# Hunting > Firearm Safety >  Should Have Been More Than a Warning

## systolic

*Unsecured shotgun and bong prompt police to issue warning*

Unsecured shotgun and bong prompt police to issue warning | Stuff.co.nz

A callout to a bonfire in a small South Canterbury town has prompted police to issue a warning about the potential dangers of mixing drugs, alcohol and firearms.

Constable Craig Hedges, of St Andrews, said he was called to a bonfire in the backyard of a property at Pareora, just south of Timaru, where people had been drinking about 7.30pm on Thursday night.

While there were no issues with the bonfire, or those at the property, Hedges said the contents of a vehicle he stopped leaving the scene were cause for concern.

*A plastic cannabis bong and unsecured shotgun were found in the car*, he said.

The owner of the firearm said it had been left in the vehicle after he had been shooting rabbits earlier in the day, and agreed he should have properly secured it after using it, he said.

"He has been give a warning for the possession of the bong and we'll follow that up with the firearms officer as to whether we want to take it any further", Hedges said.

"The combination of drugs, alcohol and firearms don't mix, he wasn't using the firearm but he did have a firearm in his possession which could be of concern."

Hedges said the man was breath tested, however it produced a negative result.

The plastic bong had been destroyed, he said.

Further action might include educating the man around the use of firearms, Hedges said.

A police communications spokeswoman said firearms should be taken straight home and secured after use, rather than be left sitting in a car.

"Additionally, firearms owners are reminded that it is illegal to carry or use a loaded firearm in a vehicle", she said.

 - Stuff

----------


## Pengy

Why? 

It was not loaded. The guy was under the drink limit and the fact that a bong was in the car doesn't mean he had been using it .
Silly not securing it, but hey ho

----------


## GravelBen

Its pretty meaningless to try and claim a gun in a car being driven by its owner is 'unsecured' isn't it? 

It may potentially have been unsecured earlier in the evening, though if the owner was within sight of the car (and not too far away) you'd say it wasn't unattended. It would have been better to lock it away before going to the party for sure, but did he actually break any firearms law?

So I guess if he didn't do anything else wrong then we're just discussing whether a warning is appropriate for having a bong in your car.

----------


## Timmay

I wish when you have people on your block list their threads also didn't show up.

----------


## 7mmwsm

Since when does a shotgun in a vehicle need to be "secured"?  
And what exactly does secured mean?

----------


## 223nut

Def should have been more than a warning. Have heard of a similar situation. 

Mates pulled over in the middle of the night for crossing centreline, cop thought he'd been drinking. Shone torch  round his truck and saw a bong, rifles had bolts out but tube magazine was still loaded and a magazine in glove box was loaded.
Driver wasn't under the influence and bong hadn't been used at all but it was still there
He lost his firearms for 6months. Didn't end up in court but bloody lucky.

As for secured.... What the hell is that? When driving mine are usually in a bag or hard case but not locked. If I'm leaving the vehicle (keeping it withen sight) I will lock case and cover with something and take bolts with me and of course lock the car

----------


## Shahin

Why? Not condoning drugs and firearms together, but you can buy bongs from stores and even $2 shops these days. They're not illegal to own and as much as this story explains, He wasn't high nor was he intoxicated? Only thing he did wrong (in terms of legality) was store his firearm in the car unattended and even that wasn't a concern for more than a warning even in the eyes of our police. Everyone will have their own opinion about this but at the end of the day our media exaggerates 80% of what we read.

----------


## systolic

> Why? Not condoning drugs and firearms together, but you can buy bongs from stores and even $2 shops these days. *They're not illegal to own* and as much as this story explains, He wasn't high nor was he intoxicated? Only thing he did wrong (in terms of legality) was store his firearm in the car unattended and even that wasn't a concern for more than a warning even in the eyes of our police. Everyone will have their own opinion about this but at the end of the day our media exaggerates 80% of what we read.


I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure they are illegal to own.

----------


## Shahin

> I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure they are illegal to own.


Mate you're living in last century to say that! google it. They're known as tobacco water pipes (legal way to import them into nz) Absolutely not illegal to own but to smoke any illegal herb out of it is a different story. They're sold in $2 shops, shosha, and most adult stores. Pretty much anywhere you can buy a shisha pipe, you can a "tobacco water pipe"  :Psmiley:

----------


## GravelBen

> Only thing he did wrong (in terms of legality) was store his firearm in the car unattended


Even thats just speculation, if he was close to the car it wasn't unattended (and if he did leave it unattended, its not like the police would have much luck making charges stick without evidence if he/his mates claimed otherwise).

----------


## GravelBen

> Def should have been more than a warning. Have heard of a similar situation. 
> 
> Mates pulled over in the middle of the night for crossing centreline, cop thought he'd been drinking. Shone torch  round his truck and saw a bong, rifles had bolts out but tube magazine was *still loaded* and a magazine in glove box was loaded.
> Driver wasn't under the influence and bong hadn't been used at all but it was still there
> He lost his firearms for 6months. Didn't end up in court but bloody lucky.


A loaded gun and an unloaded gun are quite different situations.

----------


## Pengy

> Mate you're living in last century to say that! google it. They're known as tobacco water pipes (legal way to import them into nz) Absolutely not illegal to own but to smoke any illegal herb out of it is a different story. They're sold in $2 shops, shosha, and most adult stores. Pretty much anywhere you can buy a shisha pipe, you can a "tobacco water pipe"



Possession of instruments for the purpose of taking drugs 
 (eg, a pipe, bong, needles, syringes, spotting knife)
•one year imprisonment and/or $500 fine

----------


## GravelBen

> Possession of instruments for the purpose of taking drugs 
>  (eg, a pipe, bong, needles, syringes, spotting knife)
> •one year imprisonment and/or $500 fine


Would they have to prove you took illegal drugs with it (or were intending to) instead of tobacco?

----------


## Shahin

> Possession of instruments for the purpose of taking drugs 
>  (eg, a pipe, bong, needles, syringes, spotting knife)
> one year imprisonment and/or $500 fine


Yes that law is correct but only for untensils used for the purpose of drugs. I worked at shosha and we sold all of what I've mentioned legally. If the paraphernalia has contents of resin from an illegal product then it will come under This clause. But just like any other syringe, unless it has been used for the purpose of drugs, it's not illegal to own.

----------


## timattalon

> Possession of instruments for the purpose of taking drugs 
>  (eg, a pipe, bong, needles, syringes, spotting knife)
> one year imprisonment and/or $500 fine


But the they would need to prove the instrument was actually for "the purpose of taking drugs" and unless they test the bong for drugs they cannot. You could very easily own it for legally smoking tobacco or natural legal herbs or even as a cigarette replacement to fiddle with in your mouth when quitting.

After reading the whole article closely, there was no law broken even suggested and it is pretty much a NON STORY. Another example of a headline for the sake of a headline. 

He had a shotgun legally in his possession. It was not unattended at the time he was spoken to. (it may have been earlier IF he was not within sight of his car, but this was NOT alleged by the officer) While he did say it had been left in the car earlier in the day, it was not admitted that he had left the car unattended. If he had not left the car unattended then no law was broken here either. I

He was on his way home after rabbit shooting and had not partaken in alcohol as he was breath tested.

No laws broken, but suggestions for a better decision next time -Put rifle and /or bong in boot out of sight, perhaps...

Warning issued in this case would be around the suspicion that any of these _could_ have happened to remind him that they _shouldn't_ happen_ if_ indeed they had.  There was the possibility for some not so smart decisions to be made in the situation so warning was more of a reminder.

Any editor with any integrity would have told the reporter to "F__k off and find a real story". It would be akin to writing a story about a warning being issued at a breathalyser stop to not speed on the straight a few Ks up the road just because you are in a V8....

----------


## Sideshow

I have a question?  :ORLY:  in NZ if the police issue you with a warning, do you have to accept it?

In th UK if you accept the warning then you are admitting wrong doing and it goes on your record.

We have been advised to never accept a warning till you have spoken to council.

There have been cases where once the warning has been accepted the firearms office then turned up and good by to your sport :O O: 

I'm talking small stuff like not wearing a seat belt etc, would police HQ now go ahead with this in light of not getting all there proposals through? :Zomg:

----------


## Cordite

No sympathy for the bong.

The thing about not leaving firearms in vehicles, it is hard to adhere to completely.  We're legally meant to lug the gun with us when we stop for some fish and chips on the way home.  Not good public relations, though it helps having a gun case, or at least a chamber flag if you insist on keeping the law.  

Cops I've raised this with see my point but (as one would rightly expect them to) come back to the fact that the law... is the law.

Obviously police discretion is required big time, so "passing the attitude test" is important.  Which brings us back to the matter of that bong...

----------


## Jexla

> No sympathy for the bong.
> 
> The thing about not leaving firearms in vehicles, it is hard to adhere to completely.  We're legally meant to lug the gun with us when we stop for some fish and chips on the way home.  Not good public relations, though it helps having a gun case, or at least a chamber flag if you insist on keeping the law.  
> 
> Cops I've raised this with see my point but (as one would rightly expect them to) come back to the fact that the law... is the law.
> 
> Obviously police discretion is required big time, so "passing the attitude test" is important.  Which brings us back to the matter of that bong...


Yeah smoking weed 100% means you have an attitude problem. _sigh_

----------


## timattalon

> Yeah smoking weed 100% means you have an attitude problem. _sigh_


Well Naaaa. It is still currently illegal. As such, if you are prepared to break the law in this manner, then will you comply with other laws that are of similar importance in your mind? That then becomes a slippery slope towards no longer being a fit and proper person.

Now before anyone says it is silly for weed to be illegal or give the many reasons as to why weed should not be illegal, I have no problem with weed itself, and nothing against those who use it. (For whatever reason). But if you feel that because it is a "silly" law for it to be illegal and decide that it is actually OK to smoke weed, bear in mind that this is still breaking the law. What if someone decided another law was silly? Does that mean we get to decide which laws to obey and where do we draw the line? At the end of it all there is one line. Legal / Illegal and that line makes a large part of the decisions that are used to determine "fit and proper". One side has a record, and one does not.

In this particular case, there was no way of determining whether any law had been broken, silly or not. Thus no further action other than a warning to advise that keeping out of these situations may be a better course of action in the future.....

----------


## Cordite

> Yeah smoking weed 100% means you have an attitude problem. _sigh_


If you inhale, yes. (-:

Seriously though, if you have a cannabis habit you either cultivate it or you associate with criminal elements to obtain it.  Murky waters.

Not that I'd start a persecution, but since a FAL is a privilege not a right in NZ you must be a clean and safe pair of hands. 

That said, I got a speeding ticket the other day... which although not a criminal offense is still an offense.  I believe some jurisdictions do not artificially distinguish between "criminal" offenses and "traffic" offenses.  Oh no, they're surely coming now for my guns! )-:>

----------


## systolic

> No sympathy for the bong.
> 
> The thing about not leaving firearms in vehicles, it is hard to adhere to completely.  *We're legally meant to lug the gun with us when we stop for some fish and chips on the way home.*  Not good public relations, though it helps having a gun case, or at least a chamber flag if you insist on keeping the law.  
> 
> Cops I've raised this with see my point but (as one would rightly expect them to) come back to the fact that the law... is the law.
> 
> Obviously police discretion is required big time, so "passing the attitude test" is important.  Which brings us back to the matter of that bong...


Legally meant to lug it with you? 

Not being allowed to leave a gun unattended is not the same as legally meant to lug it with you. 

If you were that worried about not breaking the law, why wouldn't you take the gun home and lock it away before getting fish and chips?

Only a fucking idiot would think they should take their gun with them shopping, rather than take it home first and lock it away.

----------


## systolic

> Would they have to prove you took illegal drugs with it (or were intending to) instead of tobacco?


I'm pretty sure they could tell enough give them probable cause to arrest you just by smelling it.

----------


## timattalon

> I'm pretty sure they could tell enough give them probable cause to arrest you just by smelling it.


Which in turn implies that they could not smell it as otherwise they would have had probable cause and arressted him giving an entirely different story.....Hence you have just illustrated the NO STORY comment perfectly.

----------


## Cordite

> Legally meant to lug it with you? 
> 
> Not being allowed to leave a gun unattended is not the same as legally meant to lug it with you. 
> If you were that worried about not breaking the law, why wouldn't you take the gun home and lock it away before getting fish and chips?
> Only a fucking idiot would think they should take their gun with them shopping, rather than take it home first and lock it away.


Systolic, I agree with you in pointing out the obvious... that lugging a gun into a shop looks bad.  It is of course a fact that some times even a "f*cking idiot" can be very far from home, unable to just pop home and secure the gun, but he still has to eat, no?

As you seem to say, who would in that case not just leave their fire tube in their vehicle rather than lug it inside with them?  But you'd be breaking the law by leaving it in your car and if something happened you'd be at the mercy of some cop's discretion.  It's a case of a stupid law which is impossible to keep consistently without doing very odd things - like carrying your gun into a takeaway.  Instead Kiwis are pushed into their she'll-be-right mode and routinely break the law.

The best answer a cop has given me to the takeaway scenario is that if I do at least take the firearm bolt in with me, or put a trigger lock on the gun, and my car then gets stolen or broken into, I could at least (even though I had clearly still broken the law) show the court that I had attempted to be responsible... while breaking the law.  

What we need is legislation about how a firearm may be temporarily kept in a vehicle and still be considered "secured".

----------


## 223nut

> What we need is legislation about how a firearm may be temporarily kept in a vehicle and still be considered "secured".


I looked into getting a safe fitted inside my vehicle as I do some long trips with firearms in the truck. It can't be done and signed off so currently there is no way to 'secure' them. 

Think this is where common sense comes in. Paying for gas / grabbing takeaways / atm with bolt in pocket and firearms out of sight is very different to leaving them visible and leaving your car for hours.

----------


## systolic

> Which in turn implies that they could not smell it as otherwise they would have had probable cause and arressted him giving an entirely different story.....Hence you have just illustrated the NO STORY comment perfectly.


They gave him a warning, rather than arrest him. They could have arrested him but just warned him instead. 

"He has been give a warning for the possession of the bong and we'll follow that up with the firearms officer as to whether we want to take it any further", Hedges said.

----------


## Pengy

If I have to stop off with a rifle in the car, the bolt goes in my pocket, and the rifle goes in the back of the truck with the dog. Therefore, not un attended  :Wink:

----------


## Nickoli

> Legally meant to lug it with you? 
> 
> Not being allowed to leave a gun unattended is not the same as legally meant to lug it with you. 
> 
> If you were that worried about not breaking the law, why wouldn't you take the gun home and lock it away before getting fish and chips?
> 
> Only a fucking idiot would think they should take their gun with them shopping, rather than take it home first and lock it away.


This is one of the reasons why you come across as a complete fuckwit: you call someone a "fucking idiot" for "taking their gun with them shopping" but fail to appreciate that people have to stop for fuel, accommodation, food, even a piss - makes everyone wonder what world you live in....or even if you are Chris Cahill using a forum handle to stir shit on a forum where people seek advice, help and camaraderie. 

One must wonder - why are you even here?

----------


## Jexla

> Well Naaaa. It is still currently illegal. As such, if you are prepared to break the law in this manner, then will you comply with other laws that are of similar importance in your mind? That then becomes a slippery slope towards no longer being a fit and proper person.
> 
> Now before anyone says it is silly for weed to be illegal or give the many reasons as to why weed should not be illegal, I have no problem with weed itself, and nothing against those who use it. (For whatever reason). But if you feel that because it is a "silly" law for it to be illegal and decide that it is actually OK to smoke weed, bear in mind that this is still breaking the law. What if someone decided another law was silly? Does that mean we get to decide which laws to obey and where do we draw the line? At the end of it all there is one line. Legal / Illegal and that line makes a large part of the decisions that are used to determine "fit and proper". One side has a record, and one does not.
> 
> In this particular case, there was no way of determining whether any law had been broken, silly or not. Thus no further action other than a warning to advise that keeping out of these situations may be a better course of action in the future.....


Sure it's illegal, I didn't suggest it wasn't. But because I think it's stupid for weed to be illegal. 
Just like I thought it was stupid that it was illegal 2 people of the same sex couldn't get married. 
Just like I thought it was stupid that it was illegal for women to vote.
DOESN'T mean I'm prone to thinking drinking and shooting shouldn't be illegal, or any other _real_ issue is stupid, therefore making me likely to break a law that causes real issue.

----------


## timattalon

> Sure it's illegal, I didn't suggest it wasn't. But because I think it's stupid for weed to be illegal. Agreed
> Just like I thought it was stupid that it was illegal 2 people of the same sex couldn't get married. Agreed
> Just like I thought it was stupid that it was illegal for women to vote. Agreed
> DOESN'T mean I'm prone to thinking drinking and shooting shouldn't be illegal, or any other _real_ issue is stupid, therefore making me likely to break a law that causes real issue.


That is not entirely what I was getting at. More along the lines of Who decides what laws cause real issues and what ones dont?

I agree with your points above, but my point is while it was illegal for people of the same sex to get married, they could not get married, stupid or not. While it was illegal for women to vote, they would have been charged /arrested / or worse if they had tried. It is not what they are doing that causes the issue, but the fact that they are doing it. If you wish to partake in drugs, at the moment, it is illegal and this will potentially have an effect on your ability to meet the "fit and proper" standard. 

The main point is when there is a stupid law, and it remains law, you have two choices; obey or break the law. The big problem is that you and I may see drink driving or shoplifting as a reasonable law, but clearly there are others who see them as stupid laws and they dont obey them. Thus the judgement to break the law in those situations affects their "fit and proper" standing as well. 

Simply put, if you wish to have no problems keeping your FA license, then keep within the law. If you decide a law is stupid and it should not apply, and you break it, bear in mind that there are potential repercussions to this. It is not always the action that does the damage, but the fact that someone is prepared to break a law to start with that shows they may not be of character that can be relied on to obey the law and requirements around responsible gun ownership.

----------


## Jexla

> That is not entirely what I was getting at. More along the lines of Who decides what laws cause real issues and what ones dont?
> 
> I agree with your points above, but my point is while it was illegal for people of the same sex to get married, they could not get married, stupid or not. While it was illegal for women to vote, they would have been charged /arrested / or worse if they had tried. It is not what they are doing that causes the issue, but the fact that they are doing it. If you wish to partake in drugs, at the moment, it is illegal and this will potentially have an effect on your ability to meet the "fit and proper" standard. 
> 
> The main point is when there is a stupid law, and it remains law, you have two choices; obey or break the law. The big problem is that you and I may see drink driving or shoplifting as a reasonable law, but clearly there are others who see them as stupid laws and they dont obey them. Thus the judgement to break the law in those situations affects their "fit and proper" standing as well. 
> 
> Simply put, if you wish to have no problems keeping your FA license, then keep within the law. If you decide a law is stupid and it should not apply, and you break it, bear in mind that there are potential repercussions to this. It is not always the action that does the damage, but the fact that someone is prepared to break a law to start with that shows they may not be of character that can be relied on to obey the law and requirements around responsible gun ownership.


I don't think anyone even the police evidently believe smoking weed makes you not a fit and proper person. Nor does it mean, like you HAVE suggested, that you'd be willing to break laws that would make you not a fit and proper person.

----------


## Beavis

IMO it comes down to whether your actions are creating a victim out of someone, direct or indirect. A person smoking weed is a victimless crime and I couldn't give a toss if someone wants to do it. It becomes a problem if they choose to drive a vehicle under the influence. But that is the same with alcohol.

----------


## Wirehunt

Do some research on pot.   Don't worry about the buzz side but look at all the facts.  Biodegradable plastics, medicinal (LOTS), clothing blahblah blah.... It really is a huge list, just look at the tax take legal pot is very good to, just look at some of the states in america that have legalized and read the stats.

----------


## Wirehunt

Just think about the per hectare return rate if we got into it properly,  WAAAY better than milk.   But we'll miss the boat as usual, instead of leading the world we'll drag our sorry arses.

And no, I don't smoke the shit.  Does nothing for me.

----------


## Pengy

> Just think about the per hectare return rate if we got into it properly,  WAAAY better than milk.   But we'll miss the boat as usual, instead of leading the world we'll drag our sorry arses.
> 
> And no, I don't smoke the shit.  Does nothing for me.


I am sure that one of the biggest players in USA is in fact a an ex dairy farming Kiwi. Seem to recall a figure of 82 million US$ being forcast for his company turnover

----------


## Pointer

Couldn't agree more Wirehunt.  With our global image of clean green NZ  we could be world leaders in medicinal cannabis production as well as the private use sector. But as you say we will sit in our hands and lose the opportunity.

----------


## gadgetman

> Legally meant to lug it with you? 
> 
> Not being allowed to leave a gun unattended is not the same as legally meant to lug it with you. 
> 
> If you were that worried about not breaking the law, why wouldn't you take the gun home and lock it away before getting fish and chips?
> 
> Only a fucking idiot would think they should take their gun with them shopping, rather than take it home first and lock it away.


And when I drive to the Toby shoot later in the year? When I'll be driving for about 9 hours plus a 4 hour ferry ride. Will I have to make sure I don't shut the door when I go to the toilets? You think that when I feel the urge along my journey I will have to turn around and do home so I can lock my gear away? Who is the idiot? The guy around here that had his face shoved in the dirt for carrying a rifle bag on his back!

Sometimes the law is an ass and you simply have to work around it. If you can at least show you have tried to comply as much as possible you should be fine.

----------


## Pengy

> And when I drive to the Toby shoot later in the year? When I'll be driving for about 9 hours plus a 4 hour ferry ride. Will I have to make sure I don't shut the door when I go to the toilets? You think that when I feel the urge along my journey I will have to turn around and do home so I can lock my gear away? Who is the idiot? The guy around here that had his face shoved in the dirt for carrying a rifle bag on his back!
> 
> Sometimes the law is an ass and you simply have to work around it. If you can at least show you have tried to comply as much as possible you should be fine.


Talking of the ferry. What do you all do when rifle (s) are in car and you are taking a ride across the water? 
I don't recall seeing any facilty for storage onboard

----------


## gadgetman

> Talking of the ferry. What do you all do when rifle (s) are in car and you are taking a ride across the water? 
> I don't recall seeing any facilty for storage onboard


The rules are that you hand them over when you book in and they hand them back at the other end. I checked the T's and C's.

----------


## Pengy

Whoops ! :Have A Nice Day: 

I didn't think that ANYONE read the T`s and C`s

----------


## 223nut

> The rules are that you hand them over when you book in and they hand them back at the other end. I checked the T's and C's.


Same goes for the other stretch of water in nz. Have to make sure bolts are out though

----------


## Pengy

Just checked Bluebridge and they say you have to declare them, but no mention of handing them over for safe storage

----------


## gadgetman

https://agents.interislander.co.nz/Booking/Terms.aspx

----------


## gadgetman

> Whoops !
> 
> I didn't think that ANYONE read the T`s and C`s


Yeah, I do. %(|:-)

----------


## timattalon

> I don't think anyone even the police evidently believe smoking weed makes you not a fit and proper person. Nor does it mean, like you HAVE suggested, that you'd be willing to break laws that would make you not a fit and proper person.



A willingness to break the law, even a stupid law is still going to reflect on the person. What I am suggesting that people consider, is are you willing to break the law? What does this say about your respect for the law? And at what point does a law become stupid? Who makes that call?

----------


## timattalon

> IMO it comes down to whether your actions are creating a victim out of someone, direct or indirect. A person smoking weed is a victimless crime and I couldn't give a toss if someone wants to do it. It becomes a problem if they choose to drive a vehicle under the influence. But that is the same with alcohol.


Indirect victimless crime??? Buying weed is not taxed, therefore you are depriving the NZ taxpayer of money that could be used to support the country....Health, education, police....more tax income equals more budget for the govt to allocate where it is needed.  Everyone becomes a victim.

Giving money to gangs that supply drugs...encourages and finances other criminal activity.....= more indirect victims.

Buying from a non gang grower- Undeclared income-they wont pay tax on it either.

Make it legal and tax it - no problem from me. Tax it, study it.

Alcohol also causes victims. But there is tax on booze put into the general fund which part of is also used to counter the negative aspects such as financing hospitals to deal with injuries etc. It still creates victims but it addresses some of the issues as well. (or trys to)

----------


## Nickoli

> Indirect victimless crime??? Buying weed is not taxed, therefore you are depriving the NZ taxpayer of money that could be used to support the country....Health, education, police....more tax income equals more budget for the govt to allocate where it is needed.  Everyone becomes a victim.
> 
> Giving money to gangs that supply drugs...encourages and finances other criminal activity.....= more indirect victims.
> 
> Buying from a non gang grower- Undeclared income-they wont pay tax on it either.
> 
> Make it legal and tax it - no problem from me. Tax it, study it.
> 
> Alcohol also causes victims. But there is tax on booze put into the general fund which part of is also used to counter the negative aspects such as financing hospitals to deal with injuries etc. It still creates victims but it addresses some of the issues as well. (or trys to)


Only way to tax illegal earnings in reality is via a consumption tax such as GST - cash earnings are going to be spent/laundered; ergo tax gets paid. Your argument on this basis is moot - I agree with what it says about character though, and consumption of drugs or alcohol features prominently in interviews for renewing a license for this reason. 
At the end of the day: why are we even discussing this? I don't think anyone (other than that dork Systolic/Cahill acolyte) disagrees with the outcome?

----------


## Beavis

> Indirect victimless crime??? Buying weed is not taxed, therefore you are depriving the NZ taxpayer of money that could be used to support the country....Health, education, police....more tax income equals more budget for the govt to allocate where it is needed.  Everyone becomes a victim.
> 
> Giving money to gangs that supply drugs...encourages and finances other criminal activity.....= more indirect victims.
> 
> Buying from a non gang grower- Undeclared income-they wont pay tax on it either.
> 
> Make it legal and tax it - no problem from me. Tax it, study it.
> 
> Alcohol also causes victims. But there is tax on booze put into the general fund which part of is also used to counter the negative aspects such as financing hospitals to deal with injuries etc. It still creates victims but it addresses some of the issues as well. (or trys to)


Tons of things don't result in tax being paid. Selling items for cash. Tradie doing cash jobs etc. The amount of money the govt takes off you through different forms of taxation more than make up for it. Word on the street is the gangs don't give a fuck about selling weed anymore - it's much easier to buy P these days than weed.

----------


## Jexla

> A willingness to break the law, even a stupid law is still going to reflect on the person. What I am suggesting that people consider, is are you willing to break the law? What does this say about your respect for the law? And at what point does a law become stupid? Who makes that call?


Someone's willingness to break the law and go over the speed limit, someone's willingness to break the law and smoke weed has VERY LITTLE to do with your fit and proper status. As shown by the out come of this scenario.

Seriously, if someone smokes weed, or speeds when they drive it doesn't demonstrate WHATSOEVER about their respect for the law and suggesting otherwise is actually ludicrous.

What you're suggesting is that all law breaking is equal to any other law breaking. That's simply just not the case.

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about what laws, whether they think they're stupid or not or for whatever reason. It's quite SIMPLY about the SERIOUSNESS of the crime.

----------


## Wirehunt

We both know @Jexla that if that was the case there wouldn't be one person in NZ with a firearms license.  And interestingly there wouldn't be one cop either.

The senior I saw driving while on his mobile Friday. Sacked.  The cop two Friday's ago that didn't move into the left lane, sacked.

----------


## Sideshow

Lady here in the uk was that annoyed about the ticket she got for being on here mobile phone she sat out side the Marlborough cop shop and filmed the cops coming and going in there cars. Most on there phones :XD:  she got a cease and desist thrown at her for good measure :Wtfsmilie:  proved here point though :ORLY:

----------


## Wirehunt

Oh see it all the time.  And fucking truck drivers, do these people not know about bluetooth.

----------


## Micky Duck

> Oh see it all the time.  And fucking truck drivers, do these people not know about bluetooth.


as one of those "fornacating truck drivers" myself I will answer.....yes we have heard of bluetooth,some of us have trucks fitted with it......however some of us have bosses who are so tight they need operation to fart and those tight bosses declinded to tick the box when ordering a new truck as it "costs us money" eg my scania truck has all the swicthes etc on steering wheel but cant use it as not installed. in case where I NEED to use phone I stop dial number then chuck on my earmuffs and jam phone inside one ear..holds it in place and can talk fine n dandy.
if boss rings me while Im driving I answer on the R.T.   that confuses the crap out of them.

----------


## timattalon

> Someone's willingness to break the law and go over the speed limit, someone's willingness to break the law and smoke weed has VERY LITTLE to do with your fit and proper status. As shown by the out come of this scenario.
> 
> Seriously, if someone smokes weed, or speeds when they drive it doesn't demonstrate WHATSOEVER about their respect for the law and suggesting otherwise is actually ludicrous.
> 
> What you're suggesting is that all law breaking is equal to any other law breaking. That's simply just not the case.
> 
> It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about what laws, whether they think they're stupid or not or for whatever reason. It's quite SIMPLY about the SERIOUSNESS of the crime.



So are you saying its acceptable to break the law if it is not one *you* deem serious? 

Are you saying speeding is not a serious crime? It may be a crime you deem not serious, but the consequences of a fuck up at speed are VERY serious.

Ever turned up to a crash with a fatality because they were speeding?  Tell them it wasn't serious......... These are consequences that as a bystander I hope to never ever see again. Nor do I wish that on anyone else.

Tell you what, go out smoke a heap of dope and get caught a couple times. Pick up a couple speeding tickets, then reapply for a firearms license....Good luck with that. The whole point is these do have an impact on your "fit and proper status". Personal judgement is definitely taken into account, and frequent moments of lapses or poor decision do and should be taken into account. If the degree of your offending is light they may consider it a moment of indiscretion or lapse judgement. Repetition would however show a stronger disregard for the law. These will have differing affects on a license application, but I assure you that they will be considered.

----------


## timattalon

> Tons of things don't result in tax being paid. Selling items for cash. Tradie doing cash jobs etc. The amount of money the govt takes off you through different forms of taxation more than make up for it. Word on the street is the gangs don't give a fuck about selling weed anymore - it's much easier to buy P these days than weed.


Selling your own private goods is allowed and is not taxable.

Tradies doing cash jobs will definitely get them in hot water with the IRD if caught. 

Maybe gangs dont care about weed, that much I would not know as I dont have contact  with weed or gangs. I am inclined to believe you about the "P" too. 

No tax system will ever be perfect. But tax is there for the community to provide for itself. In our case the community is the whole of NZ and what it provides is health, police, shelter, welfare, and many other services and assistance. If someone is ducking out of their tax obligations then they are effectively trying to rip off the rest of the country. They may see it a a victimless crime, but it is everybody else that has to make up the short fall.

----------


## timattalon

> as one of those "fornacating truck drivers" myself I will answer.....yes we have heard of bluetooth,some of us have trucks fitted with it......however some of us have bosses who are so tight they need operation to fart and those tight bosses declinded to tick the box when ordering a new truck as it "costs us money" eg my scania truck has all the swicthes etc on steering wheel but cant use it as not installed. in case where I NEED to use phone I stop dial number then chuck on my earmuffs and jam phone inside one ear..holds it in place and can talk fine n dandy.
> if boss rings me while Im driving I answer on the R.T.   that confuses the crap out of them.


A mate of mine who was a truckie was being pulled over at a random booze stop when his phone rang, He ignored it while moving partly because the cops could hear it ringing. He passed through the line having the caller (his boss) try several times straight away. When he pulled over after exiting the line of cops and answered the call the boss was yelling and giving him an earful for not answering. Meanwhile one of the officers came over to see if he had been told to pull over and he heard some of the comments like the boss yelling _"I dont care if you're driving, answer the god-damned phone when I call"_  The officer indicted to the driver to give him the phone and listened for a bit. When the boss stopped for air, the officer then proceeded to rip the boss a new one regarding his disregard of the law and suggested that he may receive a call from higher up the chain and that he would likely be getting the ticket instead of the driver..(No actual ticket issued as the driver had pulled over to answer, but the boss didn't know that :Pacman: )...It was about then that my mate decided he didn't like working there anymore so he told the entire workplace about that chat before leaving.

having met that employer, that story still makes me smile....

----------


## Jexla

> So are you saying its acceptable to break the law if it is not one *you* deem serious? 
> 
> Are you saying speeding is not a serious crime? It may be a crime you deem not serious, but the consequences of a fuck up at speed are VERY serious.
> 
> Ever turned up to a crash with a fatality because they were speeding?  Tell them it wasn't serious......... These are consequences that as a bystander I hope to never ever see again. Nor do I wish that on anyone else.
> 
> Tell you what, go out smoke a heap of dope and get caught a couple times. Pick up a couple speeding tickets, then reapply for a firearms license....Good luck with that. The whole point is these do have an impact on your "fit and proper status". Personal judgement is definitely taken into account, and frequent moments of lapses or poor decision do and should be taken into account. If the degree of your offending is light they may consider it a moment of indiscretion or lapse judgement. Repetition would however show a stronger disregard for the law. These will have differing affects on a license application, but I assure you that they will be considered.


My opinion of what a serious crime has nothing to do with it. Think about what the courts consider to be a serious crime then try again.


Hint: Smoking weed for personal use and a couple of speeding tickets would not be considered serious crime.

----------


## timattalon

> My opinion of what a serious crime has nothing to do with it. Think about what the courts consider to be a serious crime then try again.
> 
> 
> Hint: Smoking weed for personal use and a couple of speeding tickets would not be considered serious crime.



Quite correct. No it is not considered a serious crime, but it is considered as a crime and when it comes license renewal, this is considered. While it may even be considered acceptable, it is still taken into account.

----------


## 7mmwsm

> I still am of the opinion that securing firearms in a lockable approved box, in turn secured to the vehicle should be an acceptable option for firearms security.  It really doesn't make any sense to me that we do not have this as a requirement given the length and long travel times required by the nature of our country.  I know that I struggle to not go for a piss for 6 or 7 hours, and accepted practice is to walk into a little booth out of sight of the vehicle behind closed doors where 'sensitive' types won't get offended by the size of my equipment or lack thereof.
> 
> After all, if it's good enough for the outfit that's administering the firearms system then it's good enough for the rest of us.  That would have solved the first half of the issue, then all the dude in the article needs is a Shewee instead of a bong.


What is wrong with locking the vehicle and classing it as secure? (for that type of situation ie toilet or tucker stop)

----------


## 223nut

> What is wrong with locking the vehicle and classing it as secure? (for that type of situation ie toilet or tucker stop)


technically illegal... if not being constantly supervised

----------


## 7mmwsm

> technically illegal... if not being constantly supervised


Yeah I know that. What I'm meaning is, Why shouldn't a locked vehicle be deemed secure?
A locked vehicle is probably equally as secure as a A cat safe, especially if it is alarmed.

If a vehicle is locked and the vehicle gets stolen (no firearms involved), it was classed as secured in the eyes of the insurance company.

----------


## 223nut

> Yeah I know that. What I'm meaning is, Why shouldn't a locked vehicle be deemed secure?
> A locked vehicle is probably equally as secure as a A cat safe, especially if it is alarmed.
> 
> If a vehicle is locked and the vehicle gets stolen (no firearms involved), it was classed as secured in the eyes of the insurance company.


Back to what's a stupid law... Friend wanted to put a safe in his caravan, wasn't allowed but in theory he could bolt it to a tree on his property and get it signed off  :Wtfsmilie:

----------


## Pengy

My neighbour got his `safe` signed off in his house bus, which is very much still driveable, despite it being his static home.
AO didn't even go an look at it

----------


## GravelBen

> technically illegal... if not being constantly supervised


If its alarmed and you're close enough to hear the alarm and get there within a matter of seconds (quite likely in that situation) I think you could make a pretty good argument that it is supervised even if you're not in direct sight of it.

If I'm travelling longer distance with guns in the car I have them bolts out and locked to a luggage tie-down loop or something with an alarmed cable lock (as well as being out of sight), and obviously lock the car if I leave it to go to the dunny or buy food etc. If anything did happen at least I could show that I'd taken reasonable steps to secure them.

----------


## Beavis

For anyone interested, there is a case before the Ashburton District Court concerning stopping for a piss while carrying firearms in a vehicle. Makes for interesting reading.

----------


## 223nut

> My neighbour got his `safe` signed off in his house bus, which is very much still driveable, despite it being his static home.
> AO didn't even go an look at it


Goes to show the differences in interpretations by arms officer round the country...

----------


## Shahin

> For anyone interested, there is a case before the Ashburton District Court concerning stopping for a piss while carrying firearms in a vehicle. Makes for interesting reading.


Any link? Would be very interested to see how it goes...  :Zomg:

----------


## Beavis

https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2017/06/h...coln-went-pee/

Alot of reading @Shahin

----------


## Beavis

The whole basis of the case I just linked, was really was the defendant committing an offence while trying to comply with the law as written.

----------


## Hunt4life

I've read the story twice and still don't understand what all the fuss is about. 
1. The vehicle was leaving the scene, therefore it was mobile - shotgun not then required to be secure. 
2. The driver was breath tested for excess alcohol but returned a negative result. 
3. There was some form of bong/pipe contraption which was possibly used (at some point in time) to smoke cannabis - yawn

What's the actual problem here?
FFS!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## systolic

_He took the SL8 from his car, slung it over his shoulder and – keeping it as discreet and unobtrusive as possible – went into the toilet, came out, put the SL8 back in his car and proceeded on his way.

He was seen by a woman in Timaru, where he got fuel, and one in Ashburton, who said they were concerned that someone should be carrying a rifle in the street and both phoned the police._ 

Why on earth would you not put it in a case of some kind? Even if the law doesn't say you have to, you would be pretty stupid not to keep it covered when out in public. Especially at a service station, public toilets or places like that.

Unless of course, you were looking to make some kind of statement and draw attention to yourself.

----------


## systolic

> You answered your own question, the law doesn't require it.
> 
> In any event, one would expect if people are going to take some form of action over an issue they would at least make sure they were on sure legal footing.  Especially if they are paid to do it...


I'm not sure the two people, in two different towns, who rang the cops were getting paid for it.

Yeah, nah. I think I'll keep using a bag to carry my guns. Just to save this kind of totally predictable result.

----------


## Nickoli

> I'm not sure the two people, in two different towns, who rang the cops were getting paid for it.
> 
> Yeah, nah. I think I'll keep using a bag to carry my guns. Just to save this kind of totally predictable result.


Good idea - because there is no chance your personality will keep you out of trouble.... :XD:

----------


## Tommy

Lee makes a fair point, however the main point of the Lincoln case is how it was all handled _after_ the police were called

----------


## Beavis

> Lee makes a fair point, however the main point of the Lincoln case is how it was all handled _after_ the police were called


A mad, desperate, half arsed attempt to convict someone with _something_. And it looks like it will backfire in spectacular fashion.

----------


## Sidney

> I'm not sure the two people, in two different towns, who rang the cops were getting paid for it.
> 
> Yeah, nah. I think I'll keep using a bag to carry my guns. Just to save this kind of totally predictable result.


Whatever Mr Lincolns actions were, they were not illegal...  however the police response was.  If you think that unlawful police response is predictable and expected, then we are further down that track than we want to be....

This was just a bunch of over reactive cowboys, who dug themselves a hole and then thought the best solution was to keep digging.  Thats not just incompetance thats malicious, methinks that the judge might be of similar inclination....   :Grin:

----------


## tararua

Richard Lincoln took a piss
He owns a SL8, he'll never miss
Soccer Sally saw the shlong
Chris Cahill prosecuted him for being too long

----------


## kotuku

sounds like Justice Joanna Maze is about to deliver the choke barrel to Justice Jillian Mallons first copper arse buster .GUNDOC-u there - dont some of these buggers understand,and are you gonna run rings around thisexpert police armourer as well??
WTF-boys in blue are mental health experts too -after their claims im waiting for mental health professionals evidence to validate their concerns-OOOOOOOPPPPPPPSSSSSS gone walkabout have they??????

----------


## gadgetman

> I'm not sure the two people, in two different towns, who rang the cops were getting paid for it.
> 
> Yeah, nah. I think I'll keep using a bag to carry my guns. Just to save this kind of totally predictable result.


I wouldn't rely on the bag being that useful. There was a guy here a couple of months ago that ended up with his face in the dirt carrying a rifle bag.

----------


## timattalon

> I wouldn't rely on the bag being that useful. There was a guy here a couple of months ago that ended up with his face in the dirt carrying JUST a rifle bag.


There that's more like it....

----------


## Beavis

I was gonna mention the guy that got confronted by armed police for carrying a rifle bag. People are just hysterical.

----------


## systolic

There were some of these on Trademe a couple of months ago for those who can't bear to be out of contact with their guns.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/88...-gray-and-blue

----------


## gadgetman

> There were some of these on Trademe a couple of months ago for those who can't bear to be out of contact with their guns.
> 
> https://www.midwayusa.com/product/88...-gray-and-blue


Would probably then be tackled for trying to conceal it!  :Grin:

----------


## systolic

> Would be nice if someone who's about to quote a post would take a second to actually read it first!


I did read it.

If he hadn't wanted to attract attention to himself by walking around in public with a rifle slung over his shoulder, the two women would have never have needed to call the cops and the cops wouldn't have needed to get involved.

----------


## Sidney

What you fail to understand is that it is not aginst the law to do so.  But it is against the law to behave the way the police did....  so get off your high horse.  Yep he might have been making a point, but the point needs to be made.

Richard will make an income from stupid policemen....  the police are proving that the only thing they understand is scrutiny in court....

----------


## systolic

> What you fail to understand is that it is not aginst the law to do so.  But it is against the law to behave the way the police did....  so get off your high horse.  Yep he might have been making a point, but the point needs to be made.
> 
> Richard will make an income from stupid policemen....  the police are proving that the only thing they understand is scrutiny in court....


There's a lot of fucking stupid things you can do that are not against the law.

But, as the old saying goes 'just because you can, doesn't mean you should'.

I have no sympathy for someone who apparently goes out of their way to get attention, then get upset when they get it. Lots of it.

----------


## Sidney

Well actually, wandering around with rifles over your back was commonplace, the public reactions are what have changed.  Here is a wee news flash for you the only way a behaviour becomes acceptable is for people to get used to it.

Conversely a behaviour becomes unacceptable when it is furtive and hidden.  Better get used to seeing this stuff happen more often, because the public need to get over themselves.

And in so far as stupidity is concerned I think the court has a fair idea of who wins there..  the public excursions with the rifle were completed without incident on both occasions, there was no threat and no issue identified other that the wearing of the said rifle over his back.  The turnover was not the issue, even the public notification is not the issue,  but the way it was handled by the silly little john wayne with cowboy aspirations, who neither knows the law nor knows how to interact with people; needs to spend less time watching movies and playing with himself in order to not further embarress his employers.

By the way, being upset would be a misinterpretation, rubbing ones hands together at opportunity is quite a different thing.

----------


## Beavis

If anything it highlights some what of a deficiancy in the law. You can't leave a firearm in an unattended (out of sight) vehicle, but firearm owners travel, and have the same needs as everybody else, so, does the law need adjusting to take into account that people need to eat and use the toilet. Maybe it  needs to be amended to say that a firearm must not be left unattended in a vehicle for an unreasonable amount of time. Or if left unattended, a critical component must be removed etc

----------


## Beavis

I had an idea of a travel case, made of solid plastic, with a hardened steel bolt that sandwiches it shut through the trigger guard, so that if it was removed from a vehicle, they would have a _cunt_ of a time getting it to a usable state, and if you had a GPS tracker inside it, you could tell the police exactly where it is.

----------


## Tommy

> I have no sympathy for someone who apparently goes out of their way to get attention, then get upset when they get it. Lots of it.


So, even though he stayed within the letter of the law (and _that_ is the point here), they decide they get to fabricate and tamper with evidence, perjure themselves, and maliciously prosecute someone, merely cos they don't like him and have a bit of a score to settle? Fuck that, that's unacceptable. Do you do the same sort of thing in your very similar role mate?

----------


## Sidney

what about arresting him for obstruction when he pointed out that they didn't know the law?

bunch of arseholes

----------


## Cordite

> For anyone interested, there is a case before the Ashburton District Court concerning stopping for a piss while carrying firearms in a vehicle. Makes for interesting reading.



Link?

----------


## gadgetman

> Link?


Thread going here http://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co.n...reading-35998/

----------


## Sideshow

> I had an idea of a travel case, made of solid plastic, with a hardened steel bolt that sandwiches it shut through the trigger guard, so that if it was removed from a vehicle, they would have a _cunt_ of a time getting it to a usable state, and if you had a GPS tracker inside it, you could tell the police exactly where it is.


Himm nice idea but keep it quiet our this too will become police procedure.
Where having enough trouble with them just checking safes let only looking at vehicle security.
If they ask you how did you cross the road, they don't need to know how you got to the road and what you did when you left. 

That would come under dropping your self in it :O O:

----------


## Beavis

> Himm nice idea but keep it quiet our this too will become police procedure.
> Where having enough trouble with them just checking safes let only looking at vehicle security.
> If they ask you how did you cross the road, they don't need to know how you got to the road and what you did when you left. 
> 
> That would come under dropping your self in it


They'd have to change the law as it stands for my idea to be even worth considering.

----------


## Chilli_Dog

Cahill is having a little cry again 
https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-heral...uth-canterbury

----------


## timattalon

> Cahill is having a little cry again 
> https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-heral...uth-canterbury


Do the police vote for who is in charge of their association? How did he get the job? And potentially the bigger question, was he given the job to stop him doing real police work....????

----------


## timattalon

> Nash actually made a very good point there about the affects of Meth in the community, and the fact that arming police would create a defacto arms race.  I don't actually think that Cahill has actually considered the legal issues around giving Police the power to go into FAL holder's residences to 'inspect' whatever they want whenever they want and how it might impinge on indivual rights.  That dude is possibly better off in the PA and away from actual police work, someone just needs to put a filter between his brain and the respective holes that make noise.


I can only like this once.....Like like like....

----------


## 223nut

> Cahill is having a little cry again 
> https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-heral...uth-canterbury


Typical stuff article, twisting everything. Gave up after the first 1/3 so many examplesi can't be bothered quoting it

----------


## Sideshow

Should read it to the end  @223nut! Just a shame that the Ned was not at the start!
Seemed more balanced than most of the shit that is written  :Wtfsmilie: 
Don't know when he gets the start though?
Bennett and Nash made good points. Cahill just pushing is barrow of faulty facts cause it's election year.

----------


## Sidney

what about arresting him for obstruction when he pointed out that they didn't know the law?

bunch of arseholes

----------


## Cordite

> For anyone interested, there is a case before the Ashburton District Court concerning stopping for a piss while carrying firearms in a vehicle. Makes for interesting reading.



Link?

----------


## gadgetman

> Link?


Thread going here http://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co.n...reading-35998/

----------


## Sideshow

> I had an idea of a travel case, made of solid plastic, with a hardened steel bolt that sandwiches it shut through the trigger guard, so that if it was removed from a vehicle, they would have a _cunt_ of a time getting it to a usable state, and if you had a GPS tracker inside it, you could tell the police exactly where it is.


Himm nice idea but keep it quiet our this too will become police procedure.
Where having enough trouble with them just checking safes let only looking at vehicle security.
If they ask you how did you cross the road, they don't need to know how you got to the road and what you did when you left. 

That would come under dropping your self in it :O O:

----------


## Beavis

> Himm nice idea but keep it quiet our this too will become police procedure.
> Where having enough trouble with them just checking safes let only looking at vehicle security.
> If they ask you how did you cross the road, they don't need to know how you got to the road and what you did when you left. 
> 
> That would come under dropping your self in it


They'd have to change the law as it stands for my idea to be even worth considering.

----------


## Chilli_Dog

Cahill is having a little cry again 
https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-heral...uth-canterbury

----------


## timattalon

> Cahill is having a little cry again 
> https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-heral...uth-canterbury


Do the police vote for who is in charge of their association? How did he get the job? And potentially the bigger question, was he given the job to stop him doing real police work....????

----------


## timattalon

> Nash actually made a very good point there about the affects of Meth in the community, and the fact that arming police would create a defacto arms race.  I don't actually think that Cahill has actually considered the legal issues around giving Police the power to go into FAL holder's residences to 'inspect' whatever they want whenever they want and how it might impinge on indivual rights.  That dude is possibly better off in the PA and away from actual police work, someone just needs to put a filter between his brain and the respective holes that make noise.


I can only like this once.....Like like like....

----------


## 223nut

> Cahill is having a little cry again 
> https://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-heral...uth-canterbury


Typical stuff article, twisting everything. Gave up after the first 1/3 so many examplesi can't be bothered quoting it

----------


## Sideshow

Should read it to the end  @223nut! Just a shame that the Ned was not at the start!
Seemed more balanced than most of the shit that is written  :Wtfsmilie: 
Don't know when he gets the start though?
Bennett and Nash made good points. Cahill just pushing is barrow of faulty facts cause it's election year.

----------

