# Hunting > Firearm Safety >  New Updated Arms Code 2017

## outdoorlad

So I'm just in the process of filling out the paperwork for renewing my FAL, thought I'd have a read thru the arms code as a refresher and found that there is a new updated one on the Police website.

http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/defa...-arms-code.pdf

In general I thought it is an big improvement on the old one, however there are a few interesting things in it?

Like,
Licensing, Police will ask you how many firearms you own? And you will be asked to justify the number of firearms you hold?
If sending a firearm via courier, The bolts or other working parts of the firearm(s) must be sent in a separate package on a different day.
The Police will record your sporting (A category) firearms for you if you wish. This is usually done as a matter of routine during licensing enquiries.
Definition of a pistol which includes, any firearm that is less than 762 mm in length. ( I believe this is going to be challenged in court)

There seems to be a a few things in it that Police want, being pushed as policy that are currently outside of what the arms Act states.

----------


## Beetroot

> So I'm just in the process of filling out the paperwork for renewing my FAL, thought I'd have a read thru the arms code as a refresher and found that there is a new updated one on the Police website.
> 
> http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/defa...-arms-code.pdf
> 
> In general I thought it is an big improvement on the old one, however there are a few interesting things in it?
> 
> Like,
> Licensing, Police will ask you how many firearms you own? And you will be asked to justify the number of firearms you hold?
> If sending a firearm via courier, The bolts or other working parts of the firearm(s) must be sent in a separate package on a different day.
> ...


I need to renew my licence, will be interesting to see how that goes.
Moved house at the end of last year and the AO was very reasonable when came to check my gun safe, hopefully the next visit will be just as pleasant.

----------


## stretch

> http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/defa...-arms-code.pdf


Fucked here we go. What a feed of arse this is.

I'm only up to section 1, and it's immediately wrong. "Can be" vs "has been" is a HUGE difference. Almost any lump of metal "can be" adapted to fire a shot via explosive. FFS.

----------


## P38

The high court has Previously made it clear to the Police that 

the legislators make the law 

the judiciary interpret the law 

The Police uphold the law

Seems they may need another reminder on how the Westminster system works ....... Again.

Cheers
Pete

----------


## 300CALMAN

FFS do they total want to loose our respect?

----------


## Knoxy_09

> Licensing, Police will ask you how many firearms you own? And you will be asked to justify the number of firearms you hold?


Is because I wanted them enough of a justification? It seems open the the inspecting Officers interpretation of what's a justifiable reason.

----------


## stretch

"Because it is lawful" will do. Justifying lawfully possessed private property. Communism much?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

----------


## Tommy

> Licensing, Police will ask you how many firearms you own? And you will be asked to justify the number of firearms you hold?


"What was your last bowel movement like?" 
"What noises does your wife make in bed?"

Oh, that's right, no-one else's fucking business either

----------


## oraki

And so it begins.........

----------


## Maca49

Reading through it I find the way it is written is bloody pathetic, I guess it's aimed at kindergarten aged people? Or those with a complete lack of common sense! The modern world huh :O O:

----------


## Beaker

Why was it updated? Did the law change?

----------


## 308

FTP

----------


## P38

I'm just glad my licence doesn't expire until 2023.

Hopefully they will have it sorted by then.

Cheers
Pete

----------


## 308

To be clear I have nothing against the average plod on the street but FFS  Bullshit Castle are certainly putting on a show of star-spangled wank right now

----------


## northdude

what the police want and what the law is are two different things their job is to uphold the law not make it

----------


## Maca49

When I had mine re need here a few yrs ago, I got an addendum with the AO wishes on it, I found that annoying. I was also asked how many firearms I had, did I really need them and what purposes I used them for, in front of my wife? I told her the truth after he'd left!,

----------


## northdude

I wonder if I have so many firearms because it keeps them out of the hands of some fuk head that shouldn't have them  is a satisfactory answer

----------


## stretch

> Fucked here we go. What a feed of arse this is.
> 
> I'm only up to section 1, and it's immediately wrong. "Can be" vs "has been" is a HUGE difference. Almost any lump of metal "can be" adapted to fire a shot via explosive. FFS.


Go dump 10 tonnes of iron ore and/or some car bodies at the doorstep of PNHQ, since it can be adapted via smelting to produce steel. "Here you go. I'm turning in this huge stockpile of firearms. No need to thank me."

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

----------


## Beetroot

> The high court has Previously made it clear to the Police that 
> 
> the legislators make the law 
> 
> the judiciary interpret the law 
> 
> The Police uphold the law
> 
> Seems they may need another reminder on how the Westminster system works ....... Again.
> ...


P38, do you have a link to back this up?
Would be great to have as much ammunition as possible for any potential disagreements that may arise.

----------


## Beetroot

i'll have to start storing all metal tube in my safe from now on.

----------


## Steve123

Centrefire rifles in various calibre are suitable for a whole range
of game and target shooting. There is such a variety of calibre,
projectile type and weight, however, that no single firearm 
Arms Code 2017 • 39
or cartridge is suitable for every purpose. 

Could be justification for owning a few more rifles than the average bear. :Thumbsup:

----------


## 308

These people are asleep at the wheel

----------


## 300CALMAN

> These people are asleep at the wheel


No unfortunately 308 they are not. It's just part of the process for justifying what they really want. To take your firearms off you eventually.

----------


## stug

Everyone needs to email Paula Bennet asking her about the changes in the Police arms code and why they don't match up with the arms act.

----------


## systolic

> Reading through it I find the way it is written is bloody pathetic, I guess it's aimed at kindergarten aged people? Or those with a complete lack of common sense! The modern world huh


It needs to be aimed at people at a kindergarten level. Like people with English as a second language. People who only went to school to eat their lunch, or those that are just dumb.

----------


## northdude

> It needs to be aimed at people at a kindergarten level. Like people with English as a second language. People who only went to school to eat their lunch, or those that are just dumb.


oh shit  :Grin:

----------


## Sh00ter

> i'll have to start storing all metal tube in my safe from now on.


That's what I was thinking as well, on the flip side it should make any "buy back" scheme very profitable  :Thumbsup: .

----------


## gadgetman

> Go dump 10 tonnes of iron ore and/or some car bodies at the doorstep of PNHQ, since it can be adapted via smelting to produce steel. "Here you go. I'm turning in this huge stockpile of firearms. No need to thank me."
> 
> Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


Just go into the police station front desk and demand they arrest any member of staff that tries to drive home that does not have a firearms license. Someone could smack a spud in the exhaust and it would meet the criteria listed.

----------


## stretch

Make sure all your pipes are >762mm long tho!

----------


## systolic

> Everyone needs to email Paula Bennet asking her about the changes in the Police arms code and why they don't match up with the arms act.


Why not just ignore it?  The Act is what matters, not the code.

Writing to the Minister, wanking on about a tiny error in what is only a general guide for the public will just make you look like a pedantic cock.

----------


## systolic

> No unfortunately 308 they are not. It's just part of the process for justifying what they really want. To take your firearms off you eventually.


Bullshit.

----------


## Beavis

I would like to know what these clowns plan on doing, if they don't think you can justify the amount of "sporting firearms" you have.

----------


## Tommy

> Why not just ignore it?  The Act is what matters, not the code.
> 
> Writing to the Minister, wanking on about a tiny error in what is only a general guide for the public will just make you look like a pedantic cock.


That's rich.

----------


## timattalon

Sent to MP. 

_Hello

I am writing with a query as to why the Police publication of the Arms code has been allowed to be altered to reflect requirements that are NOT law. We are now expected to answer the following questions with our license renewal as well as key wording changes to some statements.

First: On page 41 of the new firearms code it state

"A firearms licence allows the holder to have and use sporting type shotguns and rifles. A license holder may possess any number of sporting-type rifles and shotguns although you will be required to justify the number of firearms you hold when the Police inspect your security. A firearms licence is valid for ten years unless revoked or surrendered sooner"

This "justifying" is not legally required and has been added ultra vires into the guide. There is no definition of what is Justified and what is not. There is reason for this and yet it could be held against someone who is applying for a renewal. Is "because I like that one" a valid reason? My worry is that while I have a legal reason, while I am renewing the licence I do not want to be disadvantaged in my application because I do not agree with complying with a request that I am not legally required to acquiesce to.

This appears to be another example of the Police overstepping their jurisdiction and trying to write law rather than enforce it.

Secondly:The term "has been " is now "can be"  in the definition of a firearm. The big problem here is ANY piece of steel or metal CAN be adapted to discharge any shot, bullet or projectile by force of explosive. In fact it does not have to be metal either. You could drill a hole in a piece of wood, fill it with powder and cap it with a projectile and ignite it. So by definition even a piece of wood falls under this description. Look around your office where you are sitting as you read this. Is there any metal tube? (Metal pen, Chair or table legs, gas struts from adjustable chairs, Plastic tubing or plumbing) Because they can be closed at one end and turned into a closed tube, these could now be considered "firearms" by that definition....Its that poorly written.


_

----------


## 308

A simple guide that is written to a level of the lowest denominator and they can't even get THAT right?

And yet the cops seem to think that universal registration is all going to work well and go through error free?

These people are pathetic, wrong, and must be stopped

----------


## HNTMAD

I have six centre fire guns, and use them for shooting a variety of game animals from rabbits to deer. 

Phew that was hard

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

----------


## Dougie

> I have six centre fire guns, and use them for shooting a variety of game animals from rabbits to deer. 
> 
> Phew that was hard
> 
> Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk


"I have..... because I want to."

Good enough? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Maca49

> "I have..... because I want to."
> 
> Good enough? 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And your 80yrs old and you need to have a good time cause your not here for a long time!! :Cool:

----------


## stug

> I have six centre fire guns, and use them for shooting a variety of game animals from rabbits to deer. 
> 
> Phew that was hard
> 
> Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk


But it won't be that easy, Why do you need six? One will do. Why do you even need them, you can buy meat at the supermarket. You aren't employed in the pest destruction business so that answer won't work. That rifle can shoot something 1k away, it is a sniper rifle and is illegal.
 If the justify to Police becomes a legal requirement the reasons will to own will be set very high. A glib answer like your one won't work. Bye bye rifles.

----------


## Maca49

> But it won't be that easy, Why do you need six? One will do. Why do you even need them, you can buy meat at the supermarket. You aren't employed in the pest destruction business so that answer won't work. That rifle can shoot something 1k away, it is a sniper rifle and is illegal.
>  If the justify to Police becomes a legal requirement the reasons will to own will be set very high. A glib answer like your one won't work. Bye bye rifles.


Agree Stug, otherwise why would you take this route?

----------


## P38

> P38, do you have a link to back this up?
> Would be great to have as much ammunition as possible for any potential disagreements that may arise.


Just what I was taught in my commercially law classes back in the day.

I'm sure you could find this on Google.

The case taken to the high court was over the thumb hole stock interpretation.

Cheers
Pete

----------


## shooternz

Looks like some pin head plod has been reading the UK firearms laws they have this justification BS and much worse, If they go the UK  way we are screwed good and proper,
Paula Bennett and all the other MP's will follow the party line even if they don't agree with it, people have to decide if they want to keep their guns or not at the election,
It's not just the guns it is also the whole outdoors the Government make nice noises about the environment but when it comes to the crunch they back off and think about
their tax revenue and their financial supporters they don't give a toss about the average citizen.

----------


## gonetropo

> Looks like some pin head plod has been reading the UK firearms laws they have this justification BS and much worse, If they go the UK  way we are screwed good and proper,
> Paula Bennett and all the other MP's will follow the party line even if they don't agree with it, people have to decide if they want to keep their guns or not at the election,
> It's not just the guns it is also the whole outdoors the Government make nice noises about the environment but when it comes to the crunch they back off and think about
> their tax revenue and their financial supporters they don't give a toss about the average citizen.


the U.K in brief.
disarm the populace thru misinformation
allow immigrants/refugees who want sharia law and let them.
still have a police force thats unarmed yet militants and radicals can get weapons
give lenient sentences for violent crime to not upset aforementioned groups
watch hell coming on the horizon

now i do not want to give the opinion that legal firearms lawyers want them for self defense but that we are being disarmed as an excuse for unlawful firearms violence.

----------


## gimp

It looks like a step in the direction of Australia - must provide a "genuine reason" (or similar wording) for owning firearms to obtain a license. Of course anyone going through the process of legally obtaining a license goes through the process of legally joining SSAA or whatever as a "genuine reason" and it's just a waste of everyone's time.

----------


## Cyclops

> Fucked here we go. What a feed of arse this is.
> 
> I'm only up to section 1, and it's immediately wrong. "Can be" vs "has been" is a HUGE difference. Almost any lump of metal "can be" adapted to fire a shot via explosive. FFS.


Plumbers better be getting Firearms Licences by that definition. 
35 years ago when I was at university we were "firing" empty 1 litre drink bottles out of 4" PVC pipes using water and dry ice as propellant. By the above defintion that's a firearm - therefore plumbers with PVC pipes need a FAL and hardware stores need 'D' cat FALs.

----------


## imaca

Hi all, I’ve been lurking here for a while but have been galvanized to join and comment on this thread.
I have blatantly plagiarized the work timattalon and P38 (thanks) and drafted a letter to my MP.  I have six specific questions for him at the bottom of the letter but would like some advice from members on the second, scroll down to see.
Any other comments or suggestions gratefully received

Dear David
I am writing with a query as to why the updated Police publication of the Arms code has been altered to reflect requirements that are NOT law. 
We are now expected to answer a question when renewing our licenses that is not even closely worded into the Arms Act or any subsequent amendments.   
If I were a cynic, I would say that this updated arms code (which I acknowledge is not the Act) has been written in advance of the Firearms review which is currently under consideration and in anticipation of acceptance of the ‘secret’ submission made by the police 

On page 41 of the new firearms code it states;

"A firearms license allows the holder to have and use sporting type shotguns and rifles. A license holder may possess any number of sporting-type rifles and shotguns although you will be required to justify the number of firearms you hold when the Police inspect your security. A firearms license is valid for ten years unless revoked or surrendered sooner"

There is no reference in the arms act for an A category license holder to justify what firearms they hold therefore this "justifying" is not legally required and has been added ultra vires into the guide by the Police. 

There is no definition of what is justified and what is not, and this is purely a subjective measure which has no place in an official publication. 

Is ‘because I wanted it’ a suitable justification?
Is ‘because I am legally entitled to own such a firearm’ a suitable justification?
I am concerned that should I refuse to justify my firearms (as there is no legal requirement to do so) that the police may use that to deny my renewal, perhaps in their view I am no longer ‘fit and proper’ because I have dared to challenge them. 

This appears to be another example of the Police overstepping their jurisdiction and trying to write law rather than enforce it.

Perhaps you could remind the Police Commissioner that under the Westminster system of government that;
The legislators make the law, 
The judiciary interpret the law, 
The Police uphold the law,

Furthermore, changes to the wording of the definition of a firearm has been so poorly worded as to make it meaningless, or, if the wording was intentional, so open to interpretation and subjective measure (that term again) so as to give the police carte blanche to act unilaterally. 

Section one, 1a, definition of a firearm.
The term "has been" is now "can be" in the definition of a firearm. The big problem here is ANY piece of steel or metal CAN be adapted to discharge any shot, bullet or projectile by force of explosive. In fact, it does not have to be metal either. You could drill a hole in a piece of wood, fill it with powder and cap it with a projectile and ignite it. So by definition even a piece of wood falls under this description. Look around your office where you are sitting as you read this. Is there any metal tube? (Metal pen, Chair or table legs, gas struts from adjustable chairs, Plastic tubing or plumbing) Because they can be closed at one end and turned into a closed tube, these could now be considered "firearms" by that definition....It is simply that poorly written.

Would you please seek a response from the Minister or Police Commissioner as to the following.
WRT the justification clause;
1.	On what basis have the Police added the justification clause to the arms code?
2.	Is there any empirical evidence that shows that a justification clause will reduce the illegal use of firearms.  *Question for the forum.  Could the argument be had that less firearms in the legal domain = less firearms in the criminal domain?  I am sure I have read a couple of publications that suggest there is no correlation between legally held firearms and illegal use but cannot be sure.  
*
3.	Was the Minister aware of the change?

WRT to the definition of a firearm
1.	What was the intention of the change of wording from ‘has been’ to ‘can be’?
2.	Were the Police aware of the impact of the change of wording?
3.	Was the Minister ware of the change of wording?

Yours sincerely

----------


## Sideshow

Nice that will be an interesting reply! Oh and welcome to the forum  :Thumbsup: 
Please post reply if you get One!

----------


## stug

Well I think some of the emails may have worked, I can't find the Arms Code 2017 on the Police website anymore, the Korean and Chinese 2013 are there and it states the The arms code is currently in development.

----------


## stretch

I've set an alert up so I'm notified via email as soon as that website changes.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

----------


## 300CALMAN

> Bullshit.


Bullshit.

----------


## 300CALMAN

> Bullshit.


Are you completely ignorant of whats happened elsewhere in the world?

----------


## clickbang

> Are you completely ignorant


There I fixed that. Based on his post history yes I think is the answer



Sent from my SM-A510Y using Tapatalk

----------


## SGR



----------


## 300CALMAN



----------


## 300CALMAN

This is the only bullshit going on here.

----------


## outdoorlad

Well guess what turned up in the mail today with my notice of time to renew. Do I need to send it back to the printers  :Grin:

----------


## Nickoli

> Well I think some of the emails may have worked, I can't find the Arms Code 2017 on the Police website anymore, the Korean and Chinese 2013 are there and it states the The arms code is currently in development.


I cannot understand why the arms code is in development - there has been no change to the law; ergo no need to change the arms code. More sneaky tactics I think - and more seeds of distrust. The top brass really need a lesson in relationship management together with "cause & effect analysis."

----------


## stug

Some of the info in the arms code actually looked really good and was very informative. It was only a couple of points where they had overstepped their authority.

----------


## P38

> Well guess what turned up in the mail today with my notice of time to renew. Do I need to send it back to the printers 
> 
> Attachment 69233


 @outdoorlad

Keep it 

Enter it into the evidence file.  :Have A Nice Day: 

Cheers
Pete

----------


## nzvermin

But they havent printed them yet, you must be imaging it


Sent from my SM-T330 using Tapatalk

----------


## Carpe Diem

Ah no  @Nickoli - What you're seeing here is a classic Cluster#$%& from a communications Project thats been running in the background timed to coincide with a release out of the back of the parliamentary review. That The Police thought this was a slam dunk to get the new words around they were seeking out the back of the policy review into a new process you'd already prepared - classically it's where left hand isn't talking to the right hand. Oh yeah - they've been caught out royally!!

To change written printed and online material is a major project and takes considerable time, effort and dollars. Just the changes to layout printing and proofing would have taken weeks if this project hasn't been moving towards this point for at least 2 months.

Their project management and sign-off gates have failed them in this case though as they obviously didn't stop when the Minister said - "hang on lets take a look at this" and review. It is a election year after all and consultation had to be seen to be entertained or it was a free hit to NZ First.

This publication shows pretty clearly Intent, and not just how the Police Assn feel - but NZ police asa whole that ultimately - They feel they need more control over the situation and the course of least resistance is by influencing our actions through publicly stated policy, in the form of the Arms code - rather than the strict rule of law ,the Act and it's testing in a court of law... as that would take time,money and effort - Change the Arms Act  nah- much easier the code itself and we can do that ourselves without a degree of oversight... Really - how's that working for ya fellas?....

Dangerous ground politically undermining your minister like this -a big oneI would say - but I guess they would argue a legitimate technique to influence outcome once the political questions start coming in. Just remember guys - People don't judge you by your intentions, they judge you by your actions, and this has been a big one.

For my dollars my challenge to NZ Police - is be truthful and honest in your consultation - and allow law abiding, good and proper citizens to exercise their rights unfettered. You may have gotten concessions from the likes of ourselves if we believed in the outcome and your motivations -but I think that ship has sailed for the next few years....

Oh and your PM and legal team need to go on a course or two....!!

----------


## shift14

> will just make you look like a pedantic cock.


Go take a look in the mirror champ......

B

----------


## Danger Mouse

> Ah no  @Nickoli - What you're seeing here is a classic Cluster#$%& from a communications Project thats been running in the background timed to coincide with a release out of the back of the parliamentary review. That The Police thought this was a slam dunk to get the new words around they were seeking out the back of the policy review into a new process you'd already prepared - classically it's where left hand isn't talking to the right hand. Oh yeah - they've been caught out royally!!
> 
> To change written printed and online material is a major project and takes considerable time, effort and dollars. Just the changes to layout printing and proofing would have taken weeks if this project hasn't been moving towards this point for at least 2 months.
> 
> Their project management and sign-off gates have failed them in this case though as they obviously didn't stop when the Minister said - "hang on lets take a look at this" and review. It is a election year after all and consultation had to be seen to be entertained or it was a free hit to NZ First.
> 
> This publication shows pretty clearly Intent, and not just how the Police Assn feel - but NZ police asa whole that ultimately - They feel they need more control over the situation and the course of least resistance is by influencing our actions through publicly stated policy, in the form of the Arms code - rather than the strict rule of law ,the Act and it's testing in a court of law... as that would take time,money and effort - Change the Arms Act  nah- much easier the code itself and we can do that ourselves without a degree of oversight... Really - how's that working for ya fellas?....
> 
> Dangerous ground politically undermining your minister like this -a big oneI would say - but I guess they would argue a legitimate technique to influence outcome once the political questions start coming in. Just remember guys - People don't judge you by your intentions, they judge you by your actions, and this has been a big one.
> ...



stealing this and posting on facebook, fabulously said.

----------


## P38

> But they havent printed them yet, you must be imaging it
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-T330 using Tapatalk


 @nzvermin

Outdoor lad must also be imagining that he has received a printed copy.

However he must be a bloody clever bloke as he seems to have been able to photograph his imagination. ( ref post #56)

Cheers
Pete

----------


## systolic

> Are you completely ignorant of whats happened elsewhere in the world?


Are you saying the police in New Zealand want to take everyones guns off them?

----------


## P38

> Are you saying the police in New Zealand want to take everyones guns off them?


Yeah!

Cheers
Pete

----------


## Carpe Diem

Hmmmmmm @nzvermin can you find out for us what time that release went from NZP to Pistol NZ Please. 

Policy analysts/ lawyers don't work after 6pm unless the "fit has hit the Shan!" - be interesting to see if they are in damage control mode oooh and @stretch when the online version of the 2017 arms code was rolled back out of production.

Cheers Fella's!

CD.

----------


## stretch

> Hmmmmmm @nzvermin can you find out for us what time that release went from NZP to Pistol NZ Please. 
> 
> Policy analysts/ lawyers don't work after 6pm unless the "fit has hit the Shan!" - be interesting to see if they are in damage control mode oooh and @stretch when the online version of the 2017 arms code was rolled back out of production.
> 
> Cheers Fella's!
> 
> CD.


Can't tell you when the 2017 version went up on the website nor when it was pulled today, because I didn't have monitoring set up. I have now, so will know (to the minute) when it is back up, if ever.

----------


## Sylvester

I wonder how many hard copies they had printed, and at what cost. Especially if they go back, fix their mistakes, and reprint the booklets. 

I'd make an oia request but I bet they don't hold data on it.......

----------


## systolic

> Go take a look in the mirror champ......
> 
> B


Go and fuck yourself.

----------


## Carpe Diem

> Go and fuck yourself.


SNOOOOOOOOOOOORE !!!!! or should I say MEOOOOOW

----------


## muzza

Dont know how many printed ones are out there - I have one  and have had for about a month now - but certainly the applicants through the MSC Firearms Course in Hawera , Taranaki are turning up with the 2017 version.

----------


## hotbarrels

> Dont know how many printed ones are out there - I have one  and have had for about a month now - but certainly the applicants through the MSC Firearms Course in Hawera , Taranaki are turning up with the 2017 version.


I'm doing a training session in a couple of weeks with 10 young teenagers and sort some training material so went on the police web site, found the 2017 code, called Onehunga police station and collected 15 copies free of charge.  There's plenty out there!

----------


## stug

> I wonder how many hard copies they had printed, and at what cost. Especially if they go back, fix their mistakes, and reprint the booklets. 
> 
> I'd make an oia request but I bet they don't hold data on it.......


@Svlvester they will definetly have data on how many copies were printed and at what cost. They have to explain all their spending.

----------


## veitnamcam

I was handed one with my renual form in the back but did not get one with my reminder a week later.

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

----------


## dogmatix

Stop quoting that troll please, as I've blocked him, but see his posts when you quote his dribble.

Oh, can someone please ban his arse for repeated offensive language posts.

----------


## stretch

Not sure if it's been suggested yet, but my theory is that this release was entirely intentional, and ties in with the select committee recommendation that the stuff in the police arms manual be brought into legislation (or words to that effect).

Police saw this as an opportunity to write a wishlist into their arms code in the hope that no one noticed and it snuck into law.

Dreamers.

----------


## stug

Yes it was a cynical attempt at coercing new firearms owners to think there was a new law and if they refused to justify their firearms ownership they would be denied a licence. A classic example of small incremental "reasonable" changes having a big effect over time.

----------


## gimp

> Go and fuck yourself.


Have a week off and don't be such a massive punisher when you come back, I'm sick of getting emails when your posts get reported

----------


## zimmer

Received this over night from Antique Arms. Andrew is the NZAHAA Rep on COLFO.

"Hi All

There has been a fair ammount of discussion and concern expressed regarding the publication of the 2017 Arms Code on the Police web site. This was an early draft mistakenly published. Please read below which is from an email sent to FACF members this evening that will clarify the situation.

Please circulate around your memberships ASAP to avoid further confusion.

As always if you have questions or concerns please contact me

Thanks and regards

Andrew

You will all be aware that Police’s Response and Operations Group has been reviewing the Arms Code – last published in 2013. Some of you may have been consulted on aspects that needed updating.

Today it came to the attention of Police National Headquarters that an early version had been placed on Police’s internet site. Members of the firearms community have correctly noted errors in this document.

For your information the document has been taken off the website. It is our intention to complete our review of the Arms Code and this process will include consultation with FCAF members. The aim is for the update to be published in hard copy form and on the website by mid-July."

----------


## stug

What a load of bollocks, early draft maistakenly published. What about all the hard copies given out with firearms licence renewals? No way do you mistakenly publish those. That had to be a commercial contract and signed off by people in high places.

----------


## Danger Mouse

> Received this over night from Antique Arms. Andrew is the NZAHAA Rep on COLFO.
> 
> "Hi All
> 
> There has been a fair ammount of discussion and concern expressed regarding the publication of the 2017 Arms Code on the Police web site. This was an early draft mistakenly published. Please read below which is from an email sent to FACF members this evening that will clarify the situation.
> 
> Please circulate around your memberships ASAP to avoid further confusion.
> 
> As always if you have questions or concerns please contact me
> ...


early draft mistakenly published? we keep calling the police on their bullshit and illegal stunts, and they still think we are that stupid? really?

----------


## 199p

> Received this over night from Antique Arms. Andrew is the NZAHAA Rep on COLFO.
> 
> "Hi All
> 
> There has been a fair ammount of discussion and concern expressed regarding the publication of the 2017 Arms Code on the Police web site. This was an early draft mistakenly published. Please read below which is from an email sent to FACF members this evening that will clarify the situation.
> 
> Please circulate around your memberships ASAP to avoid further confusion.
> 
> As always if you have questions or concerns please contact me
> ...


What a load of bullshit, 

They pushed and we pushed back now they are like shit maybe we got this wrong

----------


## zimmer

Yeah Andrew is a good guy doing his best for us but the cynic in me would have to question the "mistaken" publication by the police and their motives behind it. 

Letting off steam on a forum is one thing but it is a numbers game now via submissions, so keep those submissions rolling in to Paula, her wee advisory team, your MP.

----------


## zimmer

> What a load of bollocks, early draft maistakenly published. What about all the hard copies given out with firearms licence renewals? No way do you mistakenly publish those. That had to be a commercial contract and signed off by people in high places.


Are there any hard copies.? I dropped into my cop shop last week and all they had was the 2013 version. 

Keep piling in the submissions. Keep in mind this is only a battle, the war will take longer to sort, and typically most of us will flare up and then go off the boil whilst those agin us will continue to plod along on the long haul.

IGNORE ABOVE, YOU ARE RIGHT, apparently hard copies are out there.

This from SSANZ

"We have been advised that the 2017 Arms Code has been pulled from the Police website after various firearm groups (including SSANZ) pointed out glaring errors. Police claiming it was an advance copy. However we don't think so because a printed version has also been published and is in circulation. Police claim they are now going to review the document and consult with the FCAF, which they should have done in the first instant."

----------


## zimmer

Just to clarify, the section of the message I posted following ANDREW is what they received, not Andrew's words. Don't kill the messanger (Andrew) or me for that sake. ha ha

----------


## stug

@zimmer Outdoorlad posted a pic of a hard copy of 2017 Code and vietnamcam said he had a copy as well. Someone else posted they picked up 15 copies for their firearms licence course they were running.

----------


## veitnamcam

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

----------


## veitnamcam

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

----------


## zimmer

> @zimmer Outdoorlad posted a pic of a hard copy of 2017 Code and vietnamcam said he had a copy as well. Someone else posted they picked up 15 copies for their firearms licence course they were running.


Thanks Stug, missed that. 

I wonder now if they will do the "right" thing and recall the misleading information they have provided in the form of hard copies ha ha.

Publishing a booklet like that is not a 5 minute exercise - they have been working on that or some time whilst not disclosing their intent to the mixed committee.

----------


## kiwijames

> Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk


LOL. The "smoking gun"

----------


## Sideshow

Yep there telling porky pies!
I'd hold onto that veitnamcam might be like those rear stamps that have been printed wrong but go into publication.
20years ago they got away with this Scott free!
Not this time guys get stuck in the future of our sports depends on it :Omg:

----------


## muzza

can we have some backgound on this Andrew person please ? Who is he and what/who does he purport to represent ?

----------


## timattalon

> Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk




I didn't spot that on page 44. But while it is not word for word, it is very similarly written on page 41 in the first paragraph under the "Firearms Licence" topic. The one difference I did notice is in the section you show it states "Asked" where the page 41 statement states "required" as though it is mandatory.

Quote
"_A licence holder may possess any number of sporting-type rifles and shotguns although you will be required to justify the number of firearms you hold when Police inspect your security._"

----------


## Ryan

Also seems to be a new licence card design as featured on page 41. 

As for me justifying why I have x firearms - I might ask them to justify the reasons they're asking in the first place.

----------


## Ryan

Using a PDF document analyser it suggests to me that this file might have actually been created earlier than we'd like to think...


*Trapped	/False
ModDate	D:20170306153304+13'00'
CreationDate	D:20170306153256+13'00'
Producer	Adobe PDF Library 15.0
Creator	Adobe InDesign CC 2017 (Macintosh)*

D:2017 (year) 03 (month) 06 (day)153304 (hh:mm:ss) +13'00' (GMT +13 = NZ time zone).

The above is based on my assumption that they're using American English regional settings (viz _mm/dd_) and / or U.S. dictionary (given that they have used the word "oriented" in the text as opposed to "orientated" I think this is entirely plausible).

EDIT: Online resource did okay but using Notepad++ and searching for dates I found creation date:

*
xmp:CreatorTool="Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)"
   xmp:CreateDate="2017-02-21T15:01:03+13:00"*

Seems they've been cooking this up for a while.

----------


## stretch

Can't be any other date format, since 03 June hasn't arrived yet. Your assumptions seem correct.

----------


## P38

> Using a PDF document analyser it suggests to me that this file might have actually been created earlier than we'd like to think...
> 
> 
> *Trapped	/False
> ModDate	D:20170306153304+13'00'
> CreationDate	D:20170306153256+13'00'
> Producer	Adobe PDF Library 15.0
> Creator	Adobe InDesign CC 2017 (Macintosh)*
> 
> ...


Just more evidence that the tail wants to wag the dog.

Cheers
Pete

----------


## Sasquatch

> Seems they've been cooking this up for a while.


That has been my gut feeling but you have just proven to us all they are in fact; lying

Yet again obviously... But this one is a really really bad one. And, a TOTAL waste of tax payers money I might add, by-crikey this should go in the epic fail basket or something.

----------


## Skitsokiwi

Question - Where in the law does it say you have to open your safe for the police to inspect your firearms? in relations to justifying your firearms

To give you some background - A friend of mine was asked last year when renewing his licence if he would open his safe, he asked why? they said to inspect his firearms for illegal guns "e-cats" and their serial numbers, he politely told them no as this was not the law or a requirement to procure a firearms licence, you can see that my security is of a high standard (has a rather large and heavy safe) and that it hasn't changed in the last 10 years and to get a warrant if they want to see whats inside. Of course they disputed this and tried to "politely convince him" stating this would have a bearing on whether they renew his licence and that he would have "a flag against his name". He stated that again this was not a requirement to get or renew a licence, they left and he got his licence a month later.

----------


## Friwi

I think that when Nicolas Taylor is going to ask those questions to court in June he should be mentioning that part as well.
Because that will re enforce his argument that police are taking actions outside of what the law authorise them to do.

----------


## Maca49

Tested, water cold, wrong version? To be withdrawn? Or am I wrong?

----------


## Skitsokiwi

Anyone read the acknowledgements? I especially like the part "Police appreciate your interest and dedication to arms control"

----------


## outdoorlad

It looks to me like they expected the law & order recommendations to go thru & they will be allowed to make it up as they please. What I'd like to know is what are the likes of Guncity, H&F, etc doing to keep our firearms rights as they stand to lose a lot if the police get there way?

----------


## stretch

Someone asked H&F and their position was neither here nor there. Looks like they don't want to get involved. I choose to do business with politically active dealers.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

----------


## HNTMAD

> Someone asked H&F and their position was neither here nor there. Looks like they don't want to get involved. I choose to do business with politically active dealers.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


Views and opinions are like arse holes, everyone has one and they are not always the same. Can't believe you have decided to do your shopping based on the business that has the most political view point. And really but then again you have an arse hole just like me

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

----------


## Ryan

Is it is their business that's going to be adversely affected if the continued pernicious law change proposals are going to be passed. If they are being vocal and challenging these unlawful proposals and in turn helping look after my rights / privileges / whatever you believe them to be, then they will most certainly continue to receive my custom.

----------


## stretch

> Views and opinions are like arse holes, everyone has one and they are not always the same. Can't believe you have decided to do your shopping based on the business that has the most political view point. And really but then again you have an arse hole just like me


I didn't say I deal with the business that has the most political view point. I said I deal with politically active dealers. I should've been more precise in my wording and said "I do business with dealers whose politics align with mine".

----------


## outdoorlad

Police back tracking today

Police admit distributing incorrect information on firearms rules | Stuff.co.nz

----------


## muzza

I am still interested in who "Andrew" is from earlier in the day. No one has given any response to my query so I can only assume that "Andrew" is not known to anyone here?

----------


## Sideshow

Well I don't use Paypal any more as there anti so I'd also do the same for a store that did not support my way of life!
HNTMAD what exactly do you see is wrong here?
Do you not agree that the firearms licensing system in NZ is trying to be hijacked by the department that is only ment to issue license!
Not make the law! 
Ryan some interesting information that you dug up there on when it was made/designed?
They seem to forget that we can use a computer too......lucky us :Wink: 
What is just as annoying is tax payers still paid for that :Wtfsmilie: 
Outdoorlad just read that see the line at the bottom they now want us to destroy the booklet him getting rid of evidence ah :O O:  :Omg:  :Pissed Off:  veitnamcam hold onto that booklet it's evidence  :Thumbsup:

----------


## stretch

> Police back tracking today
> 
> Police admit distributing incorrect information on firearms rules | Stuff.co.nz


Oooh, comments are open on that stuff article. Have at it!

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

----------


## stretch

Video metaphor for the Police handling of the Arms Code update. Backpedalling included.

https://youtu.be/lAfZ1N56qjY

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

----------


## Sideshow

> Video metaphor for the Police handling of the Arms Code update. Backpedalling included.
> 
> https://youtu.be/lAfZ1N56qjY
> 
> Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


Are they now handing out caravans our is that a firearm?  :Psmiley:

----------


## 308

I think Post 61 by Carpe Diem sums the likely reasoning up fairly well

Another ballsup by police

i think that it is often a help to them that so many criminals are so thick

----------


## muzza

this might be of interest

https://www.facebook.com/colfonz/vid...?fref=mentions

----------


## 300CALMAN

> Oooh, comments are open on that stuff article. Have at it!
> 
> Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


moderation must be buisy  :Grin:

----------


## HNTMAD

> Well I don't use Paypal any more as there anti so I'd also do the same for a store that did not support my way of life!
> HNTMAD what exactly do you see is wrong here?
> Do you not agree that the firearms licensing system in NZ is trying to be hijacked by the department that is only ment to issue license!
> Not make the law! 
> Ryan some interesting information that you dug up there on when it was made/designed?
> They seem to forget that we can use a computer too......lucky us
> What is just as annoying is tax payers still paid for that
> Outdoorlad just read that see the line at the bottom they now want us to destroy the booklet him getting rid of evidence ah veitnamcam hold onto that booklet it's evidence


Just because a store has no opinion doesnt mean they dont, maybe their policy is not to comment therefore be seen as the H&F's stand point. You see when someone in any job that is part of a company unless they own it themselves are caught in a rock and a hard place as anything they say can be deemed as "company line" when it is personal comment. Just seems odd that Stretch spoke to a member of the H&F team and now dont shop H&F, or will they stop and ask each member of that branch their political viewpoint before moving to the next gun shop??

H

----------


## stretch

> Just because a store has no opinion doesnt mean they dont, maybe their policy is not to comment therefore be seen as the H&F's stand point. You see when someone in any job that is part of a company unless they own it themselves are caught in a rock and a hard place as anything they say can be deemed as "company line" when it is personal comment. Just seems odd that Stretch spoke to a member of the H&F team and now dont shop H&F, or will they stop and ask each member of that branch their political viewpoint before moving to the next gun shop??
> 
> H


My opinion is based on someone asking H&F head office for their position, an getting an apolitical/abstaining reply. Not me personally speaking to one pleb in one store and judging the entire chain on that.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

----------


## HNTMAD

> My opinion is based on someone asking H&F head office for their position, an getting an apolitical/abstaining reply. Not me personally speaking to one pleb in one store and judging the entire chain on that.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


So you or "someone" will be ringing head office of all the "hunting" stores to get their political view, and should they all come up with the same, what then. I would imagine if any of them were interested then they would have voiced that already??? Maybe none want to be involved in case it hurts business?? Interesting that this is also formed on a 3rd hand conversation as opposed to horses mouth, but each to their own

H

----------


## stretch

> So you or "someone" will be ringing head office of all the "hunting" stores to get their political view, and should they all come up with the same, what then. I would imagine if any of them were interested then they would have voiced that already??? Maybe none want to be involved in case it hurts business?? Interesting that this is also formed on a 3rd hand conversation as opposed to horses mouth, but each to their own
> 
> H


I was privy to the email reply, so not really hearsay. I've identified a few dealers that ARE actively fighting for the future of our hobby, so no, I don't intend to canvas every other dealer.

----------


## HNTMAD

> I was privy to the email reply, so not really hearsay. I've identified a few dealers that ARE actively fighting for the future of our hobby, so no, I don't intend to canvas every other dealer.


Awesome, so who are they and what are their thoughts

H

----------


## Sylvester

> @Svlvester they will definetly have data on how many copies were printed and at what cost. They have to explain all their spending.


Yeah you're right. I did submit a request asking how many they ordered, how many they recieved, and the unit cost of each booklet. 

We shall see xD

----------


## Friwi

I am sure they knew very well what they were doing when printing these.

----------


## timattalon

> So you or "someone" will be ringing head office of all the "hunting" stores to get their political view, and should they all come up with the same, what then. I would imagine if any of them were interested then they would have voiced that already??? Maybe none want to be involved in case it hurts business?? Interesting that this is also formed on a 3rd hand conversation as opposed to horses mouth, but each to their own
> 
> H


A lot of these businesses such as H&F rely on a broad customer base and they wont comment either way as while they may lobby or have views as a company, they may not want to alienate customers who do not share those views. A lot of fisher folk dont hunt have have quite different views on hunting issues and with a lot of outdoor camping gear, a lot of trampers and campers have views that may not match a hunters or firearms owners outlook. We have to understand, that hwile there a re a lot of us, there are others as well and these large companies will need to be diplomatic if they want to keep a large customer base.

Just playing devils advocate here. I can see reasons why a company would not publish its views even though it will likely take steps behind the scenes to support those that do.

----------


## HNTMAD

> A lot of these businesses such as H&F rely on a broad customer base and they wont comment either way as while they may lobby or have views as a company, they may not want to alienate customers who do not share those views. A lot of fisher folk dont hunt have have quite different views on hunting issues and with a lot of outdoor camping gear, a lot of trampers and campers have views that may not match a hunters or firearms owners outlook. We have to understand, that hwile there a re a lot of us, there are others as well and these large companies will need to be diplomatic if they want to keep a large customer base.
> 
> Just playing devils advocate here. I can see reasons why a company would not publish its views even though it will likely take steps behind the scenes to support those that do.


Hence my further and subsequent comments. 

H

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

----------


## Maca49

> A lot of these businesses such as H&F rely on a broad customer base and they wont comment either way as while they may lobby or have views as a company, they may not want to alienate customers who do not share those views. A lot of fisher folk dont hunt have have quite different views on hunting issues and with a lot of outdoor camping gear, a lot of trampers and campers have views that may not match a hunters or firearms owners outlook. We have to understand, that hwile there a re a lot of us, there are others as well and these large companies will need to be diplomatic if they want to keep a large customer base.
> 
> Just playing devils advocate here. I can see reasons why a company would not publish its views even though it will likely take steps behind the scenes to support those that do.


diplomatic? you mean PC? All to scared to do anything except make money?

----------


## gonetropo

> Question - Where in the law does it say you have to open your safe for the police to inspect your firearms? in relations to justifying your firearms
> 
> To give you some background - A friend of mine was asked last year when renewing his licence if he would open his safe, he asked why? they said to inspect his firearms for illegal guns "e-cats" and their serial numbers, he politely told them no as this was not the law or a requirement to procure a firearms licence, you can see that my security is of a high standard (has a rather large and heavy safe) and that it hasn't changed in the last 10 years and to get a warrant if they want to see whats inside. Of course they disputed this and tried to "politely convince him" stating this would have a bearing on whether they renew his licence and that he would have "a flag against his name". He stated that again this was not a requirement to get or renew a licence, they left and he got his licence a month later.


exactly what happened to me

----------


## mikee

> exactly what happened to me


I too had a similar experience last renewal too. It was infered that my renewal might be held up if I didn't comply. I politely declined and license arrived

----------


## Jexla

Some people just refuse to see what's right in front of them. They'll deny it no matter the evidence of this crap.


The police got caught lying and FOUNZ exposed that and the minister saw it and pulled it and the police lied again to try cover their tracks.

----------


## furstimer

I had my security inspection due to moving houses and the vetting officer wanted to see my E and B cat firearms which I obliged. However he said it'll be good if I could let him see/examine my A cat ones too which I said erm no. He replied that he understood but was going to write on the renewal form the following details - xx endorsed firearms and xx sporting firearms. Which I said ok just to get him to go away partially satisfied.

----------


## outdoorlad

Dropped my completed paperwork for my renewal this morning at the local station, desk guy asked me if I had received a copy of the new Arms Code & told me to bin it as they have been told to withdraw them, some sort of printing issue he said  :Grin: 
He was a bit brassed off at the wasted money side of it.

Good to see the Minister stepping in too, all the emails etc are having an effect.

----------


## Tommy

> Some people just refuse to see what's right in front of them. They'll deny it no matter the evidence of this crap.
> 
> 
> The police got caught lying and FOUNZ exposed that and the minister saw it and pulled it and the police lied again to try cover their tracks.


Once a pack of liars, always a pack of liars. Interesting to note that NZPA and PNHQ were totally working together on this. Having the PA say one thing and then claim it's just the view of the PA, not police in general is one thing. If they are happy with Cahill lying through his teeth (which they clearly are, as they're hand in hand here), then I'm sorry that makes PNHQ a pack of lying bastards too. Crooked lying bastards that are our police force. Just awesome.

----------


## Danger Mouse

> Once a pack of liars, always a pack of liars. Interesting to note that NZPA and PNHQ were totally working together on this. Having the PA say one thing and then claim it's just the view of the PA, not police in general is one thing. If they are happy with Cahill lying through his teeth (which they clearly are, as they're hand in hand here), then I'm sorry that makes PNHQ a pack of lying bastards too. Crooked lying bastards that are our police force. Just awesome.


Exactly, PNHQ have never refuted any of cahils statements. They agree with his intent and dont care how they get there. Ill make a point of not helping the plod if they need it. Sorry officer, didnt see which way the man went.

----------


## Sasquatch

I tried to grab a copy today from my local police station, no such luck as they have been "withdrawn" desk clerk was not happy about the total waste of resources& money. His words not mine.

----------


## Gibo

[QUOTE=Danger Mouse;597240]Exactly, PNHQ have never refuted any of cahils statements. They agree with his intent and dont care how they get there. Ill make a point of not helping the plod if they need it. Sorry officer, didnt see which way the man went.[/QUOTE]

That's not very helpful to the rest of us either though, which is in essence why they are doing it in the first place.

----------


## gadgetman

> I tried to grab a copy today from my local police station, no such luck as they have been "withdrawn" desk clerk was not happy about the total waste of resources& money. His words not mine.


An instant collectors item now.

----------


## gadgetman

> That's not very helpful to the rest of us either though, which is in essence why they are doing it in the first place.


The thin blue front line also have to put up with PNHQ directives. Same with management in any sector, private or public. Definitely look after the guys.

----------


## Jexla

> I tried to grab a copy today from my local police station, no such luck as they have been "withdrawn" desk clerk was not happy about the total waste of resources& money. His words not mine.


I grabbed 3 yesterday and the reporter from the stuff article posted yesterday grabbed one there and then too.

----------


## keneff

> what the police want and what the law is are two different things their job is to uphold the law not make it


Tell them that. They'll arrest you for having an opinion.

----------


## Ryan

Sent to me by a friend (excerpt from FOUNZ on FaeceBook):

* JUSTIFICATION: THE PRECURSOR TO CONFISCATION?*

All this talk of "justification" had us wondering what would happen if an Arms Officer/inspector decided that our justification for owning an A Cat firearm was not good enough. Well it seems that our fears may be have been realised.

A member reported that he recently had his new address inspected. Here is what he told us:

"He then pulled out a form wanting to know what firearms I had, condition, serial number and why I needed it, also how much ammo I had!? When I said that's not the law he replied 'no it's not law but if you refuse I'm sure the police will do an enforced inspection within a few days and may confiscate any firearms and ammunition they deem unnecessary'"

When asked what "unnecessary ammunition" meant he was told:

"ammunition that may be used in b,e or c class or more than you need" !

*FOUNZ Comment:*

Wow. Confiscation of any firearm and ammunition that Police "deem" unnecessary. There it is.

On what grounds could an "enforced inspection" be carried out? Subpart 6 of the Search & Surveillance Act 2012 does allow for warrantless searches if Police have reasonable grounds to suspect that you are in breach of the Arms Act.

There is no section of the Act however that relates to "unnecessary" firearms or ammunition. There is also no requirement to provide the information requested by this inspector.

Refusal to submit to an non-mandatory request should not be considered "reasonable grounds" to be suspected of being in breach of the Act.

Similarly, license holders should not be threatened with being treated as a potential criminal in order to coerce them into complying with such a request.

Have any of you received similar treatment? If so PM us and let us know what happened. Take a photo/copy of the form too.

----------


## Ryan

Anyone else on here remain unclear as to the intentions of the upper echelons of NZP?

----------


## stug

The Police wouldn't have a leg to stand on and would get their arses kicked in a court of law. A complaint to the IPCA could be in order, although they may say that the vetter is not a Police officer so too bad.

----------


## Sasquatch

> I grabbed 3 yesterday and the reporter from the stuff article posted yesterday grabbed one there and then too.


I couldn't pinch one off you? ;-) They seemed to have all vanished, I tried another police station on route to a job and no luck...

----------


## veitnamcam

> Anyone else on here remain unclear as to the intentions of the upper echelons of NZP?


Some will be untill the the time comes that they are no longer allowed any firearms and then they will ask how did this happen to me?

----------


## Ryan

> Some will be untill the the time comes that they are no longer allowed any firearms and then they will ask how did this happen to me?


Ignorance is bliss... Until it isn't.

----------


## zimmer

Won't be long and the withdrawn 2017 verson will be appearing on Tardme fetching high dollars. A great investment for those fortunate to have scored copies.  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Steve123

> Some will be untill the the time comes that they are no longer allowed any firearms and then they will ask how did this happen to me?


And a good reason not to back the red or blue parasites that enact the status quo.

----------


## veitnamcam

> And a good reason not to back the red or blue parasites that enact the status quo.


Never have.

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

----------


## Steve123

> Never have.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk


 @Pengy for president!

----------


## Danger Mouse

> The Police wouldn't have a leg to stand on and would get their arses kicked in a court of law. A complaint to the IPCA could be in order, although they may say that the vetter is not a Police officer so too bad.



Thats what they did when I put in a complaint against chris cahill. which is interesting as the police association website says he IS a detective inspector.

----------


## veitnamcam

> @Pengy for president!


Its the ex poms pushing for the disarmament! (no offence Pengy)

----------


## Steve123

> Its the ex poms pushing for the disarmament! (no offence Pengy)


Tell that to the idiot pom that couldn't make up his mind whether he wanted a 22 or something a little more powerful at Rusty Dog. Prick kept the salesman busy for ages, not good when your waiting to buy a pack of subs.

----------


## veitnamcam

> Tell that to the idiot pom that couldn't make up his mind whether he wanted a 22 or something a little more powerful at Rusty Dog. Prick kept the salesman busy for ages, not good when your waiting to buy a pack of subs.


Sometimes as a customer you have to be more proactive  and say something like hurry up and take my money!

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

----------


## Ryan

Let's try and maintain a sense of decorum. 

Just because a person is from X country doesn't necessarily mean that he / she agrees with or seeks to promulgate that country's firearm laws domestically.

----------


## veitnamcam

> Let's try and maintain a sense of decorum. 
> 
> Just because a person is from X country doesn't necessarily mean that he / she agrees with or seeks to promulgate that country's firearm laws domestically.


This is true, but it is also true that there is a lot of ex poms in our police force/assn and the police force/assn seek to implement pommy type draconian firearm laws.

----------


## Steve123

> Sometimes as a customer you have to be more proactive  and say something like hurry up and take my money!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk


I did. Told him a 30-06 was an excellent choice as it could f%$# up anything from a field mouse to an elephant. Got my pack of subs and bailed.

----------


## Friwi

Ryan , I am going to expose it simply for you:
If a Pom ( or a French in my case) is keen as on shooting and hunting where he comes from, usually he fits pretty well with the NZ gun system.
When the Pom is from uk police headquarters and moving here for the same job, he has most of the time  been endoctrinated well enough where he come from to have a bit of shock when arriving here and discovering how the NZ gun system works.

Btw I still can't understand either how some senior staf from uk police manage to get here at similar position levels in the blink of an eye.
I reckon what ever position they held in the uk, they should start back from scratch bottom once arriving here in NZ and slowly work their way up. That would degrease the old fat pretty quickly.

----------


## Pengy

> Its the ex poms pushing for the disarmament! (no offence Pengy)



You know full well it takes more than that to offend this EX Pom :Thumbsup:

----------


## Jexla

> I couldn't pinch one off you? ;-) They seemed to have all vanished, I tried another police station on route to a job and no luck...


Sorry I need to keep them. We uploaded a digital copy here: https://www.docdroid.net/aRDYhK7/nzp...code4.pdf.html

----------


## GravelBen

> Originally Posted by Danger Mouse
> 
> 
> Ill make a point of not helping the plod if they need it. Sorry officer, didnt see which way the man went.
> 
> 
> That's not very helpful to the rest of us either though, which is in essence why they are doing it in the first place.


And knowing a few police officers personally, from the conversations I've had with them on topics like this they seem to agree with most of us and be just as frustrated with the bureaucrats.

----------


## Steve123

How would you justify this A cat?

Skoda Other T-55 Tank 1960 | Trade Me

----------


## veitnamcam

> How would you justify this A cat?
> 
> Skoda Other T-55 Tank 1960 | Trade Me


It is not a firearm as it has been disabled.....so essentially it is a fast but really shit bulldozer :Thumbsup:

----------


## Sylvester

> How would you justify this A cat?
> 
> Skoda Other T-55 Tank 1960 | Trade Me


It saves time, no need to mince the animal.

----------


## Jexla

I question the need to have a FAL to own that. Deactivated guns are specifically excluded in the arms act.

----------


## timattalon

> I question the need to have a FAL to own that. Deactivated guns are specifically excluded in the arms act.


I notice that no one is questioning the need to get one of these though...It might be a _"fast but really shit bulldozer"_ but hey, why the hell not....?

----------


## Ryan

> I question the need to have a FAL to own that. Deactivated guns are specifically excluded in the arms act.


There is no such classification as a "deactivated firearm" and you will find no mention of such in the Arms Act 1983.

----------


## Jexla

> There is no such classification as a "deactivated firearm" and you will find no mention of such in the Arms Act 1983.


You're right, my bad.

It's mentioned in the arms code, which we know is not law.

Section 8.17 Deactivated Firearms:

1. Under United Kingdom legislation, firearms that have been deactivated to Government specifications and certified by a Proof House do not require the owner to possess a firearms certificate for the firearm.
2. NZ Law does not recognise the status of “deactivated”, on the basis that some of these “deactivated” firearms can be converted to live firing status by a competent machinist in a relatively short time.
3. The only situation where a firearm has been accepted as “deactivated” in New Zealand is where it has been sectionalised from end to end.



Still stupid though, where would you even get ammo for it?

----------


## timattalon

> You're right, my bad.
> 
> It's mentioned in the arms code, which we know is not law.
> 
> Section 8.17 Deactivated Firearms:
> 
> 1. Under United Kingdom legislation, firearms that have been deactivated to Government specifications and certified by a Proof House do not require the owner to possess a firearms certificate for the firearm.
> 2. NZ Law does not recognise the status of “deactivated”, on the basis that some of these “deactivated” firearms can be converted to live firing status by a competent machinist in a relatively short time.
> 3. The only situation where a firearm has been accepted as “deactivated” in New Zealand is where it has been sectionalised from end to end.
> ...


Probably have to handload for it.......I can see it now, 6542 grs powder, behind a 49,000 gr projectile   imagine the fun doing load development...... :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## chainsaw

> I couldn't pinch one off you? ;-) They seemed to have all vanished, I tried another police station on route to a job and no luck...


I down loaded a soft copy of the police website last week, if any one wants one

----------


## GravelBen

> You're right, my bad.
> 
> It's mentioned in the arms code, which we know is not law.
> 
> Section 8.17 Deactivated Firearms:
> 
> 1. Under United Kingdom legislation, firearms that have been deactivated to Government specifications and certified by a Proof House do not require the owner to possess a firearms certificate for the firearm.
> 2. NZ Law does not recognise the status of “deactivated”, on the basis that some of these “deactivated” firearms can be converted to live firing status by a competent machinist in a relatively short time.
> 3. The only situation where a firearm has been accepted as “deactivated” in New Zealand is where it has been sectionalised from end to end.
> ...


Wonder if it could qualify as an 'antique firearm' under the Arms Act?




> Nothing in section 20 or section 21 makes it an offence for any person to be in possession of—
> (a)any firearm of the kind known as:
>      (i)a bolt gun or a stud gun:
>      (ii)a humane killer:
>      (iii)a tranquilliser gun:
>      (iv)a stock marking pistol:
>      (v)an underwater spear gun:
>      (vi)a flare pistol:
>      (vii)a deer net gun:
> ...





> antique firearm means—
> (a) any firearm that—
>         (i) is held in the possession of any person solely as an antique (but not as a copy or replica of an antique); and
>         (ii) is not designed for firing, and is not capable of firing, rimfire or centrefire cartridge ammunition; or
> (b)any firearm declared by regulations made under this Act to be an antique firearm for the purposes of this Act

----------


## Sasquatch

> Sorry I need to keep them. We uploaded a digital copy here: https://www.docdroid.net/aRDYhK7/nzp...code4.pdf.html


No worries cheers  :Thumbsup:

----------


## Dublin

> Sorry I need to keep them. We uploaded a digital copy here: https://www.docdroid.net/aRDYhK7/nzp...code4.pdf.html


Thanks Jexla, good stuff!

----------


## PERRISCICABA

From the World Health Organization
The latest Murder Statistics for the world:
Murders per 100,000 citizens per year.

Honduras 91.6 (WOW!!)
El Salvador 69.2
Cote d'Ivoire 56.9
Jamaica 52.2
Venezuela 45.1
Belize 41.4
US Virgin Islands 39.2
Guatemala 38.5
Saint Kitts and Nevis 38.2
Zambia 38.0
Uganda 36.3
Malawi 36.0
Lesotho 35.2
Trinidad and Tobago 35.2
Colombia 33.4
South Africa 31.8
Congo 30.8
Central African Republic 29.3
Bahamas 27.4
Puerto Rico 26.2
Saint Lucia 25.2
Dominican Republic 25.0
Tanzania 24.5
Sudan 24.2
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9
Ethiopia 22.5
Guinea 22.5
Dominica 22.1
Burundi 21.7
Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7
Panama 21.6
Brazil 21.0
Equatorial Guinea 20.7
Guinea-Bissau 20.2
Kenya 20.1(yea Obama!)
Kyrgyzstan 20.1
Cameroon 19.7
Montserrat 19.7
Greenland 19.2
Angola 19.0
Guyana 18.6
Burkina Faso 18.0
Eritrea 17.8
Namibia 17.2
Rwanda 17.1
Mexico 16.9
Chad 15.8
Ghana 15.7
Ecuador 15.2
North Korea 15.2
Benin 15.1
Sierra Leone 14.9
Mauritania 14.7
Botswana 14.5
Zimbabwe 14.3
Gabon 13.8
Nicaragua 13.6
French Guiana 13.3
Papua New Guinea 13.0
Swaziland 12.9
Bermuda 12.3
Comoros 12.2
Nigeria 12.2
Cape Verde 11.6
Grenada 11.5
Paraguay 11.5
Barbados 11.3
Togo 10.9
Gambia 10.8
Peru 10.8
Myanmar 10.2
Russia 10.2
Liberia 10.1
Costa Rica 10.0
Nauru 9.8
Bolivia 8.9
Mozambique 8.8
Kazakhstan 8.8
Senegal 8.7
Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7
Mongolia 8.7
British Virgin Islands 8.6
Cayman Islands 8.4
Seychelles 8.3
Madagascar 8.1
Indonesia 8.1
Mali 8.0
Pakistan 7.8
Moldova 7.5
Kiribati 7.3
Guadeloupe 7.0
Haiti 6.9
Timor-L'este 6.9
Anguilla 6.8
Antigua and Barbuda 6.8
Lithuania 6.6
Uruguay 5.9
Philippines 5.4
Ukraine 5.2
Estonia 5.2
Cuba 5.0
Belarus 4.9
Thailand 4.8
Suriname 4.6
Laos 4.6
Georgia 4.3
Martinique 4.2

And The United States @ 4.0!
ALL 109 of the countries with more murders than America?..have 100% gun bans.

It might be of interest to note that SWITZERLAND is not shown on this list, because it has almost NO murders!

But Switzerland's laws require that everyone must:

1. Own a gun.
2. Maintain Marksman qualifications regularly.

The message is clear.

GUN bans and restrictions   

DO NOT work.

----------


## Gibo

> From the World Health Organization
> The latest Murder Statistics for the world:
> Murders per 100,000 citizens per year.
> 
> Honduras 91.6 (WOW!!)
> El Salvador 69.2
> Cote d'Ivoire 56.9
> Jamaica 52.2
> Venezuela 45.1
> ...


Where all of the above murders performed with a firearm though?

----------


## Cordite

WRT to the definition of a firearm as something that "can be" converted to a firearm (rather than "has been" converted)...

... am I the only one who has come across that wrong wording somewhere - well before 2017?  

I do recall thinking at the time that it was a over-inclusive definition that could be used on almost anything, toy guns upwards.  Now I learn it was never actually in the Arms Act.  If any of you has old paper copies of the Act, would you mind taking a look?

----------


## kotuku

well ,the latest edition of stuff has a relvant article .bloke in N Ibled to death after flatmates apparently shoved a 12g round into a steel pipe and hit it ................. you know the rest. what will comrade cahills vocal chords make of this then.Vhat villpolice hq do?????--------your guess is as good as mine.

----------


## MSL

Found it odd how his flatmate/good friend was outside the house with a big smile on his face

----------


## PERRISCICABA

Hey @Gibo, where is the NZ info that says the majority of the crimes(homicide/death by firearm) are solely by firearms??? Why not "chase" other types of "weapons" as well? What about knifes??? 
Sorry just  thought. 

Mac

----------


## Koshogi

> It might be of interest to note that SWITZERLAND is not shown on this list, because it has almost NO murders!
> 
> But Switzerland's laws require that everyone must:
> 
> 1. Own a gun.
> 2. Maintain Marksman qualifications regularly.


This is entirely untrue.

People really need to stop regurgitating these types of statements regarding Switzerland. 



Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

----------


## Danger Mouse

> From the World Health Organization
> The latest Murder Statistics for the world:
> Murders per 100,000 citizens per year.
> 
> Honduras 91.6 (WOW!!)
> El Salvador 69.2
> Cote d'Ivoire 56.9
> Jamaica 52.2
> Venezuela 45.1
> ...


Got a link please?

----------


## PERRISCICABA

> Got a link please?


I will work on it, currently information via in law.

----------


## Savage1

I think you need to research a little more before posting that kind of rubbish. 

All of those countries have 100% gun bans?! Obviously untrue. 

I've been to Switzerland many times and know that those two "laws" to be non-existent.

----------


## Ryan

The myths regarding Swiss firearms laws have been debunked with the same regularity that they've been perpetuated. I posted about this in a similar vein semi-recently.

----------


## systolic

I'm pretty sure the good people of Indonesia, The Philippines, South Africa, PNG, Georgia, Honduras, Jamaica, Kenya, Pakistan, Russia, Colombia, Grenada, Kazakhstan, Estonia, Guatemala, Venezuela, Laos, El Salvador and others will be surprised to find they have 100% gun bans.

Especially all the IPSC shooters in those countries who enjoy practical shooting. Not to mention those shooters from New Zealand who have traveled to and shot in those countries.

----------


## Ryan

Some of those countries' firearm laws, Jamaica in particular, are so draconian as to effectively be a 100% ban.

----------


## res

I have been to ranges in Honduras, fun times and if there was a gun ban it wasent aparent

----------


## Sideshow

Zimbabwe dose not have a gun ban? Pretty sure you can take your firearm into hunt!
Saint Kitts and Nevis, I've taken a shotgun to. Nice dove shooting was a few years back though.
Would not go again as it was getting a little dangerous then.....St Kitts :O O:  was!
Switzerland dose have plenty of murders mass shootings it's been posted before.
Those facts aren't real, as how can you trust statistics coming from the likes of Mr Uncle Bob zim  :Sick:  he's got more opposition supporters buried in his back garden than Putin :Zomg:  :Psmiley:

----------


## Ryan

> Those facts aren't real, as how can you trust statistics coming from the likes of Mr Uncle Bob zim  he's got more opposition supporters buried in his back garden than Putin


Majority of them were put there by Rhodesian security forces.  :Psmiley:

----------


## Beetroot

Accidentally discharged shotgun shell said to have killed Hamilton man | Stuff.co.nz

So as per new arms code, all steel pipe is now a firearm as per Section 1a
"anything that can be adapted to discharge any shot" etc.

Just want to point out I called this back on page 2 of this thread.  :Grin:

----------


## Cordite

I knew it!  This thread is much about supposed changes to the Arms Code 2017 police leaflet, but the same silly error has been there all along in "The Arms Code, 2013" leaflet.  With all respect, firearms owners who should have known must have been asleep, or did read the 2013 leaflet.

From "The Arms Code, 2013" (error highlighted with capitals):

 " T 1 a) Definition of a firearm
 ----------------------------------
 The Arms Act 1983 defines a firearm as anything from
 which any shot, bullet, missile or other projectile can be
 discharged by force of explosive.
 It includes anything THAT CAN BE ADAPTED so that it can
 discharge any shot, bullet, missile or other projectile by
 force of explosive.
 It also includes anything that for the time being is not
 capable of discharging any shot, bullet, missile or other
 projectile by force of explosive, but which by it’s completion
 or repair would be capable of doing so.

----------


## systolic

> I knew it!  This thread is much about supposed changes to the Arms Code 2017 police leaflet, but the same silly error has been there all along in "The Arms Code, 2013" leaflet.  With all respect, firearms owners who should have known must have been asleep, or did read the 2013 leaflet.
> 
> From "The Arms Code, 2013" (error highlighted with capitals):
> 
>  " T 1 a) Definition of a firearm
>  ----------------------------------
>  The Arms Act 1983 defines a firearm as anything from
>  which any shot, bullet, missile or other projectile can be
>  discharged by force of explosive.
> ...


Who cares? The arms code is just a safety manual. Not a legal document.

----------


## 300CALMAN

> I think you need to research a little more before posting that kind of rubbish. 
> 
> All of those countries have 100% gun bans?! Obviously untrue. 
> 
> I've been to Switzerland many times and know that those two "laws" to be non-existent.


Gun Bans or total prohibition?  No but some of the most restrictive are the some of the most violent. I think the point is that violence and murder (including mass killings) is more related to culture than gun laws.

----------


## 300CALMAN

> Who cares? The arms code is just a safety manual. Not a legal document.


But with the NZ Police's name on it. Looked at one recently?

----------


## muzza

The Arms Code is the basis upon which new applicants base their firearms safety knowledge , in order to pass the written test in the application process. For them , this booklet is the Gospel. Surely those people have a right to be given correct information , not some beauracratic slant on what the Police would prefer?

----------


## PERRISCICABA

Not exactly the link I suppose everyone is interested but something to think about. 

Cheers

Mac

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List..._homicide_rate

----------


## Skitsokiwi

> Not exactly the link I suppose everyone is interested but something to think about. 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Mac
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List..._homicide_rate


delved in a bit more, the site they are obtaining the gun facts from is a bit of an interesting read. Guns in New Zealand
it is no longer being updated until funds allow, but the estimated illicit guns in NZ (as deemed by the UN) seems a bit high to me.

----------


## Maca49

Alpers! Really! All looks good to me, id be fairly positive reading that, Firearms numbers coming down, very few used in suicides and murders, bugger all FAL owners per 100,000 etc.
Make you wonder what all the fuss is about!!

----------


## Steve123

> delved in a bit more, the site they are obtaining the gun facts from is a bit of an interesting read. Guns in New Zealand
> it is no longer being updated until funds allow, but the estimated illicit guns in NZ (as deemed by the UN) seems a bit high to me.


A lot of UN mentions in there. The part about standardizing fire arms legislation across the pacific worries me.

----------


## Steve123

Pacific Islands Forum
As a member of the Pacific Islands Forum, New Zealand adopted the March, 2000 Nadi Framework agreement, which aims to harmonise small arm-related legislation across Oceania. In August 2003, the Nadi Framework’s draft model Weapons Control Bill was unanimously accepted for consideration by all 16 member states of the Pacific Islands Forum


I can't see the idiots over in West Island choosing to use our legislation.

----------


## timattalon

> Pacific Islands Forum
> As a member of the Pacific Islands Forum, New Zealand adopted the March, 2000 Nadi Framework agreement, which aims to harmonise small arm-related legislation across Oceania. In August 2003, the Nadi Framework’s draft model Weapons Control Bill was unanimously accepted for consideration by all 16 member states of the Pacific Islands Forum
> 
> 
> I can't see the idiots over in West Island choosing to use our legislation.


I dunno. They had the sense to put the beach in the middle cos there's too many sharks around the outside......

----------


## Maca49

Hes some AO logic for you, I have been to the AO and filled in a form to procure a new rifle from down country. I have given my work address as the place I would like it delivered to because I am at work all day to receive it.
But no, it can only be del to my home address where it will sit at the front door, or a courier depot? 
I argued that the safest place for del was my work. He told me that was not one of my choices and he would not issue me a permit unless I gave him one of the options on the form for del.
I told him that I didnt think that was law, he said it was police interpretations and he wouldnt talk to me any further, it was my residence or a courier company and I could ring back with what I was going to do and he was not going to continue the conversation and would hang up!!
really logic, no wonder we lose firearms in this country.

----------


## Maca49

Im getting del to my home address, hopefully it wont be raining on the day and its still there when I get home!! :O O:

----------


## Gibo

> Im getting del to my home address, hopefully it wont be raining on the day and its still there when I get home!!


Where do you live and what date?

----------


## Maca49

> Where do you live and what date?


Ill fill you in once I sorted my insurance!! Police cant argue, I gave them the safest option!!

----------


## Koshogi

> Hes some AO logic for you, I have been to the AO and filled in a form to procure a new rifle from down country. I have given my work address as the place I would like it delivered to because I am at work all day to receive it.
> But no, it can only be del to my home address where it will sit at the front door, or a courier depot? 
> I argued that the safest place for del was my work. He told me that was not one of my choices and he would not issue me a permit unless I gave him one of the options on the form for del.
> I told him that I didnt think that was law, he said it was police interpretations and he wouldnt talk to me any further, it was my residence or a courier company and I could ring back with what I was going to do and he was not going to continue the conversation and would hang up!!
> really logic, no wonder we lose firearms in this country.


I have dealt with the same issue. 

You are absolutely correct. The law does not restrict where your firearm or ammunition is sent.

What he, and many in POLHQ don't get, is that the s43a is not a 'permit'. It is merely verification that that a Police Officer has sighted your licence and you are a a 'fit and proper person'. 

No legal requirement to use 'their form'. No legal requirement that your purchase is sent to an 'approved location'.

Thankfully some people know the law, and aren't concerned with the Police 'interpretation'. Once the seller receives the endorsed form, they can send it anywhere you ask them too.

----------


## mucko

> Bullshit.


 not bullshit its a nato plan to disarm the citizen and we are a member of nato

----------


## Maca49

> I have dealt with the same issue. 
> 
> You are absolutely correct. The law does not restrict where your firearm or ammunition is sent.
> 
> What he, and many in POLHQ don't get, is that the s43a is not a 'permit'. It is merely verification that that a Police Officer has sighted your licence and you are a a 'fit and proper person'. 
> 
> No legal requirement to use 'their form'. No legal requirement that your purchase is sent to an 'approved location'.
> 
> Thankfully some people know the law, and aren't concerned with the Police 'interpretation'. Once the seller receives the endorsed form, they can send it anywhere you ask them too.


I was told on know uncertain terms I had three choices and I had to choose one or he would not issue the S43a and I couldnt buy the rifle by post, I chose the worse option for thief, if it goes missing he told me I had no choice, he will be getting a call. We rang a friendly AO in Auck and was told they are not enforcing it, logic rules, it would have come to me at work. I will be asking his boss what is going on, once I get my rifle. The mans not fit to hold the position!

----------


## Sidney

> not bullshit its a nato plan to disarm the citizen and we are a member of nato


Just as a wee help... NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.  NZ is not in the North Atlantic, and we don't belong to that group.  What you probably meant to say was the UN, as in the United Nations and we are a member of that group.

There are apparently a number of policy related documents and trade restriction treaties in place that affect private citizen rights to acquire, but in so far as directly affecting ownership within sovereign states is concerned that is solely a matter for that nation to decide.

----------


## Sasquatch

> There are apparently a number of policy related documents and trade restriction treaties in place that affect private citizen rights to acquire, but in so far as directly affecting ownership within sovereign states is concerned that is solely a matter for that nation to decide.


Although it appears POLHQ have "volunteered" to do some of this UN arms-control malarkey...

----------


## Sidney

I would tend to ascribe general incompetance to the administration of the law by the police rather than conspiracy....

What they are learning however is that we are taking more notice....   :36 1 5:

----------


## Maca49

> I would tend to ascribe general incompetance to the administration of the law by the police rather than conspiracy....
> 
> What they are learning however is that we are taking more notice....


Its not incompetence! It is knowingly manipulating the law and abuse of power to carry on like the dip shit did yesterday

----------


## Sidney

bullocks... what feature of the grand plan is he exercising...?

what strategic advantage do they get by insisting what address the rifle has to be sent to?

the guys a dick, and he's not competant, and he likes to think he makes the rules... but a conspiracy would be an agreement to knowingly break the law... what law is he breaking?

of course its incompetance....

give up the tin foil hat mate...

----------


## Sidney

well... the only accountability that exists for us is going to come from us...  we don't like it - make sure they are challenged.. accountability aint going to come from the pollies...

say yes sir no sir, but tell them it is not lawful and that u will be making a complaint.  Then make the complaint and follow it up....

tell us about it after you have done that...

----------


## Sidney

I was talking to an experienced criminal defence lawyer the other day, and they related that they had on several occasions been in discussions with senior police prosecutors and investigators where they said that the reason that they made sure that they complied with the law, and the expectations of the court and justice system, was simply because of the existance of robust defence and legal challenge.

Without that, they said that they would be likely to cut corners.  This is not surprising to me, its basic human nature... 

We don't want a police force that cuts corners and that happens without accountability.  Firearms law is an area where accountabilty is not historically robust and given general public disassociation with our community that isn't likely to get better...

But its not a conspiracy, its just about self interest.  The police are not interested in looking after your rights to enjoy your firearms even though they should be, it's a cost in resources and potentially a safety issue for them.

Accountability can only come from us...  The law applies to us and it applies to them...  they need to be made to comply with it and that will never change..

----------


## gadgetman

I think there is quite a bit pointing to a conspiracy. There was the meeting in Queenstown with a few interested parties, though not representing our community to any great extent. This involved Police from Australia. Also the decision to publish this booklet would not be made by one person from Police, it was a definite decision among a number of Police policy makers, without a lot of outside input, which fits nicely into the category of conspiracy. 

They have been relying on the fact that the firearms community have been quite apathetic in the past, not wanting to 'rock the boat' with the authority that is invested with the ability to deny a license. And yes a lot would be based on members of the firearms community not being willing to stump up to a legal challenge where they can just dip into a large pool if challenged. They have been playing the system.

----------


## Sidney

its not a consiracy to make plans to get the law changed...  we might not  like it, we might even think that its not the the role of the police to try and influence legislative change... but thats not a conspiracy...

so what are you left with...  some inaccurate policy application documents....  that might go further that the law allows...  but how have any of the inaccuracies actually broken the law... ?? good luck with that

Its not a conspiracy to discourage private arms in the community...  nothing unlawful in that.  It might be a policy....

Its not a conspiracy to be difficult in the adminstration of the law, thats just impolite..  but it might be a policy to discourage private firearm arm ownership... but no not a conspiracy

I think the problem is that you are all assuming that the police are interested in making your life nicer, at the expense of theirs....    they aren't, just accept it and the word conspiracy goes away...

just make them accountable and don't trust them at all...  yes sir no sir.....who is your superior officer? and what address do I complain to???  

I don't trust them at all and I was one...

----------


## gadgetman

I think you need to check the meaning of conspiracy.

It does not have to be illegal. It just needs to be in secret, it cannot be entirely secret as at least two must be there, and can include attempting to thwart those doing what they are legally entitled to do. Check the above again.

----------


## Sidney

its not in secret  and we are talking in a legal context

----------


## gadgetman

> its not in secret  and we are talking in a legal context


The decision to publish was in secret, it would have been in a closed meeting with selected participants. Well does the legal system have it's own legal definition of conspiracy that differs from the everyday dictionary term? I'm using the common form and it fits perfectly.

----------


## Sidney

you can't claim that a meeting about a publication meets that criteria....  "its a conspiracy to make public" isn't wholly logical..

we should just rename every policy meeting, strategy meeting or cabinet meeting........... a conspiracy meeting... it'd be a lot simpler. :Grin: 

examine if you will your reason for choosing the word...  you clearly mean to imply either illegality, unethical behaviour, or some form of underhanded activity...

my point is that its not...

I am only bound by what is determined to be the law, as is the case for the police....  we might not like that they push further that we think is acceptable with whatever agenda they have got going on, but if its not illegal and its a public response, then its not a conspiracy... its clearly not secret...??

And yes for legal offences of Conspiracy...  there has to be a formed intent to break the law.... what would be the point otherwise...?

"conspiracy" is one of the more misapplied words these days for the "tin foil hat brigade."

----------


## gadgetman

> you can't claim that a meeting about a publication meets that criteria....  "its a conspiracy to make public" isn't wholly logical..
> 
> we should just rename every policy meeting, strategy meeting or cabinet meeting........... a conspiracy meeting... it'd be a lot simpler.
> 
> examine if you will your reason for choosing the word...  you clearly mean to imply either illegality, *unethical behaviour*, or some form of *underhanded activity*...
> 
> my point is that its not...
> 
> I am only bound by what is determined to be the law, as is the case for the police....  we might not like that they push further that we think is acceptable with whatever agenda they have got going on, but if its not illegal and its a public response, then its not a conspiracy... its clearly not secret...??
> ...


I think those bits you mentioned fit quite nicely.

You are unfortunately limiting yourself to a very narrow definition for I'd say criminal law. To restrict that for everything else is a fallacy. If you take the wider definition then yes any closed meeting to decide on anything that will favour one group and negatively impact another is by definition is a conspiracy. Note that it can be something illegal or evil. So it could be construed that from the point of view of any party that is likely to be disadvantaged by such a decision it could seen it as 'evil'.

----------


## Sidney

still not secret....  having a meeting that concludes that its going to make "public" a policy of something without lawful authority is not a conspiracy..

and dispite your desire to see this as some sort of underhand activity, it is the right of everybody under the law, to test the law...   that is the system..

become a part of it.... engage...

treating everything as being out to get us in a waste of time.....most of the time we aren't that important...

----------


## Ryan

> treating everything as being out to get us in a waste of time.....most of the time we aren't that important...


Except when we possess firearms?

----------


## Sidney

well that seems to be an area of importance for people on this forum for some reason... :Grin: 

I can't quite ascribe a co-ordinated furtive conspiracy in the arms code talking about things that can be made into firearms, as being a logical attempt to deprive us all our our bits of wood and pieces of pipe.......  its only slightly laughable...

if thats a conspiracy, day is pretty bad at it.... :Grin:

----------


## gadgetman

> still not secret....  having a meeting that concludes that its going to make "public" a policy of something without lawful authority is not a conspiracy..
> 
> and dispite your desire to see this as some sort of underhand activity, it is the right of everybody under the law, to test the law...   that is the system..
> 
> become a part of it.... engage...
> 
> treating everything as being out to get us in a waste of time.....most of the time we aren't that important...


Sort of comes under the banner of the victor writes the history books. Now going back in time there were times when the government of the day passed draconian laws, generally guided by the wealthy who had something to gain, in closed session. There was an uprising, the government were overthrown and a new system of government put in place that represented the masses. The new order wrote in the history books that the old government and wealthy conspired to ....

When there is one group that has a monetary/legal status advantage over another group, that in secret (by excluding input from the affected groups, whether by omission or not) attempts to put up barriers to legal activity, that by definition is a conspiracy. Basically they have conspired to attempt thwart the law. Sure that can be challenged at a cost.

Oh, can you tell I'm laid up unable to move?

----------


## Sidney

ah now you probably just need to accept you aint going to get an invite to a police firearms policy meeting, and you haven't yet convinced me that it wasn't just a sub committe meeting of the 2017 Arms Code committee commissioned with providing a legally consistent up to date document..

knowing a wee bit about the difference between policy and strategy and the role of the worker bees, I have a feeling that the sub-managment are just incompetant and the governance level don't really have the finer points nailed either......

I still make the point that the release of non-binding policy to achieve nothing of consequence released into the public arena where all can see.... does not amount to conspiracy...

All such meetings are private..... the intent has not been established and the outcome does not meet a detrimental standard...  somebody should get spanked for being useless..

And I am supposed to be writing an essay...   :Grin:

----------


## gadgetman

> ah now you probably just need to accept you aint going to get an invite to a police firearms policy meeting, and you haven't yet convinced me that it wasn't just a sub committe meeting of the 2017 Arms Code committee commissioned with providing a legally consistent up to date document..
> 
> knowing a wee bit about the difference between policy and strategy and the role of the worker bees, I have a feeling that the sub-managment are just incompetant and the governance level don't really have the finer points nailed either......
> 
> I still make the point that the release of non-binding policy to achieve nothing of consequence released into the public arena where all can see.... does not amount to conspiracy...
> 
> All such meetings are private..... the intent has not been established and the outcome does not meet a detrimental standard...  somebody should get spanked for being useless..
> 
> And I am supposed to be writing an essay...


I suspect that there is a fair amount of all of the above involved. I'd better pack my troll outfit away and let you carry on. Can't help playing 'devils advocate' every now and then.  :Wink:

----------


## Sidney

good argument

----------


## gadgetman

> good argument


Back to you're essay and stop getting side tracked so easily.

I do like the line at the bottom of @P38's posts.  :Grin:

----------


## Sidney

lawyers could be worser.... :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## gadgetman

> lawyers could be worser....


Essay!

----------


## mikee

It would seem things only get better and better for us fit and proper people

Shamelessly stolen from FOUNZ justification-the-precursor-to-confiscation/



> All this talk of “justification” had us wondering what would happen if an Arms Officer/inspector decided that our justification for owning an A Cat firearm was not good enough. Well it seems that our fears may be have been realised.
> 
> A member reported that he recently had his new address inspected. Here is what he told us:
> 
> “He then pulled out a form wanting to know what firearms I had, condition, serial number and why I needed it, also how much ammo I had!? When I said that’s not the law he replied ‘no it’s not law but if you refuse I’m sure the police will do an enforced inspection within a few days and may confiscate any firearms and ammunition they deem unnecessary'”
> 
> When asked what “unnecessary ammunition” meant he was told:
> 
> “ammunition that may be used in b,e or c class or more than you need” !
> ...

----------


## gadgetman

Do we have laws on blackmail and extortion?

----------


## Sidney

he should tried that with me....  they pick n choose their audience

----------


## mucko

> still not secret....  having a meeting that concludes that its going to make "public" a policy of something without lawful authority is not a conspiracy..
> 
> and dispite your desire to see this as some sort of underhand activity, it is the right of everybody under the law, to test the law...   that is the system..
> 
> become a part of it.... engage...
> 
> treating everything as being out to get us in a waste of time.....most of the time we aren't that important...


I see the conspiracy statement as information correlated in private and released publicly with the intend to deceive. if the deception is not thwarted then a law is passed, politicians do it all the time before you know it somethings illegal.

----------


## mikee

> Do we have laws on blackmail and extortion?


I'm starting to form the opinion that "laws" only apply to certain groups as much as I would prefer to believe otherwise





> he should tried that with me.... they pick n choose their audience


 @Sidney that makes 2 of us.

----------


## Sidney

> I see the conspiracy statement as information correlated in private and released publicly with the intend to deceive. if the deception is not thwarted then a law is passed, politicians do it all the time before you know it somethings illegal.


pretty hard to do that with 3 readings, public submissions and  complete records of all debates..

do you live in china?

and its not a law....

----------


## Maca49

> bullocks... what feature of the grand plan is he exercising...?
> 
> what strategic advantage do they get by insisting what address the rifle has to be sent to?
> 
> the guys a dick, and he's not competant, and he likes to think he makes the rules... but a conspiracy would be an agreement to knowingly break the law... what law is he breaking?
> 
> of course its incompetance....
> 
> give up the tin foil hat mate...


Piss off his attitude was boardering on threatening behaviour, we don't need people like this as AOs

----------


## Maca49

> well... the only accountability that exists for us is going to come from us...  we don't like it - make sure they are challenged.. accountability aint going to come from the pollies...
> 
> say yes sir no sir, but tell them it is not lawful and that u will be making a complaint.  Then make the complaint and follow it up....
> 
> tell us about it after you have done that...


And that's what I'm going to do,

----------


## Maca49

> its not a consiracy to make plans to get the law changed...  we might not  like it, we might even think that its not the the role of the police to try and influence legislative change... but thats not a conspiracy...
> 
> so what are you left with...  some inaccurate policy application documents....  that might go further that the law allows...  but how have any of the inaccuracies actually broken the law... ?? good luck with that
> 
> Its not a conspiracy to discourage private arms in the community...  nothing unlawful in that.  It might be a policy....
> 
> Its not a conspiracy to be difficult in the adminstration of the law, thats just impolite..  but it might be a policy to discourage private firearm arm ownership... but no not a conspiracy
> 
> I think the problem is that you are all assuming that the police are interested in making your life nicer, at the expense of theirs....    they aren't, just accept it and the word conspiracy goes away...
> ...


He wasn't going to hang on the phone long enough to ask those questions, he was hanging up!! The conversation was not continuing!!

----------


## Sidney

> And that's what I'm going to do,


good job....  let us know

----------


## Wirehunt

> Sorry I need to keep them. We uploaded a digital copy here: https://www.docdroid.net/aRDYhK7/nzp...code4.pdf.html


Gonna get a firearms barrister to look at this through the week.  Thanks.

----------


## Wirehunt

> I don't trust them at all and I was one...


Funny how many ex cops I know that say this, and how incompetent many are.

----------


## mucko

> pretty hard to do that with 3 readings, public submissions and  complete records of all debates..
> 
> do you live in china?
> 
> and its not a law....


did you see the three public submissions to have my company removed from the company registrar? if not why not? its in public three times. if you didn't maybe because it wasn't relevant to you or you were distracted by something else. no different to anything else put out to the public. if someone is not looking for it in public you wont see it, or your distracted with a topic that is closer to your heart. you sit there and regurge all this stuff as if it is infallible. you want to believe the system is a good system good for you I don't believe that this kind of crap is incidental its like saying the fuel companies didn't push us to breaking point with the price of fuel then backed it off enough for us to stop a shit storm. now we still get reemed at the pump and fuel companies are reaping huge profits. its the same phycology they use when testing our thresh hold to tolerate law change, they test the water with a misprinted publication oh shit uprising oh yeah sorry about that it was a misprint. no up rising wait until no bastard is in the house to oppose slip it though with some other shit. that's the real world. I do wonder if you paid by the government Sidney. your not Gerry brownlee are you.

----------


## Sidney

its the system chap..  its a framework for process and its not capable of forming intent just to get you....

my automatic assumption is that those that claim conspiracy either don't know what they are talking about, haven't done their homework, prefer to blame anyone else except themselves, or they just broke the rules....  blaming other people is always tempting but generally its pretty indicitive of where blame may lie...  and I'm going to be right 99 times out of a hundred....

but you're that special 1 percenter right?

----------


## gadgetman

> its the system chap..  its a framework for process and its not capable of forming intent just to get you....
> 
> my automatic assumption is that those that claim conspiracy either don't know what they are talking about, haven't done their homework, prefer to blame anyone else except themselves, or they just broke the rules....  blaming other people is always tempting but generally its pretty indicitive of where blame may lie...  and I'm going to be right 99 times out of a hundred....
> 
> but you're that special 1 percenter right?


Yes, the lazy government left them with a blank cheque. Now they've been caught out elsewhere, and have their noses out of joint, they've decided they're going to cash that cheque. Shows that they have indeed been conspiring behind closed doors. I think it is you that does not know what a conspiracy is.

And yes, tests have indicated that I am well with the top 1 percentile.

----------


## Sidney

not at the moment my friend....   :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Sidney

making excuses for oneself does not amount to a conspiracy... 

i'm not claiming system infallibility, i'm claiming lack of capacity to form intent..  

now people on the other hand have the ability to conspire, but given the context of legality in which this discussion is based the only definition that is appropriate is a legal one.

Conspiracy = conversations, with intent to commit a crime are the requirement, and action that amounts to more than mere preparation..

policy discussions, strategising to change the law, to make excuses for performance does not meet the standard

neither does employing knobs as arms officers

neither does producing incompetant policy documents that are not law..

----------


## Sidney

by the way gadget, you did realise that the one percenter just means special victim status... ?

I know I'm special...  not everyone wants to be   :Grin:

----------


## gadgetman

> making excuses for oneself does not amount to a conspiracy... 
> 
> i'm not claiming system infallibility, i'm claiming lack of capacity to form intent..  
> 
> now people on the other hand have the ability to conspire, but given the context of legality in which this discussion is based the only definition that is appropriate is a legal one.
> 
> Conspiracy = conversations, with intent to commit a crime are the requirement, and action that amounts to more than mere preparation..
> 
> policy discussions, strategising to change the law, to make excuses for performance does not meet the standard
> ...


I'm not talking about your narrow 'conspiracy to break the law'. As I said I'm using the wider conspiracy, making secret plans, which is obviously true and 300% fits that criteria. It is obvious that PNHQ have come up with a dream list of wants as far as firearms are concerned. That list is not one that has been derived by talking to licensed firearm owners or dealers, or other interested parties, and they seem hell bent on trying to implement that list by hook or by crook. They have been caught subliminally trying to do it by crook so have simply pulled out that little trump card they've been given.

Not sure the intent of giving them that card was this, but hey they've got it.

----------


## gadgetman

> by the way gadget, you did realise that the one percenter just means special victim status... ?
> 
> I know I'm special...  not everyone wants to be


I'm very special, yes that fits too.

----------


## Sidney

its not narrow fella its accurate

I am not interested in your pop culture, chicken little interpretation when discussing legal issues... and this is a legal issue...  the issue is clearly whether or not it is lawful for the police to formulate policy about their areas of responsiblity and plainly it is.  Policy meetings are always private, so that component is irelevant...

you want to talk about the nasty little policemen wanting to take away our guns as having an agenda... fine...

you want to argue that they are not entitled to have political interests...  fine as well, but damm that will be difficult cause they can just hide behind health and safety for that..

its just not a conspiracy.... full bloody stop  ... it may be a policy.......

and by the way....  we would have to go to court to resolve the argument, so I am pretty sure which way the decision would go there.....   :Grin:

----------


## kotuku

Ah.Sidney the knowall-well please provide your interpretation of the judgement of justice Jillian Mallon in the case of the freestanding pistol grips.Im reasonably well educated and Ive read it and down loaded the bloody thing -all 33 pages of it.
Justice Mallon quite clearly tells the coppers the are not bloody judge jury and executioner -MPs make laws ,courts interperet them and coppers uphold them -To me thats fairly commonsense.
Now i realise you dwell in the world of M'lud ,my learned friend devious but ?moral debate and somewhat archaic paegentery and you love to put down others with a sarcastic legal gougers interpretation of the issue ,with all the psychobabble learnt at law school etc etc,plus a two dimensional FACT POV,, but your utterances in fact show you up as grossly intolerant of anyones POV besides you own.

----------


## Sidney

you might wonder at my generally negitive reaction to your self  KT.... but if you start out with an insult perhaps you can work it out why...?  this one I'll let pass as a sign of good faith

absolutely.... they are not judge jury and eq....... however law exists before it gets to be considered by a court.  Law is applied before it gets considered by a court and the police are one of the many agencies that do exactly that...

in pragmatic terms the court adjudicates on interpretations, or they clarify the interpretation.. or they make rulings that provide interpretation...

the police like all of us make our own interpretations of what the law means, the court decides who is right...

No one is arguing that the police don't push boundaries... they do, but you could also argue that they should because it forces the law to get tidied up if undesireable outcomes result.

The system only works if accountability is obvious...  that case is a prime example..

----------


## gadgetman

> its not narrow fella its accurate
> 
> I am not interested in your pop culture, chicken little interpretation when discussing legal issues... and this is a legal issue...  the issue is clearly whether or not it is lawful for the police to formulate policy about their areas of responsiblity and plainly it is.  Policy meetings are always private, so that component is irelevant...
> 
> you want to talk about the nasty little policemen wanting to take away our guns as having an agenda... fine...
> 
> you want to argue that they are not entitled to have political interests...  fine as well, but damm that will be difficult cause they can just hide behind health and safety for that..
> 
> its just not a conspiracy.... full bloody stop  ... it may be a policy.......
> ...





> con·spir·a·cy  (kən-spîr′ə-sē)
> n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
> 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
> 2. A group of conspirators.
> 3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
> 4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.


You may want to work on your comprehension skills. I did not say the action was illegal. I did say there was a conspiracy and what you have said backs that wider definition perfectly. It is not illegal to conspire. Hey, the all blacks coaches could conspire with the lions coaches to conspire a plan to defeat the Aussies.  Wow, who'd have thought it?

 :Grin: 

Taken to court the Police would likely win, unless the intent of the law change they are using could be shown to not be followed.

----------


## Sidney

sort of self defeating GM.... come on now...

a) its not illegal, wrongful or subversive - you not liking it doesn't meet that standard

b) to be a group of conspirators a) has to be met

c) its not an illegal action

d) does not involve people...

----------


## Steve123

Wow!! you two guys sure know how to kill a thread

----------


## Sidney

yeah I should have left it as it was....what's the point of actually having some competance in an internet forum....?   :Grin:

----------


## Dan88

Hmmm I'm sure I had a don't feed the troll's sign around here somewhere 😉

Sent from my SM-G389F using Tapatalk

----------


## gadgetman

> sort of self defeating GM.... come on now...
> 
> a) its not illegal, wrongful or subversive - you not liking it doesn't meet that standard
> 
> b) to be a group of conspirators a) has to be met
> 
> c) its not an illegal action
> 
> d) does not involve people...


a) Subversive - changing that status of A-Cat, particularly when it is already defined'ish/accepted - Tick

b) More than one person - hard to have a meeting with just yourself - Tick

c) Illegal - doesn't have to be by definition - Tick

d) Does not involve people - not sure what you're on about here, it all involves people - Tick

Any closed session of parliament is conspiring to do something because it is secret.

----------


## gadgetman

> Hmmm I'm sure I had a don't feed the troll's sign around here somewhere 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G389F using Tapatalk


I ate it whilst sitting under my bridge.

----------


## GravelBen

> the issue is clearly whether or not it is lawful for the police to formulate policy about their areas of responsiblity and plainly it is.


Is it lawful for them to formulate policy that contradicts or is beyond the limits of the law?

----------


## Sidney

> _con·spir·a·cy (kən-spîr′ə-sē)_
> _n. pl. con·spir·a·cies_
> _1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act._
> _2. A group of conspirators._
> _3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action._
> _4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas._





> a) Subversive - changing that status of A-Cat, particularly when it is already defined'ish/accepted - Tick
> 
> b) More than one person - hard to have a meeting with just yourself - Tick
> 
> c) Illegal - doesn't have to be by definition - Tick
> 
> d) Does not involve people - not sure what you're on about here, it all involves people - Tick
> 
> Any closed session of parliament is conspiring to do something because it is secret.


Sorry got letters instead of numbers...  might have caused the lack of clarity  a-d = 1-4.....

a)  Defined where...??  Just in Statute?  The law can be challenged at any stage any time as part of recognised process, one of the basic principles of a free society... how is that subversion?  The law is not settled until the court rules.  If the police now attempted to apply what they have been told was unlawful by the court - then it could become subversion, but that hasn't happened has it.  And the code and any incompetant AO hasn't been established as being that... 
NOTE: to subvert is a deliberate policy of breaching the law..

b)Unless illegality is intended, no conspiriters exist... having private meetings does not make people conspiriters..  Point 1 has to be true before this can apply

c)Yes it does, you're own definition requires it..

d)Thats a metaphoric example not involving people.  It is not possible for the winds and tide to make agreements..

by the way... show me where secrecy is a requirement?

----------


## gadgetman

> Sorry got letters instead of numbers...  might have caused the lack of clarity  a-d = 1-4.....
> 
> a)  Defined where...??  Just in Statute?  The law can be challenged at any stage any time as part of recognised process, one of the basic principles of a free society... how is that subversion?  The law is not settled until the court rules.  If the police now attempted to apply what they have been told was unlawful by the court - then it could become subversion, but that hasn't happened has it.  And the code and any incompetant AO hasn't been established as being that... 
> NOTE: to subvert is a deliberate policy of breaching the law..
> 
> b)Unless illegality is intended, no conspiriters exist... having private meetings does not make people conspiriters..  Point 1 has to be true before this can apply
> 
> c)Yes it does, you're own definition requires it..
> 
> ...


Completely wrong. The word has been picked up and used by the legal system for a very narrow usage. Again that is not what is being used here. Conspiring is simply to have a secret meeting to formulate a plan to disadvantage another party. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE ILLEGAL!

----------


## Sidney

> Is it lawful for them to formulate policy that contradicts or is beyond the limits of the law?


when the law is established, then it would be unlawful to contradict the law.  To go beyond the limits of the established law may not break the law, but the obligation of the state is to comply with the law in general.  Where this becomes debateable is where the agency concerned can claim consistency with existing legislative intent...

For example...  the police have a policy of inspection of security measure before they will issue a new FAL.  Now give you cannot own a firearm before you have a licience, then clearly you cannot possess one either.  The legislation requires securtiy only for firearms that you are in possession of.

Why then do the police insist on inspecting security that you are not legally obliged to have before that issue a FAL...  they are acting outside of their legal authority afterall..

The answer of course is expediancy, education of a new FAL person and its a practical response...   no court is going to spank them for that..

----------


## Sidney

> Completely wrong. The word has been picked up and used by the legal system for a very narrow usage. Again that is not what is being used here. Conspiring is simply to have a secret meeting to formulate a plan to disadvantage another party. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE ILLEGAL!


Ah come on Gadget..

You know that just saying its wrong isn't actually an argument...  and your own definition posted above says exactly that...

Now at some point, being an engineer must give you cause to pause and examine where your expertise really lies...  I'm quite happy to give credit where its due..

*And by the way... show me where secrecy is a requirement...*

Also legal definition of words are not different to the common meanings, they are just are contextualised or more specific and defined to clarify what is intended for the application that they are being used in.  So when the legal meaning as defined says that "conspiracy" = an agreement between two or more people, with a formed intent to commit a crime, who act in a way that shows more that mere preparation has taken place....

then that is exactly true in the general usage as well....  an agreement to do something wrong or harmful or illegal, and some sort of act/s that shows that to be true is is the general application...

and guess what, you can't have your cake and eat it too.....  people used "conspiracy" to imply illegality, and they did that here.  You can't do that and then say thats not what it means...  what would be the point if not to claim that?

----------


## Sidney

Pretty sure they get legal advice on every issue going to court..  I know that they had advice before they followed through on the pistol grips case.... believe me they prefer not to follow through if they know that they are going to get spanked.  They were clearly hoping the result was going to be the other way around.
Lawyers argue cases every day for their clients who are hoping to change the legal interpretations of some statute and I guess that is all that is happening here.

The attitude of the police has definitely changed towards firearms ownership, my argument is that its just not a conspiracy...  it simply is what it is.  I think that that is their policy to minimise private ownership over the long term and making it harder for us will be the means by which that will be achieved.  This will come in the forms of support for further legislative restriction and in the form of policy that pushes legal boundaries.  They are no longer our friends in my view.

From what I can see the motivations are coming from different directions, health and safety of staff is likely to be one, budgetary costs another, and personally I think that the ideology within the department has changed.  There is also their own failings in terms of burglary prevention and clearance rate they would like to distract attention away from.  They have certainly lost any idea of their responsibility to protect our rights under the law...

So the net result is that the attitude towards firearms will likely continue to become more negative.   But I would say it is an agenda, and likely to be a policy...  every little policy writer and bureaucrat  spends their time fixing perceived problems and we have developed a culture of blame rather than responsibility...

Oh joy..........  I'm depressing myself

----------


## gadgetman

> Ah come on Gadget..
> 
> You know that just saying its wrong isn't actually an argument...  and your own definition posted above says exactly that...
> 
> Now at some point, being an engineer must give you cause to pause and examine where your expertise really lies...  I'm quite happy to give credit where its due..
> 
> *And by the way... show me where secrecy is a requirement...*
> 
> *Also legal definition of words are not different to the common meanings, they are just are contextualised or more specific and defined to clarify what is intended for the application that they are being used in.  So when the legal meaning as defined says that "conspiracy" = an agreement between two or more people, with a formed intent to commit a crime, who act in a way that shows more that mere preparation has taken place....
> ...


Now I think you have just gazumpt yourself. Conspiracy you have partly got right. But the legal bit uses it as part of a phrase. "Conspiracy to do _something illegal_." Now that is often defined in cases where it is not desirable for the actual crime to be committed. The classic being the law makers putting into force a law to make it illegal to plan to overthrow the legislature by force. The basic premise of our legal system being that you cannot be prosecuted for a crime you have not yet committed, so we have in a few instances where it is a crime to plan to do so. Now when you take the word out of your legal phrase and take a look at the word "conspiracy", it is just the common usage of the word which, in general, means a meeting in secret (or closed group) to plan.

----------


## gadgetman

> Pretty sure they get legal advice on every issue going to court..  I know that they had advice before they followed through on the pistol grips case.... believe me they prefer not to follow through if they know that they are going to get spanked.  They were clearly hoping the result was going to be the other way around.
> Lawyers argue cases every day for their clients who are hoping to change the legal interpretations of some statute and I guess that is all that is happening here.
> 
> The attitude of the police has definitely changed towards firearms ownership, my argument is that its just not a conspiracy...  it simply is what it is.  I think that that is their policy to minimise private ownership over the long term and making it harder for us will be the means by which that will be achieved.  This will come in the forms of support for further legislative restriction and in the form of policy that pushes legal boundaries.  They are no longer our friends in my view.
> 
> From what I can see the motivations are coming from different directions, health and safety of staff is likely to be one, budgetary costs another, and personally I think that the ideology within the department has changed.  There is also their own failings in terms of burglary prevention and clearance rate they would like to distract attention away from.  They have certainly lost any idea of their responsibility to protect our rights under the law...
> 
> So the net result is that the attitude towards firearms will likely continue to become more negative.   But I would say it is an agenda, and likely to be a policy...  every little policy writer and bureaucrat  spends their time fixing perceived problems and we have developed a culture of blame rather than responsibility...
> 
> Oh joy..........  I'm depressing myself


I agree. They sure have signalled that one. It is almost to the point where their view is so skewed that it would be time for the administrative task of firearms licensing to be removed from them.

----------


## Sidney

> Now I think you have just gazumpt yourself. Conspiracy you have partly got right. But the legal bit uses it as part of a phrase. "Conspiracy to do something illegal." Now that is often defined in cases where it is not desirable for the actual crime to be committed. The classic being the law makers putting into force a law to make it illegal to plan to overthrow the legislature by force. The basic premise of our legal system being that you cannot be prosecuted for a crime you have not yet committed, so we have in a few instances where it is a crime to plan to do so. Now when you take the word out of your legal phrase and take a look at the word "conspiracy", it is just the common usage of the word which, in general, means a meeting in secret (or closed group) to plan.


and yet that is a definition you have not put up..  you have paraphrased it several times I have not yet seem a formalised quote from some source.... in "general usage" doesn't count..

the point being however this is a discussion about legislation, obligation under the law, policy decisions made by agencies charged with enforcing the law..

there is no point in trying to introduce "general usage" into a discussion that is evaluating the behaviour of such an agency in that context..  it is entirely consistant to expect the legal meaning to be used in that way for that reason...

now if you want to have a discussion about the weather being out to get you, and its just a conspiracy that everytime you leave the house it rains on you.... then contextually that would be appropriate...

but that wasn't the implication in this discussion was it??

----------


## Sidney

> I agree. They sure have signalled that one. It is almost to the point where their view is so skewed that it would be time for the administrative task of firearms licensing to be removed from them.


I am wondering whether that might be the angle?

----------


## gadgetman

> and yet that is a definition you have not put up..  you have paraphrased it several times I have not yet seem a formalised quote from some source.... in "general usage" doesn't count..
> 
> the point being however this is a discussion about legislation, obligation under the law, policy decisions made by agencies charged with enforcing the law..
> 
> there is no point in trying to introduce "general usage" into a discussion that is evaluating the behaviour of such an agency in that context..  it is entirely consistant to expect the legal meaning to be used in that way for that reason...
> 
> now if you want to have a discussion about the weather being out to get you, and its just a conspiracy that everytime you leave the house it rains on you.... then contextually that would be appropriate...
> 
> but that wasn't the implication in this discussion was it??


The legal usage is made a legal usage by its use in a phrase (context), and I gave you a usage with coaches which is entirely correct for one that is not a crime. It does not have to be a plan for anything illegal by every dictionary definition I've seen. It is simply planning in secrecy (to at least some degree) so the word is quite simply a correct term to be used for PNHQ formulating a plan. Plain and simple. As I've stated many, many, many times, it is not a crime to conspire, but it is a crime to conspire to commit some crimes.

----------


## gadgetman

> I am wondering whether that might be the angle?


Yes. The old, "Do a job well and everyone will come to you to do it. Do it badly and people will go elsewhere."

----------


## Sidney

context is not just the phraseology used....  it is also the situation that it is being applied to..... you don't get out of it that easily...

the implication was obvious... and so was the intention..

----------


## gadgetman

> context is not just the phraseology used....  it is also the situation that it is being applied to..... you don't get out of it that easily...
> 
> the implication was obvious... and so was the intention..


And the context I used never mentioned nor implied any illegality, you tried to do that yourself. Simply that any closed meeting to formulate a plan to undermine the status quo, or disadvantage another party, does fit the dictionary meaning for conspiracy. Just as the potential to put a potato up the exhaust of any motor vehicle would fit the police description of a firearm and would mean by the police arms code that every motor vehicle owner/driver would require a firearms license and the usual vetting and storage that goes along with it. They both fit.

----------


## Sidney

except that they don't both fit... and that is the argument. Your meaning fits in a metaphoric sense to non legal situations, but no its not appropriate in this one.

we don't talk about a cabinet meeting as a conspiracy meeting.  Looney green politicians might, sort of why they are looney.  Nor do we talk about strategy and planning meetings as conspiracy meeting, private or not...  those meetings create advantage and disadvantage for people on every occasion and its inappropriate to use it then...

we only use that term, to imply illegality and or illegitimacy which was exactly the intention in this discussion.  Now when I question whether that illegality or illigitimacy actually exists, you're fall back position is that it didn't actually mean that...?? and apparently "undermine" and "disadvantage" are now the measure??
Show me that definition...

its common usage is to imply illegality and illigitimacy.... or intended illegality... which is precisely how it was used and intended...

c'mon  .....  the misapplication is obvious and not even useful.  It demeans the significance of the word.  Save it for obvious corruption not just policy you don't like or attempts to change the law you are not happy about.

----------


## Gibo

Get a room

----------


## Sidney

you all seem to want to watch....  lol

----------


## keneff

> except that they don't both fit... and that is the argument. Your meaning fits in a metaphoric sense to non legal situations, but no its not appropriate in this one.
> 
> we don't talk about a cabinet meeting as a conspiracy meeting.  Looney green politicians might, sort of why they are looney.  Nor do we talk about strategy and planning meetings as conspiracy meeting, private or not...  those meetings create advantage and disadvantage for people on every occasion and its inappropriate to use it then...
> 
> we only use that term, to imply illegality and or illegitimacy which was exactly the intention in this discussion.  Now when I question whether that illegality or illigitimacy actually exists, you're fall back position is that it didn't actually mean that...?? and apparently "undermine" and "disadvantage" are now the measure??
> Show me that definition...
> 
> its common usage is to imply illegality and illigitimacy.... or intended illegality... which is precisely how it was used and intended...
> 
> c'mon  .....  the misapplication is obvious and not even useful.  It demeans the significance of the word.  Save it for obvious corruption not just policy you don't like or attempts to change the law you are not happy about.


Semantics. Discuss this with people who have been charged with "conspiracy to commit" {various crimes}offences, or their lawyers.  Doesn't matter. T he lawmakers have decided that you CAN, in fact be charged with a crime you haven't committed by making the discussion of such crime -  a crime. So if you're talking with a mate about , ohhh, for example shooting a politician  in a few days when they come to your town, you are in a power of poo. Not for shooting the useless bastard, but for thinking about it and sharing your thoughts. We need a judge here, perhaps to define "conspiracy" and its qualifier, "to commit a specified crime". In the meantime, as per @Gibo, get a room.

----------


## Sidney

you wanna contribute... work on identifying the issue before bothering to analyse criminal conspiracy....  its not the point

otherwise piss off...  you don't get to decide what other people want to engage with...

----------


## gadgetman

> except that they don't both fit... and that is the argument. Your meaning fits in a metaphoric sense to non legal situations, but no its not appropriate in this one.
> 
> we don't talk about a cabinet meeting as a conspiracy meeting.  Looney green politicians might, sort of why they are looney.  Nor do we talk about strategy and planning meetings as conspiracy meeting, private or not...  those meetings create advantage and disadvantage for people on every occasion and its inappropriate to use it then...
> 
> we only use that term, to imply illegality and or illegitimacy which was exactly the intention in this discussion.  Now when I question whether that illegality or illigitimacy actually exists, you're fall back position is that it didn't actually mean that...?? and apparently "undermine" and "disadvantage" are now the measure??
> Show me that definition...
> 
> its common usage is to imply illegality and illigitimacy.... or intended illegality... which is precisely how it was used and intended...
> 
> c'mon  .....  the misapplication is obvious and not even useful.  It demeans the significance of the word.  Save it for obvious corruption not just policy you don't like or attempts to change the law you are not happy about.


dictionary.com




> an evil, unlawful, *treacherous*, or *surreptitious* plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.


oxforddictionaries.com




> A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or *harmful*.


thefreedictionary.com




> An agreement to perform together an illegal, *wrongful*, or *subversive* act.
>  A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design


macmillandictionary.com




> a secret plan by a group of people to do something *bad* or illegal, especially in politics


collinsdictionary.com




> A conspiracy is an agreement between a group of people which other people *think is wrong* or is *likely to be harmful*.


I and the vast majority of dictionaries beg to differ.

----------


## Beaker

> you all seem to want to watch....  lol


And that would be an assumption..... by a potential conspiracy......

However, I AM going to my/wife's room now.....  :Have A Nice Day:  and no you can't watch....  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Sidney

Gadget....   so you cant find undermine or disadvantage then?  To use it in the way it has been here is just hyperbole.  And you know it...

Mauser... you don't understand the system...  the court is the means by which the interpretation of the law is established...

going to court is part of the process...outcomes are not garanteed..  one case is of no consequence... 

pretty sure their game is trying to make your recreation more differcult.... they just don't care about you...   :Grin:

----------


## tiroatedson

Man you fellas must have some time on your hands(I know you're a bit crook gadget..). As this was going I actually did some work( fuck all admittedly) and went to a committee meeting. You guys ....??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## gadgetman

Not those words. But surreptitious, subversive, harmful, wrong, bad, ... cover it pretty nicely. Can you not read Sidney? They are all terms other than illegal that are very good matches.

----------


## gadgetman

> Man you fellas must have some time on your hands(I know you're a bit crook gadget..). As this was going I actually did some work( fuck all admittedly) and went to a committee meeting. You guys ....??
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm still laid up pretty bad. Managed to get up for 1/2 an hour but was pretty much crawling back to lie down. Not looking too flash.  :Sick: 

Still this trolling lark is a fun way to take my mind of the pain. Not that I'm intentionally trying to troll, just pointing out that one word in particular is not tied to a narrow trade definition.

----------


## tiroatedson

> I'm still laid up pretty bad. Managed to get up for 1/2 an hour but was pretty much crawling back to lie down. Not looking too flash. 
> 
> Still this trolling lark is a fun way to take my mind of the pain. Not that I'm intentionally trying to troll, just pointing out that one word in particular is not tied to a narrow trade definition.


All good gadget. Just taking the Micky a little bit. I know where you're coming from I have suspicions myself


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## gadgetman

> All good gadget. Just taking the Micky a little bit. I know where you're coming from I have suspicions myself
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


We're in agreement overall, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

----------


## tiroatedson

> We're in agreement overall, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark."


Yep. Hope ya back sorts itself out. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Sidney

Mauser...

I don't agree that you do understand...

the police's business is interpreting law...  they have to maintain their own budgets but its their call.  They are always asking the court for interpretations, making appeals, and that case is just normal business.

The Dept of Labour/OSH thing is not comparative, they were avoiding potential prosecution... this is not their core business...

I agree that they don't like losing, I disagree that that loss was any huge disadvantage..  Want proof of that... watch this space,  the legislation will get changed.

and its still not a conspiracy... :Grin:

----------


## Sidney

> Not those words. But surreptitious, subversive, harmful, wrong, bad, ... cover it pretty nicely. Can you not read Sidney? They are all terms other than illegal that are very good matches.


I can read fine Gadget, can u not understand...?

Words can be used anywhere, and the meaning might even pass the standard of the ill-informed, but that doesn't make it correct or even appropriate.

Its a discussion involving legality, using the word in that context implies a legal meaning, so the use of the word needs to be considered in that light.  The logic of that seems to escape you.

However, even your softer and less rigorous meanings all require illegality, being wrong, doing evil, being subvertive (which is illegal) being bad whatever that means....... none of which has actually happened that you can establish.  If you are going to define bad or wrong with just your opinion that don't count, I am guessing that most the wider community won't have a problem with more restrictive gun laws.

Not only has that not happened, a conspiracy requires an agreement to be all or some of the above, and to form an agreement intentionally.... and you haven't established that either.

So it just doesn't apply, whether you are capable of understanding it or not....  the outcomes do not fit the standard that even your definitions specify and there is no agreement and no intention that you can establish.

The only thing I am learning out of this is that clearly my communication skills are letting me down.... I obviously have to work on that.. 

Its more polite to assume that than the other...   :Grin:

----------


## gadgetman

> I can read fine Gadget, can u not understand...?
> 
> Words can be used anywhere, and the meaning might even pass the standard of the ill-informed, but that doesn't make it correct or even appropriate.
> 
> Its a discussion involving legality, using the word in that context implies a legal meaning, so the use of the word needs to be considered in that light.  The logic of that seems to escape you.
> 
> However, even your softer and less rigorous meanings all require illegality, being wrong, doing evil, being subvertive (which is illegal) being bad whatever that means....... none of which has actually happened that you can establish.  If you are going to define bad or wrong with just your opinion that don't count, I am guessing that most the wider community won't have a problem with more restrictive gun laws.
> 
> Not only has that not happened, a conspiracy requires an agreement to be all or some of the above, and to form an agreement intentionally.... and you haven't established that either.
> ...


Again, no legal implication was implied, nor need it be. Once you grasp that simple concept it all fits. That's what all those other words next to illegal mean in the dictionary quotes. I never stated a conspiracy to commit X crime, which would imply illegality. I simply said that they met in a close session to implement other groups  which does constitute conspiracy. If you cannot grasp that simple fact there is no point arguing until you can.

----------


## Sidney

if that was your intention, that just leaves you being mistaken then doesn't it.. because every person in the street is going to think that that a conspiracy involves illegality...

The general meaning is exactly that in peoples minds...  which of course is the reason that you used the word in the first place...

however if what you claim was what was intended, you still don't meet the standard and its a lower one...

but you're right we have reached the end....

----------


## gadgetman

> if that was your intention, that just leaves you being mistaken then doesn't it.. because every person in the street is going to think that that a conspiracy involves illegality...
> 
> The general meaning is exactly that in peoples minds...  which of course is the reason that you used the word in the first place...
> 
> however if what you claim was what was intended, you still don't meet the standard and its a lower one...
> 
> but you're right we have reached the end....


Everyone I have asked thinks that illegality is not a requirement. Every dictionary has illegality as one of many subjects of the conspiracy, but not a requirement. It appears you are the one who is implying illegality is a requirement, which is at complete odds to all the dictionaries and everyone I've met.

That does remind me of a good joke. Might see if I can find it somewhere.

----------


## Sidney

> however even if what you claim was what was intended, you still don't meet the standard and its a lower one.....


you might want to ignore that but you can't actually...

----------


## gadgetman

> you might want to ignore that but you can't actually...


You simply cannot accept that it does most definitely meet the standard.

----------


## Sidney

Wheres the agreement to do anything "bad"

----------


## Jexla

/thread pls

----------


## gadgetman

> Wheres the agreement to do anything "bad"


 :Wtfsmilie: 

Have you not worked out what this thread is about?

----------


## Nickoli

> Mauser...
> 
> I don't agree that you do understand...
> 
> the police's business is interpreting law...  they have to maintain their own budgets but its their call.  They are always asking the court for interpretations, making appeals, and that case is just normal business.
> 
> The Dept of Labour/OSH thing is not comparative, they were avoiding potential prosecution... this is not their core business...
> 
> I agree that they don't like losing, I disagree that that loss was any huge disadvantage..  Want proof of that... watch this space,  the legislation will get changed.
> ...


The court's role is interpreting the law....the Police are the executive.
...and if the court finds against the Police, then they have acted outside the law.
The life has been sucked from this thread - and I have read the whole thing. :Grin:  End correspondence.

----------


## Sidney

Mate the executive is cabinet. or more particularly the formed govt. ffs everyone got an opinion even if they just dont know what they just dont know

----------


## paulyc

I recently had my 20 year FAL renewal. It took 9 months from application to actual licence being renewed...Good job Police, very efficient.  Lucky my company does not take as long to do things or I would be broke. Anyway...a lot of dumb questions like " what to you think of your ex wife and how do you get on with her. I said I hated the bitch and we never spoke. Later I decided that was not the correct answer but then it was too late. Anyway, I have a large gun storage area that conforms to E Cat, even though I only have A cats. Anyways the interrogation started then, she wanted models and makes and calibers. I was very unhappy about it and questioned it, she stated it was policy now, I asked whos policy and she said her senior FAL officers. Everything I said or did was scribbled down on her documents. She did eventually get all gun makes and models. She then started on collecting serial numbers and I said, " seriously ????  now we have to start again" and she lost interest. Since then , me being me have decided its time to get rid of a lot of my guns and re invest in others. At no stage during the interview was I privy to what she was writing down, she got me to sign it without giving me fair time to read it and then left. I do wonder how stupid I was to sign it. But the whole time I was trying not to piss her off and when she was queried it did not go down that well. Police over step...yes.

----------


## Sidney

its a conspiracy....

----------


## Nickoli

> Mate the executive is cabinet. or more particularly the formed govt. ffs everyone got an opinion even if they just dont know what they just dont know


My unreserved apologies - a mistake on my part, but you could be forgiven for assuming the Police (given their current approach) think they are the Executive, judge, jury and executioner.... My other points still stand: in my humble opinion.

----------


## gadgetman

> its a conspiracy....


Good of you to finally concede. Though you'd already lost when you put up a challenge for me to find dictionary definitions that had things other than illegal acts as the subject of the conspiracy. That done you then tried to ignore those overwhelming definitions. I really expected better from you.

----------


## Sidney

no wonder you don't get it gadg..  u can't even pick up sarcasm.... its not even close...lol

don't worry about expecting better from me...  you have to understand the arguments before you can determine deficancy..

----------


## gadgetman

> no wonder you don't get it gadg..  u can't even pick up sarcasm.... its not even close...lol
> 
> don't worry about expecting better from me...  you have to understand the arguments before you can determine deficancy..


I know it was sarcasm, along with my initial response above. However you have not put up one single argument, not shown any reference, to back your disagreement with anyone's use of the word conspiracy. The word conspire is derived from the Latin con - together and spire - breathe and simple means to get together and quietly plan, to share breath, to plan. Conspiracy is simply the plan that results. I know where the deficiency lies. If you seriously do not think PNHQ have a plan ...

----------


## gonetropo

> I recently had my 20 year FAL renewal. It took 9 months from application to actual licence being renewed...Good job Police, very efficient.  Lucky my company does not take as long to do things or I would be broke. Anyway...a lot of dumb questions like " what to you think of your ex wife and how do you get on with her. I said I hated the bitch and we never spoke. Later I decided that was not the correct answer but then it was too late. Anyway, I have a large gun storage area that conforms to E Cat, even though I only have A cats. Anyways the interrogation started then, she wanted models and makes and calibers. I was very unhappy about it and questioned it, she stated it was policy now, I asked whos policy and she said her senior FAL officers. Everything I said or did was scribbled down on her documents. She did eventually get all gun makes and models. She then started on collecting serial numbers and I said, " seriously ????  now we have to start again" and she lost interest. Since then , me being me have decided its time to get rid of a lot of my guns and re invest in others. At no stage during the interview was I privy to what she was writing down, she got me to sign it without giving me fair time to read it and then left. I do wonder how stupid I was to sign it. But the whole time I was trying not to piss her off and when she was queried it did not go down that well. Police over step...yes.


any chance this was a dopey bitch interviewer in christchurch? arms office is good but their  vetter is a pain in the arse

----------


## stug

> any chance this was a dopey bitch interviewer in christchurch? arms office is good but their  vetter is a pain in the arse


Move out to Oxford/Rangiora the vetter out here is great, although unfortunately not a young man so probably won't be doing it next time I need to re-new in 10 years.

----------


## gadgetman

> Move out to Oxford/Rangiora the vetter out here is great, although unfortunately not a young man so probably won't be doing it next time I need to re-new in 10 years.


Starting to wonder how crazy it's going to be in a couple of years time when I have to update mine.

----------


## paulyc

Its not just the Vetter, its the Police as a whole. More over the past years I have been feeling more and more "watched". I have been contacted by the Police for putting my business address on a NZ Visa entry card and was accused of breaking the law by moving and not advising them. Additionally to note I am 50. Never been in any trouble and then this happens.... I had an altercation with a neighbour, nothing serious just swore at him and gave him the finger. Anyway I get a phone call from the Police, wanting "a friendly little chat" . So I went to the Police station as asked and was promptly moved to a private room and read my rights. I was then told that the neighbour had made a complaint about me and BECAUSE I had a FAL they decided to interview me. I spent the next hour explaining myself like I was a criminal. I eventually proved that the person lied and was escorted out. When was it that a law abiding gun owner became  a criminal waiting to happen ?

----------


## stug

Next time that happens and they read you your rights, exercise your right to a lawyer, shutup and say nothing. Ask if you have been arrested.

Your rights with Police | New Zealand Police

Your rights with Police
If you are questioned, detained or arrested by Police, your legal rights are:

You have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer, in private and without delay
You have the right to refrain from making a statement
You have the right to ask why you are being questioned, detained, or arrested.
Police have a list of the names and phone numbers of lawyers qualified to give advice and who have agreed to be contacted any time, day or night. Ask the Police for the list of Police Detention Legal Assistance Lawyers (link is external).

----------


## zimmer

> Move out to Oxford/Rangiora the vetter out here is great, although unfortunately not a young man so probably won't be doing it next time I need to re-new in 10 years.


Our guy is mid 70s. Initially took on the job part time to help out.......now 10 years later.....
Found him to be very good/professional, no bullshit like others are experiencing.
No querky left field questions like I am hearing elsewhere.
Just goes to show up the issue of non standardisation region to region.

Have 2 shooting mates who are retired AOs (should I admit to know in them ha ha). Both in their 70s when they retired.

stug, your guy may have a bit of mileage left in him yet.

----------


## Steve123

> Our guy is mid 70s. Took on the job part time to help out.......now 10 years later.
> Found him to be very good/professional, no bullshit like others are experiencing.
> No querky left field questions like I am hearing elsewhere.
> Just goes to show up the issue of non standardisation region to region.
> 
> Have 2 shooting mates (should I admit that) who are retired AOs. Both in their 70s when they retired.


Is that the guy for Counties Manukau? He was great, even hung around while I was looking for another bolt to put in the floor.

----------


## zimmer

> Is that the guy for Counties Manukau? He was great, even hung around while I was looking for another bolt to put in the floor.


Yup

----------


## Sidney

> I know it was sarcasm, along with my initial response above. However you have not put up one single argument, not shown any reference, to back your disagreement with anyone's use of the word conspiracy. The word conspire is derived from the Latin con - together and spire - breathe and simple means to get together and quietly plan, to share breath, to plan. Conspiracy is simply the plan that results. I know where the deficiency lies. If you seriously do not think PNHQ have a plan ...


see there u go again.... not understanding the arguments, or in your case apparently not even seeing the arguments...its pretty obvious, well it is if this actually what you do....

First don't try the original meaning crap...  nobody on here interprets "to conspire" as being to "to breath together" and that meaning is acknowledged as not being comtemporary in the general commentary.

to conspire = is to plan a "bad" outcome... at the most basic simplistic level. Secrecy/privacy is not a key component.

First level analysis
plan = intentional agreement..
bad = in every definition illegality is descriptive of what is meant, other words used are descriptive of illegality... subvert, wrong, evil.."bad" .etc  most of which will be illegal.  Words like "disadvantaged and undermine" that you used are not sufficient.
result/outcome = has to be capable of being delivered, must be "bad"

Next level..
Intentional- the result must be intended.. by all making the agreement... incompetant individuals are not evidence of intentional agreement
agreement- the intention has to exist to do something "bad"....  ignorance of the law is not an excuse, however for the intention to exist its differcult to seperate "guilty knowledge" in terms of the agreement...  the agreement must be proven..
result - in the abscence of result conspiracy may have existed, but its just harder to prove.

Effect
all of the key components are required before a conspiracy is established.  a plan and a result is not a conspiracy..
*It must be an intentional plan formed by mutual agreement, to do something that for all intents and purposes reaches the level of illegality or similar level of seriousness.  That result must be achievable, but does not have to be achieved.*

And that is the general interpretation, of what is contempory meaning.  The purely legal application simply firms up illegality.

Now frankly your level of comprehension about this is questionable in the way you applied it here..

You cannot establish any agreement exists to do something "bad"...  the intention of the police may well be disadvantagous to us, but it doesn't reach the level of seriousness required to qualify.  The rest of the discussion becomes irrelevant at that point.

Secondally the argument of public safety mitigates what you might consider a "bad" outcome for private firearms ownership restriction.  The police are reponsible for public safety.  That role is legitimate and created in legislation.  You can argue about it all you like in terms of its effect on you, but a strategy to reduce private arms ownership, if that exists it cannot be considered "bad" objectively... and that is the measure here, not your subjective opinion.

It therefore follows that intentional knowledge cannot be established either.  If its not "bad" the intent cannot exist.

Results/Outcome = are inconclusive in terms of being evidence of something "bad".  An errant Arms Code with a misapplication of "things that can be used to create a firearm" (creating only ineffectiveness and misunderstanding) or AO's that don't understand the effect of the law, speaks to incompetance, more than a systematic organised and effective conspiritorial plan.  Thats hysterical.

Implied meaning...  you may have not intended any of this in your use of "conspiracy"... but nobody has the ability to see inside your little head to understand what exactly you mean by it, at the time that you use the word.  The intention and the meaning can only be implied from where it is being put.  This discussion was and is legal in context its perfectly rational to question the use of "conspiricy" in that context.

Your correctly argue that conspiracy can have a softer interpretation, but that is a more descriptive and metaphoric meaning and the type of meaning is again dervived from the context where it is used.

Where a word has multiple possible meanings or applications, what is intended can only be derived from the context in where it is placed.  

Your use was a misapplication in this discussion, a conspiracy cannot be established to be the case, and your intention in using it was at the least hyperbolic and more likely to be deliberately inflammatory.  That is not helpful.  A realistic appraisel of the threats to our interests does not include the implied conspiracy/tin foil hat paranoia strategy, because that directly affects our credibilty.

Now a wee hint for you.. all of the above is explanation and argument.  Most of the above is contained in my earlier posts.  I previously paid you a certain level of compliment by not completely breaking it down, assuming capacity.  Now, we have established your need for a more comphrehensive explanation, evidenced by analysis of this level of competance..



> However you have not put up one single argument, not shown any reference, to back your disagreement with anyone's use of the word conspiracy.


Being an internet forum, I am not going to reference everything for you.... I am relying on my knowledge, my education, my recall and my analytical skills to create argument.  I guess you've got wiki...

----------


## Sidney

> Its not just the Vetter, its the Police as a whole. More over the past years I have been feeling more and more "watched". I have been contacted by the Police for putting my business address on a NZ Visa entry card and was accused of breaking the law by moving and not advising them. Additionally to note I am 50. Never been in any trouble and then this happens.... I had an altercation with a neighbour, nothing serious just swore at him and gave him the finger. Anyway I get a phone call from the Police, wanting "a friendly little chat" . So I went to the Police station as asked and was promptly moved to a private room and read my rights. I was then told that the neighbour had made a complaint about me and BECAUSE I had a FAL they decided to interview me. I spent the next hour explaining myself like I was a criminal. I eventually proved that the person lied and was escorted out. When was it that a law abiding gun owner became a criminal waiting to happen ?


Thats not pleasant..

But they don't know you, would you suggest that the police don't investigate those situations?

Domestic situations, families neighbours are the majority cause of serious outcomes...

What is the solution to that do you think? How would you feel if your daughter had a potentially dodgy neighbour with a FAL and the police didn't check it out after she made a complaint?

Stug is right...in general...  but that decision has to be based on what impression you want to convey.  Refusal to talk increases interest..

----------


## gadgetman

So the dictionaries are all incorrect and the only acceptable opinion in this world is yours? Just because the legal fraternity has borrowed a common word and used it that word is no longer usable in it's non legal context? You have yet again failed to grasp the basics. I am not talking about any level of legal threshold. Simply put conspire means 'to plan' and conspiracy means 'a plan'.

The references in this thread merely indicate the participants belief that Police have a *plan* to implement changes, legal or not, that will negatively affect their firearms ownership. It is only *YOU* that seems to think that there is some sort of implication that there is some illegality.

Conspire Synonyms, Conspire Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

The criteria is simple:

Two or more people formulate a plan to do something harmful, bad, illegal, .... pick whatever you want. This can be done over the interweb via closed forum, email, phone, face to face.

And as far as my wee head goes, post your accredited IQ and see if it beats mine.

----------


## gadgetman

> Thats not pleasant..
> 
> But they don't know you, would you suggest that the police don't investigate those situations?
> 
> Domestic situations, families neighbours are the majority cause of serious outcomes...
> 
> What is the solution to that do you think? How would you feel if your daughter had a potentially dodgy neighbour with a FAL and the police didn't check it out after she made a complaint?
> 
> Stug is right...in general...  but that decision has to be based on what impression you want to convey.  Refusal to talk increases interest..


I agree. It is what we sign up for when we apply for a FAL. Also why we tend to be the most compliant group they have to deal with, we have to keep the record fairly clean or they can make life difficult. They have been caught out by not acting in the past and that has resulted in this whole MSSA fiasco.

----------


## Sidney

gadge u could have a very big head, what has that got to do with the size of your IQ?  thats not how it works..  lol

didn't say they were incorrect, you just don't appear to understand them - the other words they use to convey meaning, also have meaning

u must have missed this bit.. well apparently u have missed all the other argument..




> It must be an intentional plan formed by mutual agreement, to do something that for all intents and purposes reaches the level of illegality or similar level of seriousness. That result must be achievable, but does not have to be achieved.


the point being that it doesn't..  it has to be an objective assessment of a serious nature not subjective disadvantage to a small group...

Its also within the legal purvue of the police role...  so it still doesn't apply..

C'mon claim IQ...  be nice to see some use for it

----------


## Ryan

> Our guy is mid 70s. Initially took on the job part time to help out.......now 10 years later.....
> Found him to be very good/professional, no bullshit like others are experiencing.
> No querky left field questions like I am hearing elsewhere.
> Just goes to show up the issue of non standardisation region to region.
> 
> Have 2 shooting mates who are retired AOs (should I admit to know in them ha ha). Both in their 70s when they retired.
> 
> stug, your guy may have a bit of mileage left in him yet.


My AO / vetter is also an older gent. Kinda reminds me of an older Hunter S. Thompson. Very easy to get on with, showed me some pictures of some engineer who'd created an 80 round 10/22 magazine the last time I saw him.

----------


## gadgetman

> gadge u could have a very big head, what has that got to do with the size of your IQ?  thats not how it works..  lol
> 
> didn't say they were incorrect, you just don't appear to understand them - the other words they use to convey meaning, also have meaning
> 
> u must have missed this bit.. well apparently u have missed all the other argument..
> 
> 
> 
> the point being that it doesn't..  it has to be an objective assessment of a serious nature not subjective disadvantage to a small group...
> ...


And some comprehension in return would come in handy too. That criteria is not required to be met. As has been stated many, many, many times this is the common non legal system use of the word. You are yet again trying to meet some threshold that is inapplicable.

And you are right about head size, I have trouble finding helmets small enough. Ended up changing motorbikes to one that matched the only helmet I could buy that fitted.

----------


## Gibo

Fuck up you cunts. Talk about derail a fucking thread with your ego shit

----------


## gadgetman

> My AO / vetter is also an older gent. Kinda reminds me of an older Hunter S. Thompson. Very easy to get on with, showed me some pictures of some engineer who'd created an 80 round 10/22 magazine the last time I saw him.


I had an older ex fire fighter vet me first time round. He was really good and helpful. From handing in the form to getting the plastic was 2-3 weeks.

----------


## Ryan

> Fuck up you cunts. Talk about derail a fucking thread with your ego shit

----------


## nzfubz

:Thumbsup:

----------


## Gibo

Sorry for the language but shit man

----------


## gadgetman

> Sorry for the language but shit man


Gibo, will you be happier when I can walk again and not be stuck behind the keyboard? I know I will be.

----------


## Gibo

Yes  :Grin:

----------


## Maca49

Paula has done reasonably well?

----------


## gadgetman

> Paula has done reasonably well?


So well, Maca, I can't really believe she is a politician.

Damn that sounds like an ad, "You know you're socking in it, right?"

----------


## Carpe Diem

I think she had some pretty good help. The independent group she sought out was a political master stroke, allowed her time and appropriateness of the issues (and evaluate backlash) before coming up with the ministerial guidance.

For us it allowed the different factions in police assn and HQ to show there true colours. And gave us a opportunity to find our voice.

Well done- but let's all keep a weather eye. People on the other side haven't been crowbarred out of their positions of pseudo power yet...

----------


## zimmer

Just need to be aware that this episode is not quite completed yet. To quote from the message sent out to SSANZ members -

"Remember before any of the recommendations become law there will be a further round of consultation as any new Bill proceeds through the Select Committee stage".

So emails to MPs on the topic should still continue especially with September looming.

----------


## PERRISCICABA

So, guys, what kind of "conspiracy" are "we" all planing to make things better??? So far everything "i" read is everyone against everyone, everyone is right on their views but nowhere to see "anyone" to combine "forces"(experiences) to come up with some kind of "agreement" that will make things "better" what our "society class" need is union not disagreements

Lets put the "ego" aside and work together, lets don't "worry" about the "secret meetings" they have but lets make our views me seen and or heard!

Cheers.

Mac

----------


## Sidney

> Fuck up you cunts. Talk about derail a fucking thread with your ego shit


oh sorry, I must have missed the bit in the dictionary that said I should give all due consideration to what you think....  

so just below this text is a picture of me giving all due consideration....  can u see the look on my face?

----------


## Sidney

> So, guys, what kind of "conspiracy" are "we" all planing to make things better??? So far everything "i" read is everyone against everyone, everyone is right on their views but nowhere to see "anyone" to combine "forces"(experiences) to come up with some kind of "agreement" that will make things "better"… what our "society class" need is union not disagreements…
> 
> Lets put the "ego" aside and work together, lets don't "worry" about the "secret meetings" they have but lets make our views me seen and or heard!
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> Mac


If you want to have any sort of impact, how about not using language that is inflammatory or ruins our credibility... 

You want to talk to people that make laws? quit the emotional exageration and learn what is meant by the words you use, because you see, they understand what conspiracy means and they know what is implied when you use words like that.  Their next assumption is that they are talking to a bunch of hicks.

Choose the words that are appropriate to the subject matter and secondly apropriate to your audience....

Learn what you don't know... thats always a good start..  I don't know much about electronics, but then again I never claimed to...

You people need all the friends you can get in this area, its only going to get worse...  but hey what do I know?... perhaps you could consult an engineer?

It's all a big conspiracy after all   :Grin:

----------


## Jexla

> Paula has done reasonably well?


Like I said in the other thread, this result shows the power of social media.

----------


## gadgetman

> Like I said in the other thread, this result shows the power of social media.


It certainly does. Puts voters in a more visible spot and allows points of view to be expressed.

----------


## muzza

and a predictably whiny response from the NZ Police Association , who seem to think they have been hard done by. Suck it up princesses......

https://www.policeassn.org.nz/newsro...-firearms-cont

----------


## Sidney

great job actually....

she's impressive, shows an ability to cut throught the BS and willingness to accept the scruitiny that comes with...

might pay to try and keep her in the job....

----------


## Husky1600

Thats a reasonable outcome, maybe, especially as its pre election. And to Paula Bennett, thank you for at least listening to what we had to say. NOW as for that other BS in the NZPA Press release, I aint got the time to go through it cos as far as I'm concerned its been written by a blatant liar, but how much of those statistics that hes rolled out are actually true? Or is it just another bunch of porkies fed to Joe public by a consumate liar?

----------


## Nickoli

> If you want to have any sort of impact, how about not using language that is inflammatory or ruins our credibility... 
> 
> You want to talk to people that make laws? quit the emotional exageration and learn what is meant by the words you use, because you see, they understand what conspiracy means and they know what is implied when you use words like that.  Their next assumption is that they are talking to a bunch of hicks.
> 
> Choose the words that are appropriate to the subject matter and secondly apropriate to your audience....
> 
> Learn what you don't know... thats always a good start..  I don't know much about electronics, but then again I never claimed to...
> 
> You people need all the friends you can get in this area, its only going to get worse...  but hey what do I know?... perhaps you could consult an engineer?
> ...


Sidney - I agree with what you point out here, it makes sense and is reasonable; but it must get awfully cold and lonely up there in your ivory tower...
Your opinion is the same as ours until it is tested in court (albeit there is some precedent yadayadayada about interpretation and all that crap).
People are upset about the current approach, I'm sure you get this - but acting like Systolic dishing out your thoughts discounts your opinion (it may be right - but as you have acknowledged - your communication needs work if people are to avoid discounting it as pedantic "wankery").
Back on topic - and climbing down from my own ivory tower - don't be a dick; thanks for the free legal advice (I'm assuming your qualified and not a student pushing the boundaries...) :Cool:

----------


## Jexla

> It certainly does. Puts voters in a more visible spot and allows points of view to be expressed.


We've been compared to the NRA thanks to being an active community and thanks to social media.

For anyone who missed Cahill on the radio today:

Police: Rejection of firearms advice will mean &#39;more people being shot&#39;

----------


## Tommy

> We've been compared to the NRA thanks to being an active community and thanks to social media.
> 
> For anyone who missed Cahill on the radio today:
> 
> Police: Rejection of firearms advice will mean 'more people being shot'


Being compared to the NRA isn't a bad thing. They are very effective.

----------


## Jexla

> Being compared to the NRA isn't a bad thing. They are very effective.


Very true, he also claimed that we're not willing to give an inch.

He's probably right, doing that has only got us in the shitfest we're in today.

----------


## gadgetman

> Very true, he also claimed that we're not willing to give an inch.
> 
> He's probably right, doing that has only got us in the shitfest we're in today.


I wonder if they finally figured out that when backed up against the wall you've immediately removed one of the flight or fight response options.

----------


## Sidney

> Sidney - I agree with what you point out here, it makes sense and is reasonable; but it must get awfully cold and lonely up there in your ivory tower...
> Your opinion is the same as ours until it is tested in court (albeit there is some precedent yadayadayada about interpretation and all that crap).
> People are upset about the current approach, I'm sure you get this - but acting like Systolic dishing out your thoughts discounts your opinion (it may be right - but as you have acknowledged - your communication needs work if people are to avoid discounting it as pedantic "wankery").
> Back on topic - and climbing down from my own ivory tower - don't be a dick; thanks for the free legal advice (I'm assuming your qualified and not a student pushing the boundaries...)


haven't given any legal advice fella.. just basic communication skills...    

you can discount my opinion as much as you want, provided of course you can provide a real argument to do so.  Thats the system fella..

in so far as pedantic wankery is concerned, you could assume that smarter people might know when to not engage with experts in it.....

----------


## GravelBen

> You want to talk to people that make laws? quit the emotional exageration and learn what is meant by the words you use...


Imagine if the police association tried that!

----------


## Danger Mouse

> Very true, he also claimed that we're not willing to give an inch.
> 
> He's probably right, doing that has only got us in the shitfest we're in today.


he conveniently doesnt state that this is a result of UNLAWFUL police actions and extreme demands by them.

----------


## gadgetman

Oh Sidney. Did you really? Did you stoop to cheap inuendo, along with petty attempts to name call/put down? Along with total failure at mind reading! That is indeed a measure of the man that completely runs out of valid argument. Very poor loosing form chap.


For the last time, there need not be any illegality, so your threshold does not apply. I have put so much straight in front of you that you choose to ignore but everyone else can see.

You will make a great lawyer.

Hope this reads Ok, I'm laughing so much my eyes are watering and I can barely see.

----------


## Sidney

lemme see... you can't rebutt any of my argument, people you talk to is your "resource" to form opinion, you clearly can't work out that words used in dictionary definitions are not singular, perscripitive and limiting, but are contextual, descriptive and compound in application and I don't have any valid argument?

Wee new flash... saying that I don't have an argument doesn't make it so.  Endless repetition of that doesn't either..  it don't help you..

why do you think that u won something... ?  U have no chance of winning this argument, cause you don't get it, by your own admission....

and by the way...... 
       I only use my "loosing form" for getting my shoes off at night... 
       Innuendo is just a mexican suposititory, and because you seem pretty good at self administration, I'll leave that for you.  kinda fitting, trophy for the "winner".....
 :Grin: 

by the way calling you an engineer isn't an insult is it?

----------


## gadgetman

> lemme see... you can't rebutt any of my argument, people you talk to is your "resource" to form opinion, you clearly can't work out that words used in dictionary definitions are not singular, perscripitive and limiting, but are contextual, descriptive and compound in application and I don't have any valid argument?
> 
> Wee new flash... saying that I don't have an argument doesn't make it so.  Endless repetition of that doesn't either..  it don't help you..
> 
> why do you think that u won something... ?  U have no chance of winning this argument, cause you don't get it, by your own admission....
> 
> and by the way...... 
>        I only use my "loosing form" for getting my shoes off at night... 
>        Innuendo is just a mexican suposititory, and because you seem pretty good at self administration, I'll leave that for you.  kinda fitting, trophy for the "winner".....
> ...


No matter how hard you try to hammer the large square peg is will not fit in the small round hole. I have provided you with ample references to show that in fact the word conspiracy simple means 'a plan' in the big wide world outside of your narrow area of study. It does not have to have be hammered into your very narrow world, where in the context it was presented it stands quite happily. If you do not wish to accept that then you have admitted defeat. The choice of whether you accept it is entirely up to you.




> in so far as pedantic wankery is concerned, you could assume that smarter people might know when to not engage with experts in it.....


And innuendo like this is the adult form of snivelling. It is not becoming of you. Please pick yourself up, blow your nose, open the curtains and look at the big wide world out there. Put your books down more often and get out there and enjoy it.

By the way you only think that it requires an expert in the legal field because that is where you are trying to shift it. But that is not where it belongs. Accept it.

----------


## Sideshow

You two should get a room :Fighting:  :Fighting:

----------


## Sasquatch

More people being shot he reckons because of the rejected recommendations... I don't know about that, unless they're planning to shoot us FAL holders for not being bullied in to this! 

As for Chris Cahills other comments on the radio interview, who are all these "hunters & duck hunters" he keeps referring too?? And to add he dreams up that a "majority" of us law abiding licence owners would of accepted at least _half_  of the recommendations from the report.

----------


## Sidney

> By the way you only think that it requires an expert in the legal field because that is where you are trying to shift it. But that is not where it belongs. Accept it.


no, not if you get it right... you quite entitled to get it right, if you keep getting it right eventually you become an expert, if you don't you should probably learn to rely on one more often.  Arguing that a meaning of a word, that use isn't appropriate in the context that it is being can be used  or that doesn't meet the expections of those reading it in that context, is simply misapplication.  Nobody said it couldn't be used in different ways in more applicable contexts.

But you are not off to a good start so far.  what lawyers are trained to do is to interpret and apply, words, words in context and the intention of where and how they are used.  Its a general level of competance that has application in business, education, politics and in all other areas of society .  Short of specific study of language, lawyers are one of the few groups that are trained in this area.  Narrow area of study, what in the opinion of an engineer??    youre fricken hilarious...
 :Grin: 
this sort of illustrates your comphrehension problems...  



> *in so far as pedantic wankery is concerned, you could assume that smarter people might know when to not engage with experts in it.....*
> And innuendo like this is the adult form of snivelling. It is not becoming of you. Please pick yourself up, blow your nose, open the curtains and look at the big wide world out there. Put your books down more often and get out there and enjoy it.


let me spell this one out for you...

I am a pedantic wanker, I consider myself an expert in it.  If you were smart you would avoid tangling with the pedantic wanker.....

its called self deprecation fella...  and its clear to me why you don't get this argument, you can't work stuff out...  

by the way, you are still tangling with me... :Grin:

----------


## gadgetman

The fulcrum of your entire argument it that the word 'conspiracy' which means the noun 'plan' must be only used in a legal context. It was proved that it stood alone outside that context, and I'd already checked before first posting it. Your fulcrum to leverage it out of the wider usage into your little corner of expertise failed. It's over.

----------


## Ryan

10+ pages of this and still counting...  :Sick:

----------


## Danger Mouse

> More people being shot he reckons because of the rejected recommendations... I don't know about that, unless they're planning to shoot us FAL holders for not being bullied in to this! 
> 
> As for Chris Cahills other comments on the radio interview, who are all these "hunters & duck hunters" he keeps referring too?? And to add he dreams up that a "majority" of us law abiding licence owners would of accepted at least _half_  of the recommendations from the report.


Its just cahill lying again. He did state that he reads some of these forums and i suspect Kiwi gun blog. Accuses us of NRA style lobbying and refusing to budge. Well  cahill you lying prick YOU created this situation. YOU lied and deceived, YOU publicly advocated for unaccepted and ineffective (and sometimes changes to what we already have you idiot) changes  toward firearms. And then when we, the law abiding, publicly reject your changes and the associated breach of our rights, such as privacy and property rights, You attempt to deamonize us. YOU created this monster cahill. We have had enough, and we are resisting the unjustified proposals by you, and unlawful actions by nz police. 

YOU have attempted to portray us as extremists and unfit for society, when ironically, it is YOUR lack of integrity that is displaying this. We will resist your absurd demands, and continue to show you up for the liar that you are.

----------


## stug

The funny thing is next time Cahill says something I can't see Paula Bennett listening very hard. He has done himself (or the Police) no favours by his criticism.

----------


## Sidney

> The fulcrum of your entire argument it that the word 'conspiracy' which means the noun 'plan' must be only used in a legal context. It was proved that it stood alone outside that context, and I'd already checked before first posting it. Your fulcrum to leverage it out of the wider usage into your little corner of expertise failed. It's over.


Nope - I always said it required that in this application, I have always said that the context determines the interpretation..... 

provide the quote where I said that  it must only be used in a legal context for all applications...

you're an arbitary wee chap aren't you...  "I've won, its over, must only."...   :Grin:

----------


## Ryan

> The funny thing is next time Cahill says something I can't see Paula Bennett listening very hard. He has done himself (or the Police) no favours by his criticism.


Especially regarding the "gun lobby"... as opposed to what, the police lobby?

----------


## gadgetman

> Especially regarding the "gun lobby"... as opposed to what, the police lobby?


Ryan, we are meant to be meek and humble. Make sure that you always have a cap with you so that you can wring if in Cahill's presence, just as a show of sub-servitude.

----------


## Sidney

well it would be good practice for some of us ... :Grin:

----------


## Jexla

> Its just cahill lying again. He did state that he reads some of these forums and i suspect Kiwi gun blog. Accuses us of NRA style lobbying and refusing to budge.


I believe he may very well have been referring to KGB when he spoke about "blogs" however, when he referred to the "gun lobby" I am confident he was talking about FOUNZ.

He went on to say that "the gun lobby" represents less than 10,000 of the 240,000 firearm owners, this lines up with the amount of "Likes" FOUNZ has at almost 8000.

The most absurd thing about it is that FOUNZ hasn't lobbied anyone. FOUNZ makes no political donations, FOUNZ collects zero dollars from anyone to even do so.

All FOUNZ has done is use the power of social media to mobilize thousands of law abiding firearm owners to take part in the democratic process that has been used against them over and over again to further restrict their rights and freedoms.

This is a win because of everyone that took the time and effort to mail the minister and other MP's, plain a simple. We all did this together.

----------


## Danger Mouse

> I believe he may very well have been referring to KGB when he spoke about "blogs" however, when he referred to the "gun lobby" I am confident he was talking about FOUNZ.
> 
> He went on to say that "the gun lobby" represents less than 10,000 of the 240,000 firearm owners, this lines up with the amount of "Likes" FOUNZ has at almost 8000.
> 
> The most absurd thing about it is that FOUNZ hasn't lobbied anyone. FOUNZ makes no political donations, FOUNZ collects zero dollars from anyone to even do so.
> 
> All FOUNZ has done is use the power of social media to mobilize thousands of law abiding firearm owners to take part in the democratic process that has been used against them over and over again to further restrict their rights and freedoms.
> 
> This is a win because of everyone that took the time and effort to mail the minister and other MP's, plain a simple. We all did this together.


Yip all FOUNZ did was unite license holders. Cahill lied again.

----------


## Jexla

Doesn't it make you start question the organizations who have hundreds of thousands of dollars in their kitty?

----------


## Danger Mouse

> Doesn't it make you start question the organizations who have hundreds of thousands of dollars in their kitty?


That they are so incompetent that they cannot better an unpaid organization with only some donations? yip. I called newstalk zb today and told them that registration wont work.

----------


## gadgetman

> That they are so incompetent that they cannot better an unpaid organization with only some donations? yip. I called newstalk zb today and told them that registration wont work.


Good to put a forum handle to a voice.

----------


## Friwi

And Cahill represent the police association , which has how members out of the whole police force?

An important point when Cahill said that more than 500 guns had been seized in the last 12 months:
So Mr Cahill , there must be at least 200 to 400 people behind bars now?
No? So how come those people with out a gun licence for most of them I am sure, are not behind bars or prosecuted severely?
Ah, maybe because the justice system is not tough enough and the judges are realesing them straight away?
Ah, but is it not one the complain of a good number of the members of the police association?  That their efforts to stop crime get demolished by a laxist law and laxist judges?
Therefore maybe this is more important problem to sort out than bothering the honest citizens?

And maybe that select committee should have ask the following question:
How do guns end up in criminal hands? And how do we punish criminals who use illegal arms to accomplish their crimes?

I ll sent an email to Aunty Paula for the next time she is interviewed by journalists about the subject.

I was impressed by the guy from the act party who got interviewed on radio NZ just before 8 am. And for once, Suzie Ferguson was not too bad, but guy esplanar is still acting as a kidhead of a journalist.

----------


## Danger Mouse

> Good to put a forum handle to a voice.



First caller, Leon.

----------


## timattalon

> And Cahill represent the police association , which has how members out of the whole police force?
> 
> An important point when Cahill said that more than 500 guns had been seized in the last 12 months:
> So Mr Cahill , there must be at least 200 to 400 people behind bars now?
> No? So how come those people with out a gun licence for most of them I am sure, are not behind bars or prosecuted severely?
> Ah, maybe because the justice system is not tough enough and the judges are realesing them straight away?
> Ah, but is it not one the complain of a good number of the members of the police association?  That their efforts to stop crime get demolished by a laxist law and laxist judges?
> Therefore maybe this is more important problem to sort out than bothering the honest citizens?
> 
> ...


I know of two of the firearms of that 500. It was in the press a week or so back.

There was a case recently in Dunedin(?) where a tattooist was charged for a number of offences; Possessing and carrying a loaded home made pistol (In his jacket at the time when the police arrived); Possessing a loaded home made rifle in the same room (under a bench, unsecured and in easy reach); Possessing live ammunition loose in the same room; Drugs and drug utensils for drug consumption and evidence of use also with the firearms. All with out a firearms license because he has previous drug convictions (and mention of a violence conviction too from memory) meaning he would not qualify as "Fit and Proper" by a long way.

 He is a tattooist that works from home. Apparently his customers often pay him with drugs. So what did he get as a sentence?  3 months HOME DETENTION for the pistol possession, 3 months HOME DETENTION for the rifle possession, 4 or 6 months HOME DETENTION for the drugs charges, all to be served concurrently. How is this a punishment? He works from home, his drugs are delivered by his customers who visit his home. All I can say is WTF!!!!!!!

If you or I got caught with a loaded pistol in my jacket would we get Home detention?

----------


## Sidney

> The fulcrum of your entire argument it that the word 'conspiracy' which means the noun 'plan' must be only used in a legal context. It was proved that it stood alone outside that context, and I'd already checked before first posting it. Your fulcrum to leverage it out of the wider usage into your little corner of expertise failed. It's over.


Nope - I always said it required that in this application, I have always said that the context determines the interpretation..... 

provide the quote where I said that  it must only be used in a legal context for all applications...

you're an arbitary wee chap aren't you...  "I've won, its over, must only."...   :Grin:

----------


## Ryan

> The funny thing is next time Cahill says something I can't see Paula Bennett listening very hard. He has done himself (or the Police) no favours by his criticism.


Especially regarding the "gun lobby"... as opposed to what, the police lobby?

----------


## gadgetman

> Especially regarding the "gun lobby"... as opposed to what, the police lobby?


Ryan, we are meant to be meek and humble. Make sure that you always have a cap with you so that you can wring if in Cahill's presence, just as a show of sub-servitude.

----------


## Sidney

well it would be good practice for some of us ... :Grin:

----------


## Jexla

> Its just cahill lying again. He did state that he reads some of these forums and i suspect Kiwi gun blog. Accuses us of NRA style lobbying and refusing to budge.


I believe he may very well have been referring to KGB when he spoke about "blogs" however, when he referred to the "gun lobby" I am confident he was talking about FOUNZ.

He went on to say that "the gun lobby" represents less than 10,000 of the 240,000 firearm owners, this lines up with the amount of "Likes" FOUNZ has at almost 8000.

The most absurd thing about it is that FOUNZ hasn't lobbied anyone. FOUNZ makes no political donations, FOUNZ collects zero dollars from anyone to even do so.

All FOUNZ has done is use the power of social media to mobilize thousands of law abiding firearm owners to take part in the democratic process that has been used against them over and over again to further restrict their rights and freedoms.

This is a win because of everyone that took the time and effort to mail the minister and other MP's, plain a simple. We all did this together.

----------


## Danger Mouse

> I believe he may very well have been referring to KGB when he spoke about "blogs" however, when he referred to the "gun lobby" I am confident he was talking about FOUNZ.
> 
> He went on to say that "the gun lobby" represents less than 10,000 of the 240,000 firearm owners, this lines up with the amount of "Likes" FOUNZ has at almost 8000.
> 
> The most absurd thing about it is that FOUNZ hasn't lobbied anyone. FOUNZ makes no political donations, FOUNZ collects zero dollars from anyone to even do so.
> 
> All FOUNZ has done is use the power of social media to mobilize thousands of law abiding firearm owners to take part in the democratic process that has been used against them over and over again to further restrict their rights and freedoms.
> 
> This is a win because of everyone that took the time and effort to mail the minister and other MP's, plain a simple. We all did this together.


Yip all FOUNZ did was unite license holders. Cahill lied again.

----------


## Jexla

Doesn't it make you start question the organizations who have hundreds of thousands of dollars in their kitty?

----------


## Danger Mouse

> Doesn't it make you start question the organizations who have hundreds of thousands of dollars in their kitty?


That they are so incompetent that they cannot better an unpaid organization with only some donations? yip. I called newstalk zb today and told them that registration wont work.

----------


## gadgetman

> That they are so incompetent that they cannot better an unpaid organization with only some donations? yip. I called newstalk zb today and told them that registration wont work.


Good to put a forum handle to a voice.

----------


## Friwi

And Cahill represent the police association , which has how members out of the whole police force?

An important point when Cahill said that more than 500 guns had been seized in the last 12 months:
So Mr Cahill , there must be at least 200 to 400 people behind bars now?
No? So how come those people with out a gun licence for most of them I am sure, are not behind bars or prosecuted severely?
Ah, maybe because the justice system is not tough enough and the judges are realesing them straight away?
Ah, but is it not one the complain of a good number of the members of the police association?  That their efforts to stop crime get demolished by a laxist law and laxist judges?
Therefore maybe this is more important problem to sort out than bothering the honest citizens?

And maybe that select committee should have ask the following question:
How do guns end up in criminal hands? And how do we punish criminals who use illegal arms to accomplish their crimes?

I ll sent an email to Aunty Paula for the next time she is interviewed by journalists about the subject.

I was impressed by the guy from the act party who got interviewed on radio NZ just before 8 am. And for once, Suzie Ferguson was not too bad, but guy esplanar is still acting as a kidhead of a journalist.

----------


## Danger Mouse

> Good to put a forum handle to a voice.



First caller, Leon.

----------


## timattalon

> And Cahill represent the police association , which has how members out of the whole police force?
> 
> An important point when Cahill said that more than 500 guns had been seized in the last 12 months:
> So Mr Cahill , there must be at least 200 to 400 people behind bars now?
> No? So how come those people with out a gun licence for most of them I am sure, are not behind bars or prosecuted severely?
> Ah, maybe because the justice system is not tough enough and the judges are realesing them straight away?
> Ah, but is it not one the complain of a good number of the members of the police association?  That their efforts to stop crime get demolished by a laxist law and laxist judges?
> Therefore maybe this is more important problem to sort out than bothering the honest citizens?
> 
> ...


I know of two of the firearms of that 500. It was in the press a week or so back.

There was a case recently in Dunedin(?) where a tattooist was charged for a number of offences; Possessing and carrying a loaded home made pistol (In his jacket at the time when the police arrived); Possessing a loaded home made rifle in the same room (under a bench, unsecured and in easy reach); Possessing live ammunition loose in the same room; Drugs and drug utensils for drug consumption and evidence of use also with the firearms. All with out a firearms license because he has previous drug convictions (and mention of a violence conviction too from memory) meaning he would not qualify as "Fit and Proper" by a long way.

 He is a tattooist that works from home. Apparently his customers often pay him with drugs. So what did he get as a sentence?  3 months HOME DETENTION for the pistol possession, 3 months HOME DETENTION for the rifle possession, 4 or 6 months HOME DETENTION for the drugs charges, all to be served concurrently. How is this a punishment? He works from home, his drugs are delivered by his customers who visit his home. All I can say is WTF!!!!!!!

If you or I got caught with a loaded pistol in my jacket would we get Home detention?

----------

