not sure that you have established that he is wrong... you seem to have confirmed and repeated what he said...

----------


## Beavis

From a COLFO position paper:

COLFO believes that control of firearms should rest with the Police, not with Governments. The Police have a record of integrity and expertise in the administration of firearms controls and COLFO believes that this situation should continue.

lol, no thanks

----------


## steven

They are shooters themselves.

regards

----------


## steven

They are shooters themselves.

regards

----------


## steven

The point is engage the clubs you are in, they in turn go to colfo.

regards

----------


## steven

> From a COLFO position paper:
> 
> COLFO believes that control of firearms should rest with the Police, not with Governments. The Police have a record of integrity and expertise in the administration of firearms controls and COLFO believes that this situation should continue.
> 
> lol, no thanks


COLFO is correct IMHO, the Pollies will fly which ever way the wind blows, they are far worse than the police.  At least with the police we can always go to court, to get points "clarified" not so with pollies they will change the law.

----------


## Southern Man

> COLFO is correct IMHO, the Pollies will fly which ever way the wind blows, they are far worse than the police.  At least with the police we can always go to court, to get points "clarified" not so with pollies they will change the law.




... butl But; BUT! Only people you think are 'nutters' do this and go to Court. How many people do you know in NSA? Do any of these people know you think they are 'nutters'???

----------


## gimp

Times COLFO has gone to court when the police have screwed us with blanket import bans, thumbhole stock debacle, hand ins, current pistol grip situation, etc: zero

----------


## Southern Man

Times the NSA 'nutters' have done so = every time (including giving material assistance and expert witness support in over 150 cases.
Many neve reven make it to Court once NSA 'nutters' are seen to be involved ...

Proud NUTTER!  :Thumbsup:

----------

