# Firearms and Shooting > Shooting >  Anyone a member of SSANZ or The NZ NSA?

## RimfireNZ

I'm in the process of joining both of these outfits. After all the shit going down in America I want to do my bit to make sure we don't end up like Aussie or worse.

----------


## mikee

NSA Member

----------


## Beavis

I will be re joining NSA just gotta pay up. SSANZ is good for fuck all, their heart is in the right place but they have no clout. Have faded into obscurity.

----------


## RimfireNZ

> I will be re joining NSA just gotta pay up. SSANZ is good for fuck all, their heart is in the right place but they have no clout. Have faded into obscurity.


But you do get the guns and hunting subscription with it for $5 more than it normally costs... S I'm dong that too.
Same boat as you, just gotta make the payment to the NSA. Their forum is basically empty so was wondering if they actually had anything going on.

----------


## gimp

The NSA make themselves look like crazy extremist assholes by having shit like 




> For those wishing to prepare for the forthcoming police gun-grab. A product with the same preservative qualities as cosmoline is available here: PVC drainpipe can be obtained from Bunnings or any good plumbing outlet.



on their website. Yeah, "subtly" encouraging people to bury illegal guns. Good job retards, doesn't make the rest of us look like unbalanced idiots at all.


At least they got rid of all the US NRA inspired crap about having guns to overthrow the government, etc.

----------


## Nzgunner

I'd like like my kids to grow up and have the option of owning firearms including semi autos. I'm joining the NSA  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## Rushy

It must be a sheltered wee corner of the world that I live in a I have been sublimely ignorant of both of these organisations.  Still am as the letters mean nothing to me.

----------


## Toby

Im in the same boat as rushy

----------


## veitnamcam

Me too

----------


## Kscott

> ...just gotta make the payment to the NSA. Their forum is basically empty so was wondering if they actually had anything going on.


Curious, but why would you choose to join an organisation that their own members don't participate in their own forum ?

I think Gimp summed up the NSA succinctly  :Grin: 

*SSANZ - Sporting Shooters Association of New Zealand*. Website is *here*.



> The Sporting Shooters Association of New Zealand was established in 1989 as the Shooter's Rights Association.  Our aims and objectives are:
> 
> To promote safety and firearms in New Zealand.
> 
> To help promote the growth of all firearms clubs in New Zealand.
> 
> To assist and guide new firearms licence applications and existing licence holders with the new changes.
> 
> To attend firearms seminars and meetings on behalf of the members to express their views and concerns.
> ...


*NSA - National Shooters Association* - website is *here*.




> The National Shooters Association (NSA) was formed, in 2009, by a group of people concerned at unlawful administration of the Arms Act 1986 by anti-gun extremists from police national headquarters. Richard Lincoln, the founding President of the NSA, initiated a legal challenge and a nation wide appeal for participation from all civilian gun owners to support the judicial review (the "Save Our Butts" campaign) opposing the illegal police reclassification of sporting rifles as military style firearms.
> 
> The group that formed as a result of the judicial review went on to become the National Shooters Association. Within 48 hours of its launch the NSA had over 100 members signed up and today many more have joined the NSA ranks. The NSA now stands firmly for the rights of all civilian gun owners; covering all genres of sport shooting.
> 
> The primary aim of NSA is to ensure that civilian gun owners receive the full protection of the law against police anti-gun extremist initiatives. NSA is involved in many projects that benefit civilian gun owners and lobbies the legislature for rational and sensible arms control law.

----------


## mikee

Well it was the NSA who (for better or worse) took NZ Poloce to court when they cheanged their "interpretation" of what was and wasn't a pistol grip as regards MSSAs. Was when they suddenly decided that SL8s were overnight E Cat. They took police to court and the judges ruled in favour of NSA. Told police they were there to interpret the law and a "Military Pattern Pistol Grip (as laid down in the regs was exactly that a Pistol Grip with a NATO or Mil Part number. Anything else was not the same, which is why you now have all these A Cat ARs on the market. This is also the reason for the police wanting changes to the arms act to become the same as their "interpretation"

So far it would apprear that the NSA are the teeth of the bear and Colfo (who always just advise gun owners to comply) have become something else 

I fear will all be in vain those as all the while NZ firearms owner groups  will sell each other down the river police/politicians laugh.

----------


## Kscott

Mikee FYI but over at the 'other' forum when the NSA was starting up, they alienated a lot of shooters by proclaiming "you're either with us or against us" in regards to the thumbhole case and NSA membership. Let's not also forget they started with the blog "From My Cold Dead Hands" and were suprised at the negativity it created from other shooters. And encouraging FAL owners to use a pvc pipe and bury your firearm to prevent any (non-existant) confiscation goes beyond reckless, and is just plain moronic.

----------


## mikee

> Mikee FYI but over at the 'other' forum when the NSA was starting up, they alienated a lot of shooters by proclaiming "you're either with us or against us" in regards to the thumbhole case and NSA membership. Let's not also forget they started with the blog "From My Cold Dead Hands" and were suprised at the negativity it created from other shooters. And encouraging FAL owners to use a pvc pipe and bury your firearm to prevent any (non-existant) confiscation goes beyond reckless, and is just plain moronic.


While I would totally agree Kscott, and every organisation has their muppets. They are also needed as they are the only ones who have had the balls to challenge the Police re the way they 'interpret" things I joined even though I don't  agree with all their statements. 

I especially disagree with the *' use a pvc pipe and bury your firearm to prevent any (non-existant) confiscation*" statement even though I think this actually  happened in the past. Hopefully they have learned from these PR mistakes. 
I will be re-evaluating year by year regarding renewals. 

 I have a, b and e endorsements and am making the most of my sports while i can, it won't last . I think firearms groups in general will be tripping over each other to sell out each other out as the whole "well we don't mind if you ban these types cause we don't own/use em, what do you need them for anyway" deal takes hold.

 So for better or worse they are here and they have had an impact.  I paid COLFO for years as part om my Pistol NZ fees and what have they done for us. 3/8ths of bugger all as far as i can tell

The sooner we LFO's can realise we all need to stick together fr the sake of all of our hobby the better

----------


## Beavis

Richard Prosser of NZ first actually coined the PVC down pipe from Bunnings quote during debate over AAB-285-2 in parliament.

There are two "senior" NSA members which throw around the hard core Libertarian rhetoric on the boards, there are also a whole bunch of other members, like myself that keep a lower key. I kind of face palmed in the earlier days of the organisation when they stirred up the fudds on fishncunt. Was some what of a PR shot in the foot. 

The NSA website was recently overhauled and the old forum was deleted. The membership process is meant to have been streamlined, as people were complaining that they wanted to join but got no response. Mr Lincoln has been living in a bus (his house got creamed in the Christchurch quake) and trying to do a law degree, as well as take the authorities to court over a bunch of stuff, so has been v.busy.

I agree that the organisation could tone down the political rhetoric, but until I find an organisation with a better level of legal knowledge and willingness to take action for gun owners, I will carry on with them. Anybody interested in owning and shooting "black rifles", has a lot to thank them for. I can only speak for my SR club, but opinion towards them seems to be favourable. People generally think COLFO suck. COLFO's total failure to do anything during the thumbhole stock cluster fuck was really what necessitated the forming of the NSA.

----------


## Rock river arms hunter

Yep joined the NSA, still awating to pay up :-) 

The NSA appear to be the only ones with a pair of balls who are actually prepared to stand up for us and take affirmative action against you know who.

having AR's flood the market like they have done so in recent months must have really kicked up a stink with certain members of the police.... 

Mr Dunne, where was your input on 285? thrown under the bus yet again

----------


## FletchNZ

+1, well put Beavis. I'm a member of the NSA simply because the have done more for firearms owners than any other. If you are trying to join or are waiting for payment info, try to re join as their website as it has been redone. 

Sent from my HTC Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

----------


## RimfireNZ

Well that sparked a lot of comments. While some of these organisations might have a few extremists and occasionally make a not so appropriate statements, as I said, I'm terrified to think that in ten years I wont be able to go out on the farm and shoot bunnies or targets for fun... let alone shoot anything bigger. So I have to join someone who's going to help. This has really been bugging me. I hate thinking about it.

These politicians, lobby groups and the police have no right to stop people owning guns because it doesn't agree with their sensibilities.

I was just about to say we're lucky here... we're not. *We're not as badly pissed on as a lot of other countries*. If it ever gets as bad as the UK or Australia here I think I'll pack it in and piss off to the states or somewhere more gun friendly.

----------


## Kscott

There's a chocolate fish to the winner of who can find the number of times the phrase "anti-gun extremists" appears on the NSA website  :Grin:

----------


## Beavis

4. How big is this fish?  :Have A Nice Day:

----------


## mikee

> 4. How big is this fish?


Would have to be at least 25cms if it is a chocolate snapper, unless my wife caught it, in which case it would be around 22lb. I kid you not her first ever snapper caught all by her self was 22 bloody lb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## Kscott

Here yah go.



Print and eat.  :Grin:

----------


## Beavis

> Would have to be at least 25cms if it is a chocolate snapper, unless my wife caught it, in which case it would be around 22lb. I kid you not her first ever snapper caught all by her self was 22 bloody lb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I think in light of this achievement I am entitled to a 22lb chocolate fish

----------


## Herbmiester

I have been an NSA adversary on other boards only because they keep stating that COLFO do nothing, well this is absolute BS! 

COLFO's position is quite simple they have the ear of Politicians and certain Police and through these relationships they get to share their thoughts. They advised Police that changing the interpretation on thumb-hole stocks was wrong and that the legislation would not support their position. The Police had an opinion from crown law and the rest is history. COLFO This strengthened COLFO's postion because Police saw they actually knew what they were talking about. they also know that when they go to court against the Police the inside information and opportunities to to put the gun owners side of the case forward will be reduced. As such COLFO were  keen to support someone having a crack at the Police but only after the the new AAB bill was passed. The reason for this is that there wasn't a whole lot in that bill that was worrying. (yes it was a compromise but the reality is that's what is sometimes necessary) They had an agreement with a third party to fund them to take the Police to court but only after the bill was passed.  Instead we had Lincoln win, a victory? Perhaps. The upside was we got a lot of cheap AR's into NZ. The downside was is that the Police withdrew the existing Bill, dotted there I's and crossed there T's and foisted upon us the monstrosity we now have. One of the NSA mouth pieces is all for court challenges but the reality is that every time the Police lose they just get the Politicians to change the law to suit them, it really is a no win situation. 

What COLFO offer is reasoned arguments that are supported by fact and statistics, that's what Politicians will listen to, they wont engage with the NSA because they see them as a bunch of nutters with guns; and yes that is a quote I heard first hand from an NZ First minister who must remain nameless. Legislating against firearms is really easy for politicians there's virtually no downside, so making them aware of things like how good our current laws actually are and how the balance between person freedoms and  public safety are easily met without having to pander to Police desires for more power, is very powerfull. 

The point I will make regarding the NSA is that the are not people who have mainstream views. Lincoln is being funded by Gun City and the chief mouth Piece for the NSA has taken the Police to Court on a number of occasions and as mentioned above when the lost they just had the law changed, the last time was in 1992 if any of you remember that debacle! I wont argue that NSA offer a compelling arguement, they tell you that they will fight them on the beaches etc etc. This makes you feel good but the simple facts are that NSA are a legal challenge organisation only and for the 3rd time this only results in new and harsher laws. 

So in the end you may be wondering what has COLFO actually done, here a few things recently:

COLFO convinced Police that restrictions on magazine capacity for E cat licence holders were a waste of time. This was no easy sell as the Police Operations Exec (This is who actually makes Police Policy not just Joe Green) agreed that there would be nothing to be gained by reducing E cat licence holders to 10 rounds. 

COLFO got Police to see that the hand in policy for E cat licence holders was over burdening and that as long as there was a genuine reason nothing had to be handed in. Again this is an Operations Exec decision so it is not able to be overturned on a whim. 

COLFO have also made it clear and many senior Police and Politicians agree, that a pistol grip is not there for shooting from the hip but for better control of your firearm; they also agree that being in control of your firearm is a good thing. 


What is still not clear is the Police position going forward. There is still the possibility they will push to ban all AR15 and AK style rifles along with any other MSSA. There are certainly enough senior Police who support this position. The influx of AR15's has only made some them even more determined. We are still not sure if all military style rifles will be made MSSA's or whether they will do as they have intimated and try and get back to the position they had prior to 2009. Thanks to Richard Lincoln's challenge we now have some fairly nasty laws to deal with and Police are holding all the cards. Your best hope is COLFO, they are the only one Police and Politicians listen to. 

This is likely to be an unpopular post but the truth often is.

----------


## Beavis

Herb, you well know my position on firearms orgs, so we won't go there. Even though I'm one of those "gun wielding nut cases" or what ever the pollies think we are, I do agree with the points you raise and commend COLFO for at least attempting to talk "them" round. 

Where we part ways is where I believe COLFO are kidding themselves if they think logic and reasoning is going to influence their desired end game - the whole sale crack down on A cat holders being able to own semi autos. Almost 300 submissions couldn't tell those mouth breathers that this AAB is a shitty law which will generate confusion and inevitably result in a judicial review. Call me a pessimist, but I saw the thumbhole debacle as another stepping stone towards taking semi auto's off the open market. I'm not kidding myself - I know EXACTLY what the intent of the '92 amendment was, and the thumbhole stock issue and now this amendment. They do not want modern, accurate, ergonomic and effective semi auto rifles from being available to the public at large. The fact that they have struggled to come up with a way to stop the whole sale import of undesirable rifles, due to poorly thought out legislation has been a real thorn in their side. The new bill addresses that issue by giving them the ability to name what they please as an MSSA, rather than making every semi auto fall under the requirement of an E endoresment. They know that would stir up too much resistance from more main stream gun owners at the moment.

And this is where I'm getting at - you can talk to them all you want, but the end game stays the same. What would the MSR scene be like in NZ right now had no action been taken by R.Lincoln? Pretty abysmal I reckon. Mini 14's and crappy trigger rear Saiga's would be about it. I can't speak for any other service rifle club but my own, but giving A catters access to decent quality rifles to start out with seems to have drummed up more interest in the sport. No longer do you start out with a grubby SKS, then save shitloads for a budget AR on E cat, at a highly inflated price. It is a real shame it will come to an end shortly. I have made heaps of new friends and had some great times, meeting all the guys with similar tastes, coming out of the wood work.

They are slowly grinding us down, the best we can do is lodge court action where applicable to give them a punch in the nose now and then. It boils down to the fact that people want these guns, the authorities don't so conflict is bound to result.

----------


## Nzgunner

I know we all need to work together and stick together. United we stand. Not just Colfo and the NSA etc but all shooters...hunters, target shooters, clay, pistol, etc, etc.

----------


## Tankd

> I have been an NSA adversary on other boards only because they keep stating that COLFO do nothing, well this is absolute BS! 
> 
> COLFO's position is quite simple they have the ear of Politicians and certain Police and through these relationships they get to share their thoughts. They advised Police that changing the interpretation on thumb-hole stocks was wrong and that the legislation would not support their position. The Police had an opinion from crown law and the rest is history. COLFO This strengthened COLFO's postion because Police saw they actually knew what they were talking about. they also know that when they go to court against the Police the inside information and opportunities to to put the gun owners side of the case forward will be reduced. As such COLFO were  keen to support someone having a crack at the Police but only after the the new AAB bill was passed. The reason for this is that there wasn't a whole lot in that bill that was worrying. (yes it was a compromise but the reality is that's what is sometimes necessary) They had an agreement with a third party to fund them to take the Police to court but only after the bill was passed.  Instead we had Lincoln win, a victory? Perhaps. The upside was we got a lot of cheap AR's into NZ. The downside was is that the Police withdrew the existing Bill, dotted there I's and crossed there T's and foisted upon us the monstrosity we now have. One of the NSA mouth pieces is all for court challenges but the reality is that every time the Police lose they just get the Politicians to change the law to suit them, it really is a no win situation. 
> 
> What COLFO offer is reasoned arguments that are supported by fact and statistics, that's what Politicians will listen to, they wont engage with the NSA because they see them as a bunch of nutters with guns; and yes that is a quote I heard first hand from an NZ First minister who must remain nameless. Legislating against firearms is really easy for politicians there's virtually no downside, so making them aware of things like how good our current laws actually are and how the balance between person freedoms and  public safety are easily met without having to pander to Police desires for more power, is very powerfull. 
> 
> The point I will make regarding the NSA is that the are not people who have mainstream views. Lincoln is being funded by Gun City and the chief mouth Piece for the NSA has taken the Police to Court on a number of occasions and as mentioned above when the lost they just had the law changed, the last time was in 1992 if any of you remember that debacle! I wont argue that NSA offer a compelling arguement, they tell you that they will fight them on the beaches etc etc. This makes you feel good but the simple facts are that NSA are a legal challenge organisation only and for the 3rd time this only results in new and harsher laws. 
> 
> So in the end you may be wondering what has COLFO actually done, here a few things recently:
> ...


You have a strange concept of the Truth,somehow you atempt to dride the NSA and at the same time tell everyone you have your hand up their back (think pupet) by somehow organising thier funding.And as for attempting to link them with the 1992 Legislation is very poor indeed.Then the new Legislation is somehow the NSA's fault because they chalenged the Police.
   Then COLFO somehow have a major influence on Police policy but somehow forget to tell anyone that they have done such thing.Colfo is nothing but a group of people who have their snouts in the trouh and don't want to rock the trough in case some of it spills.A case of point was when the NZDA threatened to pull out ,then amazingly all of a sudden NZDA executive get on the train or is that in the trough.
      And according to COLFO itself all they have done in the last 6 months is send some emails !!!!.

----------


## Littledog

I have seen on the other forums the amount of passion in this argument.

At the time of the 2009 Thumbhole debacle I was keen to see a new organisation arise. The NZ Police had decided to change their interpretation of the pistol grip rules. But were taken to court, lost the case and then like bad sports ran away to mummy to get the law changed.

So I was pleased to see the NSA formed. There was alot of passion and people wanted a way to get their views put across to deaf and dumb politicans-who remain blind in the most case.

However I have seen Herb and others who support COLFOs style of operation get rucked and mauled and heckled on other forums and really its not good to see this happen.
I now see how COLFOs operation can be effective and I am pleased that COLFO is in the position to talk with Police and Politicians on firearm owners behalf's and I beleave they do have a positive effect in forming a form of relationship between us and the Police/Poli's and also have achieved some sound outcomes.

Part of the reason so many of us felt the NSA was needed was the lack of information us members of COLFO received from the executive. As being a member of a Pistol Club or Service Service Rifle Club we just didn't hear what was being done.
This does seemed to have changed lately and now we do get updates and see what is being done for us.

I personally felt that the NSA giving the police a fight and seeing the Police lose the high court case was a good thing in terms of showing how small and childish they were being. That they ran away to mummy Collins and cried to her was always going to happen. As is pretty clear the Police were always going to try to get semi's restricted, if not now then in 2 yrs, 4 yrs etc.
The big thing that I don't feel many people understood was that the original version of the AAB currently before parliament could have had some bolt rifles also restricted to MSSA. Luckily those who submitted against the bill were 
able to stop that.

I do now see how COLFO has achieved positive results and that their style is quietly achieving and I now support them again- thanks to Herbs postings and a new publicity approach by COLFO in informing its members what is being done. Thanks Herb. 

My wish would be for all firearm groups and organisations to come together sit down and move on forward together. As the more of us together and on they same side and united will make more Poli's sit up and listen. If we continue to fight each other the Police and Poli's will just love it.
To bury the hatchet and work together would be my wish for COLFO and the NSA in the new year. I see value in both these organisations.

Cheers. :Thumbsup:

----------


## Herbmiester

Just to clear a few things up; firstly there is room for the NSA, there is nothing wrong with a good cop bad cop approach. Please excuse the pun. However on other forums I have defended COLFO as many of the NSA supporters bag them for doing nothing, I see some people realise that working behind the scenes and giving solid clear advice is not doing nothing. Yes its a less in your face approach than the NSA but that's not necessarily a bad thing. 

A few points for  Tanked. I never stated that the NSA were involved in any of the 1992 legislation. It is a fact that Mr Jim Henry was part of a group who took the Police to Court and won when the Police initially took their stance on MSSA's after Aromoana. What resulted from that is the 1992 ACT. This was a response by the Police and Government at the time to close the loop opened by the loss of the aforementioned court case. Does this seem similar to what we are going through right now?

Also for the record no one is getting rich at COLFO, they volunteer their time and the NZSRA rep to COLFO puts in a huge amount of personal time and effort and he is one of the reasons Service Rifle Shooting is seen by the Police as a legitimate use for MSSA's. COLFO have a fighting fund, that's what all the cash is  for. If they have to hire someone like Chen Palmer to counter a crown Law opinion then you can kiss goodbye to $20-30k in a heart Beat. Imagine what it would cost if they had to hire them for a full blown court case; COLFO funds emptied!

Part of the issue with COLFO is they cant always say what they are up to as this compromises there relationship with their Police and Government contacts. This pisses many people off as they believe COLFO are sleeping with the enemy. I guess you either  trust them to do their job or you don't. I will say this however these people are passionate about firearms ownership, they own pistols, MSSA's and restricted firearms so the last thing they want is to see there hard won privileges eroded. 

I am as little dog has mentioned sick of the arguments over NSA vs COLFO, the fact is that effective lobby groups have for centuries altered the political landscape and they have done so mostly outside the sphere of public knowledge. If you feel better about joining the NSA then great join them, just be clear about what they can do and what influence they actually have. 

When we finally understand the full ramifications of the new legislation we can then decide if one victory in court is worth giving the Police "Orders in council". Because when you look at it in the cold hard light of day that's what was traded.

----------


## Beavis

I think realistically, court action is a last ditch attempt to stop an erosion of privileges. In the case of the original amendment, the COP wanted an out right ban on the import of certain rifles - no special import permits - a flat out ban, not coming in ever again. Fortunately PSI, in a similar action to NSA thumbhole case took him to court, citing "ultra vires" behavior and fortunately for us agreed and slapped the ban down. I think this was a better out come than pandering to the wants of our police force and not rocking the boat. If it wasn't for that we would probably be shooting service rifle with Mosins and Enfields almost exclusively. If that were the case I wouldn't bother making the 4 hour + return trip to my club every month or two. So I think it stands to reason that court action is better than no action at all, but I know what you mean - court action inevitably results in legislative change. Pretty catch 22 if you ask me. A shit system.

----------


## Herbmiester

> Pretty catch 22 if you ask me. A shit system.


Agreed.

----------


## krewzr

> The NSA make themselves look like crazy extremist assholes by having shit like 
> 
> on their website. Yeah, "subtly" encouraging people to bury illegal guns. Good job retards, doesn't make the rest of us look like unbalanced idiots at all.
> 
> 
> At least they got rid of all the US NRA inspired crap about having guns to overthrow the government, etc.


Thanks for your comments GIMP. NSA has not encouraged anyone to bury an illegal gun. It is not clear what you are refering to when you say "illegal gun." I have never heard of a gun being charged, convicted or serving a sentence.

The law in New Zealand makes it illegal sometimes for a person to be in possesion of a gun. The law may change soon and thereby create more circumstances which criminalise a civilian gun owner for possession of gun that is their property. Under these circumstances the person is obliged to dispossess themself of their gun. They may wish to store their gun for some future time when the law is relaxed and a new government brings about gun control laws that are rational and decriminalise the possession of such a firearm. The current owner may therefore wish to dispossess himself or herself of their gun by burying in a safe place for the day that the repeal of the offensive law occurs. For that purpose we advise gun owners in that position to use cosmoline and bury their gun in order to obey the law and dispossess themself of it, until the law is repealed. Incidently, this is exactly what has occurred in Australia and now, as the draconian restrictions over there are relaxed, more and more stored guns are able to be reclaimed by displaced owners. 

This is one of the inherent problems with the changeability and uncertainty of law. For example, if homosexuality was criminalised in New Zealand, I think you would be niave to expect that all homosexuals would suddenly become hetrosexual. At best they could be expected not to engage in homosexual practices until they succeed in having the law repealed. The situation with unstable gun control law is really no different.

NSA members are a diverse range of people. Private professionals, lawyers and even a few police officers. I don't know any of our members who I would say is a crazy extremist asshole or a retard.

We have never encouraged or endorsed anyone to take up arms against the government. You may be confusing the NSA with the group responsible for the training camps in the Urewera; that was nothing to do with NSA or any of its members.

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln
National Shooters Association

----------


## krewzr

> Mikee FYI but over at the 'other' forum when the NSA was starting up, they alienated a lot of shooters by proclaiming "you're either with us or against us" in regards to the thumbhole case and NSA membership. Let's not also forget they started with the blog "From My Cold Dead Hands" and were suprised at the negativity it created from other shooters. And encouraging FAL owners to use a pvc pipe and bury your firearm to prevent any (non-existant) confiscation goes beyond reckless, and is just plain moronic.


Thankyou for your series of Replys KSCott. 

Civilian gun owners widely supported and financed the resistance and court case which ruled against the police attempts to legislate sporting firearms into an MSSA category. A small minority criticised the legal action I took against police. I respect the right of anyone to acquiescence but it is not something I would do. I think the judgment of the High Court is sufficient to settle any argument about the rights and wrongs of the 'save our butts' court case. I was in fact surprised by the positivity and saw very little in the way of negativity.

We agree with you that there is no direct order of confiscation on the agenda. We did not suggest that there was. We believe that civilian gun owners will face restrictions in 2013 and many will be faced with the choice of dispossesing themself of their firearm(s). If they hand the firearms to police (as police will surely suggest) there will almost certainly be no compensation and the firearms will be destroyed and therefore unable to be reclaimed once the regulations are struck out by the High Court or the law is changed after the next election. We therefore encourage people to comply with the law by dispossessing themself of their firearm by storing it buried out of harms way and presevered for saftey in cosmoline. Once NSA has succeeded in getting the regulations struck off or the law changed, gun owners will be able to repatriate their firearms. It is worth mentioning that there is no government warehousing option that has been made available; all guns surrendered to police in these circumstances are permanently surrendered and destroyed: too late to get the family heirloom or favourite sentimentally valued rifle back once its been through the police crusher in the Lower Hutt armoury.

This is not like the land taken in Zimbabwe by Mugabe. Once Mugabe has gone the white farmers can return home and reclaim their titles. In our case the property taken is destroyed forever. Rivers, Perry and Taylor and co will eventually go, but that will not return the rifle that I bequeath to my son or grandson.

If you have some other useful suggestion as to what effected civilian gun owners ought to do to comply with the pending regulations, we would be grateful for your constructive comments.

Kind Regards
Richard Lincoln

----------


## savage270

So your saying people can legally bury firearms in pvc pipes to comply with the pending regulations?
Im not trying to be a smart arse, just trying to get my head around your statement

----------


## Toby

> So your saying people can legally bury firearms in pvc pipes to comply with the pending regulations?
> Im not trying to be a smart arse, just trying to get my head around your statement



Tbh I thought that in a way is still in your possession

----------


## Ryan

> Tbh I thought that in a way is still in your possession


Well, no - not in my opinion. 

"Possession is 9/10th's of the law". You can't get arrested for something you don't have. If universal registration of firearms in NZ had succeeded, then yes, perhaps there'd be a case to answer for because the police would have the firearm and owner's details on record and if one wasn't able to account for that firearm then they could be charged with negligence or whatever the legally appropriate term might be.

----------


## Savage1

> Thanks for your comments GIMP. NSA has not encouraged anyone to bury an illegal gun. It is not clear what you are refering to when you say "illegal gun." I have never heard of a gun being charged, convicted or serving a sentence.
> 
> The law in New Zealand makes it illegal sometimes for a person to be in possesion of a gun. The law may change soon and thereby create more circumstances which criminalise a civilian gun owner for possession of gun that is their property. Under these circumstances the person is obliged to dispossess themself of their gun. They may wish to store their gun for some future time when the law is relaxed and a new government brings about gun control laws that are rational and decriminalise the possession of such a firearm. The current owner may therefore wish to dispossess himself or herself of their gun by burying in a safe place for the day that the repeal of the offensive law occurs. For that purpose we advise gun owners in that position to use cosmoline and bury their gun in order to obey the law and dispossess themself of it, until the law is repealed. Incidently, this is exactly what has occurred in Australia and now, as the draconian restrictions over there are relaxed, more and more stored guns are able to be reclaimed by displaced owners. 
> 
> This is one of the inherent problems with the changeability and uncertainty of law. For example, if homosexuality was criminalised in New Zealand, I think you would be niave to expect that all homosexuals would suddenly become hetrosexual. At best they could be expected not to engage in homosexual practices until they succeed in having the law repealed. The situation with unstable gun control law is really no different.
> 
> NSA members are a diverse range of people. Private professionals, lawyers and even a few police officers. I don't know any of our members who I would say is a crazy extremist asshole or a retard.
> 
> We have never encouraged or endorsed anyone to take up arms against the government. You may be confusing the NSA with the group responsible for the training camps in the Urewera; that was nothing to do with NSA or any of its members.
> ...



Don't be so stupid, encouraging people to bury a prohibited weapon is an offence, enough of an offence to get your FAL revoked. 

Burying a weapon in the ground doesn't "dispossess" it from you. I suggest you look up the definition of possession before making such stupid statements. Look up the case law *Sullivan v Earl of Caithness (1976)* while you are at it.

----------


## Beavis

I remember when Canada's LGR got shredded there were threads on CGN and CGS about what guns you were finally digging up after x number of years. Pretty hard case.

----------


## krewzr

In answer to the last few replies to this thread:

@Savage1: Im not sure what in your opinion is a 'prohibited weapon'. As far as I am aware, the only weapons that are prohibited in NZ are anti-personnel mines and  cluster munitions. NSA does not encourage people to bury anti-personnel mines or  cluster munitions. Anyone in possession of such prohibited weapons ought to hand them into the nearest arms office or MoD bomb disposal unit. 

I am not aware that it is an offence to encourage a person to bury something. If you can direct me to the section of the Summary Proceedings Act, Arms Act or Crimes Act that sets out a penal offence for encouraging a third party to bury something I would be interested to check that out. I am not aware that a firearms licence can be revoked for any reason other than the licence holder being considered not fit and proper to hold such a licence. 

Most DC case and all High Court cases involving the Arms Act are reviewed by me as the president of NSA and I have never seen any case where a judge has convicted a person for unlawful possession of a firearm that they have preserved in cosmoline and buried in the ground.


@Ryan, Toby, Savage 270 & Savage1: The term "possession" has a complex, somewhat flexible but certainly unique meaning for the purposes of the Arms Act 1983. New Zealand cases such as Coorey  v Police and Roberts v Police have established, for example, that "possession" has a different meaning for the purposes of the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Arms Act. Sullivan v Earl of Caithness (1976) is presumably a UK case that does not concern the NZ Arms Act; it is therefore not applicable.

There is no hard and fast meaning as to 'possession' for the purpose of the NZ Arms Act. An indicator may be a case (I have forgotten the citation but its widely known) about a civilian gun owner that had a sporting semi-automatic in his safe and a couple of normal  capacity 30 round magazines were discovered in a space above his HWC. He was found guilty of unlawful possession of a MSSA. The Judge noted that the material fact on which the case turned was that both the rifle and the magazines were found in the same residential property. The Judge noted that had the rifle and the magazines been stored in different locations, so they were not immediately 'at hand' then the charge of possession of an MSSA would almost certainly not be sustained. This case would seem to indicate that even if a person has ownership of a firearm or parts thereof, and knows where to retrieve it from, if that is a remote location; such that the firearm or parts are not immediately at hand, then there is no possession.


All NZ legislation is required to be interpreted purposively (s5.1 IA 1999) and the purpose of the Arms Act is to control firearms and ensure public saftey. The primary concern which is repeated by members of our legislature ad nauseum is keeping guns out of the wrong hands. That of course strongly suggests that guns in the right hands or no hands at all are not the mischief which the Arms Act and it's regulations are aimed at. If the right hands disposses themselves of a gun pending a change in the legal landscape, and the right hands then repatriate that gun, it would seem that the working purpose of the Arms Act is met. 

Hope this helps explain the position

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

----------


## Savage1

> In answer to the last few replies to this thread:
> 
> @Savage1: Im not sure what in your opinion is a 'prohibited weapon'. As far as I am aware, the only weapons that are prohibited in NZ are anti-personnel mines and  cluster munitions. NSA does not encourage people to bury anti-personnel mines or  cluster munitions. Anyone in possession of such prohibited weapons ought to hand them into the nearest arms office or MoD bomb disposal unit. 
> 
> I am not aware that it is an offence to encourage a person to bury something. If you can direct me to the section of the Summary Proceedings Act, Arms Act or Crimes Act that sets out a penal offence for encouraging a third party to bury something I would be interested to check that out. I am not aware that a firearms licence can be revoked for any reason other than the licence holder being considered not fit and proper to hold such a licence. 
> 
> Most DC case and all High Court cases involving the Arms Act are reviewed by me as the president of NSA and I have never seen any case where a judge has convicted a person for unlawful possession of a firearm that they have preserved in cosmoline and buried in the ground.
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry I was talking about restricted weapons. Telling people to bury restricted weapons in the ground to hide from the Police would be an offence under section 50 of the Arms Act and section 66(1)(d) of the Crimes Act.

Your right, a FAL cannot be revoked unless the holder is deemed not to be an unfit or proper person. Inciting people to commit an offence against the Arms Act would be than enough to show you to not be a fit or proper person.

NZ does use case law from other countries, especially the UK since our legal system was based on theirs. Possession generally means they have knowledge of the object and have physical control over it. Hence the case law I outlined earlier where the defendant was over 100km from the firearms and they weren't stored on his property but was convicted because he had knowledge of them and physical control of them.

How could you possibly think that hiding restricted weapons could be anything but illegal?!

----------


## Savage1

How about you do something responsible and legal, and encourage people to obtain the appropriate endorsements if they want to possess restricted weapons rather than illegally bury them to hide them from the Police just in case there is a law change.

----------


## Toby

I don't know dude but it sounds dodgy as fuck hiding weapons, and to me its illegal because you know where they are and you have access to it. Not a very good message to send out. I could be wrong of course as I'm only 17 and don't know fuck all but I feel its wrong.

----------


## krewzr

Thanks for your clarification.

Section 50 of the Arms Act is a penal provision that makes it an offence to be in unlawful possession of a pistol, MSSA or restricted weapon. Section 66 of the Crimes Act is essentially an offence concerning aiding and abetting. I believe the argument in a nutshell can be condensed to this question: Whether or not a person who coats a firearm in cosmoline and buries it, still retains possession of it?

You believe that they do and offer a UK case in support of that argument. I believe that they do not and offer several NZ cases in support. The only conclusive determination of that question would be by a NZ court of law considering that specific question of law. Because there is no existing case law which answers that question, we ought to simply agree to disagree.


Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

----------


## krewzr

> I don't know dude but it sounds dodgy as fuck hiding weapons, and to me its illegal because you know where they are and you have access to it. Not a very good message to send out. I could be wrong of course as I'm only 17 and don't know fuck all but I feel its wrong.


I ought to clarify that I am not discussing anything about weapons. What I am discussing here are firearms; sporting equipment used for recreational and occupational shooting. Weapons in New Zealand are held by the government (police and MoD) and criminals; these are used for shooting people and are not covered by the licensing, endorsement and permit provisions of the Arms Act.

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

----------


## Savage1

> I ought to clarify that I am not discussing anything about weapons. What I am discussing here are firearms; sporting equipment used for recreational and occupational shooting. Weapons in New Zealand are held by the government (police and MoD) and criminals; these are used for shooting people and are not covered by the licensing, endorsement and permit provisions of the Arms Act.
> 
> Kind regards
> Richard Lincoln


You like to point out exact wording in statues. In the Arms Act 1983 they refer to them as "Weapons".

I fail to see how the examples you have given show that they wouldn't be in possession of a firearm if the buried it. It would be an offence against s19 of the arms regulations.

Suggest you look at Section 66 of the Arms Act and think of how that would apply if the weapons were found buried on your property.

Remember ignorance/arrogance to law is not a defence.

----------


## Rushy

> I ought to clarify that I am not discussing anything about weapons. What I am discussing here are firearms


Richard this is semantics.  Weapons definitely can be firearms and clearly even sporting firearms can be weapons.  As far as I am concerned Toby's comment is valid.  Burying my income in an effort to claim I was dispossessed of it would not result in the government holding the view that I should not be taxed on it.

----------


## krewzr

> You like to point out exact wording in statues. In the Arms Act 1983 they refer to them as "Weapons".
> 
> I fail to see how the examples you have given show that they wouldn't be in possession of a firearm if the buried it. It would be an offence against s19 of the arms regulations.
> 
> Suggest you look at Section 66 of the Arms Act and think of how that would apply if the weapons were found buried on your property.
> 
> Remember ignorance/arrogance to law is not a defence.


Yes I agree: I think it is important when discussing legal issues to be accurate. The Arms Act refers to "restricted weapons" and the regulations deem certain objects, ranging from tasers and pepper sprays through to full auto guns as "restricted weapons." Weapons are also refered to in the purpose section of the Arms Act. However, I choose to draw a clear distinction between a weapon and a firearm. The authority that I rely on is any reputable dictionary; all of which refer to a weapon as being an object used to attack or defend; normally in inter-human relationships. I am uncomfortable with the proposition that civilian sporting firearms are used for this purpose and police are adamant that civilian firearms cannot be possessed for that purpose. I note that I clarifed that that was my personal stance on the discussion.

S66 of the Arms Act is something that a civilian gun owner would need to take into account, if they had decided to disposess themself by burial, as to where they would bury the firearm. It would probably need to be on public land: i.e in a remote conservation area or similar.

S19 of the regulations does not apply unless possession exists. The whole point of burial is dispossession; therefore once the firearms are not in the possession of the licence holder, the security precautions do not apply. There are similar comparisons in regard to criminal possesion of firearms - unlicensed persons in unlawful possession of a firearm are not required to store the firearm in the regulated security precautions.

I think this is matter that we ought to simply be able to hold different opinions on. I am not asking you to agree with me anymore than I am willing to concede that your view is the correct one. 

Kind Regards
Richard Lincoln

----------


## krewzr

> Richard this is semantics.  Weapons definitely can be firearms and clearly even sporting firearms can be weapons.  As far as I am concerned Toby's comment is valid.  Burying my income in an effort to claim I was dispossessed of it would not result in the government holding the view that I should not be taxed on it.


With all due respect Rushy, that is a different question. You could disposses yourself of your income by spending it; that does not make it exempt from tax.  The question here is, if you spent your income would you still be in possession of it... many would wish that that was so, including me, but I think the answer is fairly obvious.

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

----------


## Toby

You still have access to an illegal weapon. It may be legal through your eyes but through mine its not.

----------


## krewzr

> You still have access to an illegal weapon. It may be legal through your eyes but through mine its not.


Toby, what is an illegal weapon ?

----------


## Toby

Well to me you said when the police make them illegal bury them, You still have access to that illegal weapon. I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you said but that's how I read it.

----------


## Savage1

Wow, so lets get this clear, you think it is perfectly legal and responsible to go bury firearms on public land just in case the law changes?! And you would rather promote this than telling people to get the appropriate endorsements so they can legally possess and use the firearms?! If it is perfectly legal then I suppose you would have no problems telling the Police what you have done.

You sound like a real "fit and proper person".

----------


## savage270

Surely this is a piss take?

----------


## krewzr

> Well to me you said when the police make them illegal bury them, You still have access to that illegal weapon. I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you said but that's how I read it.


Toby the police cannot make a weapon illegal. This is why it is important to be accurate in the wording that you use. There is no such thing as an illegal weapon. 

I understand you are 17. I assume you would therefore know a thing or two about cars. A car, by analogy cannot be illegal. It may be illegal to operate a car on a road when it has been modified in such a way that it does not comply to warrant standards. So it is not the car that is illegal, its the use of the car under certain circumstances that is illegal. There is no such a thing as an illegal firearm. The issue in this case is not about access, its about possession.

As for your use of the term weapon. I have covered that off earlier. My personal view is that sporting firearms ought not to be called weapons; anymore so than a divers knife or a fish-hook. It is in fact sporting firearms that we are discussing. Any police officer will insist that a civilian may not use a firearm as a weapon.

If I can now turn to what I think you might be trying to say: you would refer to an illegal firearm. What I think that you mean is that if the legislature bring in regulations that require a special endorsement, and the gun owner does not obtain such an endorsement for his or her effected gun , then he or she is unlawfully in possession of that gun. If that is what you mean then that is correct.

That returns to the original discussion. Whether or not a person who buries a firearm, is still in possesion of that firearm? That is the question of law and the answer to that question resolves the issue of whether or not an offence is committed.

In Coory v Police, the facts are these. Mr Coory left his firearms in the attic of an unlicensed friends house. He was charged with supplying a firearm to an unlicensed person. He was convicted. He appealed to the High Court and then the Court of Appeal. The issue that the High Court and Court of Appeal had to consider on appeal was the meaning of the word "supply". The High Court found that "supply" meant to "part with possession". That interpretation was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The appeal was unsuccessful and the conviction was upheld. 

On the facts then, Mr Coory was deemed to have parted with possession because he left his firearms in the attic of some other persons house. The additional fact that that person had no licence, made that an offence (there would have been no offence if the person had had a licence.) 

The question then becomes, does a person who leaves a firearm somewhere else (for example buried or in the attic of a 3rd party) part with possession ? On the decision of the Court of Appeal in Coory, it would seem that the answer is yes: a person who leaves a firearm somewhere else (for example buried or in the attic of a 3rd party) parts with possession of it. 

Returning to the original issue; if a person parts with possession of a firearm (for example by burying it) do they commit an offence of unlawful possession of a firearm? The decision of the Court of Appeal is a compelling precendent to say that they do not : because they have "parted with possession of it."

It is not important what my own or your respective view is. We will not be the ones who decide the outcome of a potential prosecution; that is a matter for the courts. As a 3rd year law student and having extensive experience in legal research and practice, my modus operandi is to predict as best I can, what the Courts may decide; based on my experience, case law, statute and policy. There is a strong argument based on NZ case law that a person who burys their firearm parts with possession of it and thereby cannot commit the offence of unlawful possession.

Kind Regards
Richard Lincoln

----------


## krewzr

> Wow, so lets get this clear, you think it is perfectly legal and responsible to go bury firearms on public land just in case the law changes?! And you would rather promote this than telling people to get the appropriate endorsements so they can legally possess and use the firearms?! If it is perfectly legal then I suppose you would have no problems telling the Police what you have done.
> 
> You sound like a real "fit and proper person".


I have stated that we ought to agree to disagree on this issue. If you have some case law or other authority that you can advance the topic with, I would be very interested to hear it. If your argument is that burying a firearm on public land is unlawful then I invite you to make your case.. otherwise I think the topic has run its course.

I would not like to see more of this 

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

----------


## Toby

Yeah I know where your coming from but my gut instinct is telling me its still wrong. Even if by law its right in my mind its wrong and I rather be at peace with my self.

----------


## krewzr

> Yeah I know where your coming from but my gut instinct is telling me its still wrong. Even if by law its right in my mind its wrong and I rather be at peace with my self.


Good on you ! For a 17 year old to make a moral decision regardless of the law is a sign of maturity and self determination.  When you later read of the origins of the Magna Carta, the words of St Augustine and Dr Martin Luther King, when you consider the full history of my fore-fathers who fought for freedom in the two great wars, when you strain your eyes through dawns early light to see the few remaining veterans gathered at the Centopaths and when you see the inherent rights, freedoms and liberties in the youthful smiles and laughter of your children and grandchildren... then you will face further moral decisions... like how much will you let your government take from you before you say NO... and again you will have a gut instinct, again even in law if its right, in your mind it may be wrong.. I hope and prey that your mortal need to be at peace with yourself will see you make the right moral choices.

I think you just came 360 degrees.. welcome to the institute of "we the people"  :Thumbsup:  Join here.

----------


## Toby

> Good on you ! For a 17 year old to make a moral decision regardless of the law is a sign of maturity and self determination.


People that said I'm mature=0 haha.

----------


## veitnamcam

I have one burning question.............What is cosmoline? and why is it better than grease?
Ok thats two.

----------


## Toby

Wikipedia say's... 

Cosmoline is the genericized trademark for a generic class of rust preventives, typically conforming to MIL-C-11796C Class 3, that are a brown colored wax-like mass; have a slight fluorescence; and have a petroleum-like odor and taste (as detected when working with it).
Chemically, cosmoline is a homogeneous mixture of oily and waxy long-chain, non-polar hydrocarbons. It is always brown in color, but can differ in viscosity and shear strength. Cosmoline melts at 113-125 °F (45–52 °C) and has a flash point of 365 °F (185 °C).
Its most common use is in the storage and preservation of some firearms, hand tools, machine tools and their tooling, and marine equipment. Entire vehicles can be preserved with cosmoline. Notable Egyptologist Dr. Zahi Hawass recently disclosed that ancient Egyptian mummification practices from the third to fifth dynasties utilized a chemical compound molecularly similar to cosmoline.

----------


## Kscott

> We agree with you that there is no direct order of confiscation on the agenda. We did not suggest that there was. We believe that civilian gun owners will face restrictions in 2013 and many will be faced with the choice of dispossesing themself of their firearm(s). If they hand the firearms to police (as police will surely suggest) there will almost certainly be no compensation and the firearms will be destroyed and therefore unable to be reclaimed once the regulations are struck out by the High Court or the law is changed after the next election. We therefore encourage people to comply with the law by dispossessing themself of their firearm by storing it buried out of harms way and presevered for saftey in cosmoline. Once NSA has succeeded in getting the regulations struck off or the law changed, gun owners will be able to repatriate their firearms. It is worth mentioning that there is no government warehousing option that has been made available; all guns surrendered to police in these circumstances are permanently surrendered and destroyed: too late to get the family heirloom or favourite sentimentally valued rifle back once its been through the police crusher in the Lower Hutt armoury.


In 2009, when the NSA started with the blog "From my cold dead hand" the constitution also included the phrase :




> Provision 2
> Petitioning, lobbying and pleading the freedom of responsible possession, control, and use of firearms by the membership with the Government of New Zealand and to make submissions and argue the implementation of sensible arms control legislation based on sound science, factual evidence, valid statistics and practical research.


I also remember reading this post from you :




> The NSA intends to ensure that Arms control law is sensible, practical and not based on unfounded emotional fear, melodrama and sensationalism. We simply seek the truth and balance. I encourage all sport shooters to consider joining the NSA. However if you don't feel that it is appropriate for you to do so, we respect your position. Regardless of your choice, the NSA will do its very best to protect and serve your heritage and freedoms, and those of your children, and your grandchildren, just the same as Charlton (Heston) did for so many years.


Yet once again, the claim of "they're going to take away our guns" comes out. The suggestion that firearms will be confiscated is based on the irrational fear that you prefer to circulate amongst your own members, where everyone nods in approval. _It's ok folks, you can bury your firearm on public land and it technically won't be in your possession._

Q: how member signed up and paid members does the NSA have ?

----------


## Beavis

Bugger cosmoline : VACUUM SEAL STORAGE BAGS | Brownells

While I fully agree with the wrongness of AAB-285-2 I think it would play out like this:

Police find a "Cache" of reclassified firearms

The media goes nuts about how "high powered assault weapons" like the ones used to shoot up US schools are everywhere

PNHQ has a cry baby to the MOP, the pollies bowls invert

Said gun owner gets shafted big time by the judiciary and the jury, unless Richard and the team can work something out

If anyone ever entertains the thought of doing this, for every-bodies sake, don't get caught.

----------


## Ryan

My opinion is that the NZP feels that they lost face in losing the court case against Richard. AAB-285 is their misguided and callow attempt to reassert their authority by creating a law to combat a "problem" which simply never existed and in so doing, will only create even further problems as alluded to by Richard Prosser's address in parliament, viz "burying firearms in a pipe". Criminalising otherwise law abiding firearm owners because they are in possession of a firearm that happens to have a few different aesthetic and non-functional features makes zero sense to me and is an inappropriate use of tax payer's funds which could be better used to fight actual crime.

That said however if (when?) AAB-285 does come into law and some of the firearms in my inventory will re-classified as E category I will, as a responsible owner and law abiding citizen, obey the law and upgrade my security and apply for the correct endorsement. I could easily bury them somewhere and forget about them for a while but why would I deny myself the enjoyment that I get out of using them and live in perpetual fear of a visit from Old Bill in the hopes that one day, the law might change? How long could one be waiting? Years, perhaps a lifetime. Burying them and not using them for x amount of time is a similar deprivation to having them taken off you and destroyed for the amount of use one would get from them.

Even though I am opposed to the law, like any other citizen of this country we can't pick and choose which laws we wish to abide by and if one wishes to challenge the law it's probably better to do so from a position of obedience than defiance.

----------


## Beavis

Ryan, the reason they are seeking to restrict these firearms is because they don't like them. Don't underestimate the haters. There is no sensible reason to restrict them other than people don't like them and it is the govt's prerogative to impose laws upon us.

----------


## Ryan

Well, I don't like country and western music but that doesn't give me the right to tell other people not to listen to it. The NZP's dislike of these particular types of firearms is completely irrational.

----------


## Beavis

> Well, I don't like country and western music but that doesn't give me the right to tell other people not to listen to it. The NZP's dislike of these particular types of firearms is completely irrational.


True but they don't give a flying fuck what we think

----------


## Ryan

> True but they don't give a flying fuck what we think


Clearly. The government is meant to serve the people's interests, not the other way around.

----------


## krewzr

> Even though I am opposed to the law, like any other citizen of this country we can't pick and choose which laws we wish to abide by and if one wishes to challenge the law it's probably better to do so from a position of obedience than defiance.



Ryan: can you answer this question. Is there any law that the government could enact, that you would not obey?

----------


## Littledog

Well we know the law change is not about public safety. If it was about safety we would see a forceful effort to disarm the gangs and criminals-not further restrict the law abiding.

Since the 1992 amendment that reclassified certain rifles as "MSSA" when was the last shooting crime carried out by a license holder using a MSSA style rifle. The last shooting using a MSSA style rifle that I can remember was Jan Moliner in Napier-who was unlicensed.

Maybe the issue is about control and as Ryan said "payback" for the Police losing in a high court case.

In the USA the current proposed "assult" Rifle Ban is again not about public safety, as overall only 2% of shooting crimes committed in the USA were carried out with "assult" style rifles (Congressional research study). The vast majority of shootings in the US are with handguns in the possession of the criminal fraternity. 

Its more about control than public safety. With a bit of a "I don't like them guns, so why should you", mentality thrown in the mix. 

Cheers.

----------


## Ryan

> Ryan: can you answer this question. Is there any law that the government could enact, that you would not obey?


That's a bit of a vague question there Richard and would depend on the law enacted. If the government said that it was mandatory for all males to be out of bed at 0500 every Sunday morning to sing the national anthem then no, because that's just silly and would never happen.

----------


## Towely

> Clearly. The government is meant to serve the people's interests, not the other way around.



That is the funniest god damn thing i have heard for a long time. The governments job is to assert control on the people, period.

----------


## Ryan

> That is the funniest god damn thing i have heard for a long time. The governments job is to assert control on the people, period.


I'm available for children's parties, weddings and Bar Mitzvahs.

----------


## Happy

See this page   Login  :36 1 18: 

  If this page disappears I have a copy

  Some comments there have actually just about pretty much put me off NSA . My way or the highway rings a bell  ???

  I was thinking when I saw the hide your guns in plastic pipe stuff that its actually not a good way to promote yourself as you 

 do start to loose credibility real quick.. Page above comments don't help. Just makes NRA look like boys camp where you toss toys around...

 Go ahead try to win back my potential subscription Richard.. You re gonna need to use standard NZ language and write it slowly for me cos I only read slowly.    NOT ..   :36 1 7:

----------


## Happy

Bugger you have to be logged on to read it ....  I got a log in with out being a member somehow....
    Hard to read but best I can do... Kids stuff really



Mikee
NSA full member
Newbie

Posts: 1
Karma: +0/-0
[applaud][smite]









Thread on NZ hunting and shooting.co.nz

« on: Wed,26,12,12 »



Have a look here Richard

NSA or SSNZ




Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Southern Man
NSA full member
Newbie

Posts: 10
Karma: +0/-0
[applaud][smite]









Re: Thread on NZ hunting and shooting.co.nz

« Reply #1 on: Thu,27,12,12 »



Thanks Mikee. Kscott is a well known nay sayer and appologist of inferior intellect ...

Herbie's rant seems to be a very selective version of what happened!

In 1991 the Arms Amendment Bill was already in parliament when the commissioner made the ultra vires decission to 'ban' the importation of all the affected firearms. After the court case which showed he had acted incorrectly (and incidently the ruling set Commonwealth precident law ...) the Cabinet passed a Customs prohibition order (in Council) to prevent importation with the agreement that this would be lifted after the Bill became law thus allowing importation of MSSAs under the new controls. This is why MSSAs have been imported with 'special reasons' since that time.

In 2009 the Butt Hole Stock fiasco was another attempt at imposing police 'policy' which was ultra vires and beyond their powers. Once again it was either compliance (the colfo path) or another court case.

Either we have control by unlawful police 'policy' or a set of properly passed laws and regulations which are available for all to read and understand. Either 'agreements' made behing closed doors by shaddowy individuals or rule of law.


Or do we trust individuals who specialise in 'the supply of special products for law enforcement, police, military and security professionals' to represent us? The truth is that simple - is it not?



« Last Edit: Thu,03,01,13 by Southern Man » 

Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Krewzr
Administrator
Newbie

Posts: 5
Karma: +0/-0
[applaud][smite]










Re: Thread on NZ hunting and shooting.co.nz

« Reply #2 on: Mon,07,01,13 »



There appears to be a number of posts on there from COLFO board members. I think they blame NSA for their funding being cut by several large shooting clubs. Would'nt mind being blamed for that if we had received the funding instead ! lol




Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Krewzr
Administrator
Newbie

Posts: 5
Karma: +0/-0
[applaud][smite]










Re: Thread on NZ hunting and shooting.co.nz

« Reply #3 on: Tue,08,01,13 »



This just toooo good. One 17 year old has just completely flipped his own argument and become one of us 

http://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co.n...html#post72226




Logged

----------


## krewzr

> That's a bit of a vague question there Richard and would depend on the law enacted. If the government said that it was mandatory for all males to be out of bed at 0500 every Sunday morning to sing the national anthem then no, because that's just silly and would never happen.


So that is affirmative. You would resort to civil disobediance if the government tried to legislate away your right to  lay in bed on Sunday morning. 

Do you think that all males in New Zealand would resort to civil disobediance if such a law was passed ? and if not, what pecentage of males do you estimate would, respectively obey and disobey ?

----------


## krewzr

@Happy

We would appreciate it if you did not copy material from the NSA forum and publish it elsewhere. Doing so raises privacy issues and content ownership issues for NSA and its members. You are welcome to post links to information and if people see fit, they can go and look at the material themself: but please refrain from copying and republishing.

Thanks
Richard Lincoln

----------


## Ryan

> So that is affirmative. You would resort to civil disobediance if the government tried to legislate away your right to  lay in bed on Sunday morning. 
> 
> Do you think that all males in New Zealand would resort to civil disobediance if such a law was passed ? and if not, what pecentage of males do you estimate would, respectively obey and disobey ?


What does this have to do with AAB 285?

----------


## Savage1

Your "case law" around possession goes back to how the person dispossessed the firearm by supplying it to an unlicensed person, this case doesn't outline possession at all, it outlines supply, in which he dispossessed the firearm by placing it in somebody else's possession. 

We don't have any case law surrounding possession of a firearm so it would fall back on case law from other commonwealth countries for guidance, of which there are prime examples.

How would you explain going from having the firearm in your possession to not having it in your possession and it not being stored properly? Are you trying to say it would be perfectly legal for me to go dispossess myself of some firearms by throwing them in the middle of a park? Since you say storage only applies to possession. Otherwise I could throw my firearms over the back fence instead of locking them away after every time I use them.

I ask once again, why are you encouraging people to illegally bury firearms on public land rather than apply for the correct endorsements or store with another person who does have the correct endorsements so they can continue to use and enjoy their firearms?

----------


## krewzr

> What does this have to do with AAB 285?


Well AAB285 is a law. You have said that you are intending to comply with that law, but also that you would not comply with a law that restricted your Sunday morning sleep in. 

I wanted to find out what you take into consideration and how you decide which laws to comply with and which you choose to disobey. I also wanted to know your view on how other people ought to make those decisions. Really the question is, how far does the government have to go, before you make a personal decision to say "NO" 

I suppose I do not understand how people can criticise others who might make a well considered personal moral decision not to comply with AAB285 but at the same time, they would resort to civil disobediance if deprived of a sunday morning lay in. 

How do we decide as individuals when to withdraw our consent to government infringement of our rights... and unless an individual can honestly say that he or she would obey every law without question, even one that demands their prescence at the nearest state gas chamber, how can it be right to claim the moral high-ground and denigrate a person or organisation who disobeys what is considered a clearly unjust and irrational law? It all seems a little hypocritical don't you think?

----------


## krewzr

> We don't have any case law surrounding possession of a firearm so it would fall back on case law from other commonwealth countries for guidance, of which there are prime examples.


Im sorry to but you are mistaken. I have read several recent NZ cases that do deal with the issue of possession for the purposes of the Arms Act. Robertson v Police is the most prevalent authority. As I said before, the Courts of New Zealand have expressly said that the meaning of possession for the purpose of the Arms Act is particular to that Act in this country. The meaning of "possession" in the context of other NZ statutes and other jurisidictions is not applicable (thats the stated view of the NZ judiciary.) 

I don't think this is worth pursuing any further. Clearly their are several individuals on here who subscribe to the view that burying a firearm will not amount to parting with possession of it (although no-one has yet been able to cite an authority for that view.) You are entitled to your opinion. Lets just leave it there.

----------


## Happy

> @Happy
> 
> We would appreciate it if you did not copy material from the NSA forum and publish it elsewhere. Doing so raises privacy issues and content ownership issues for NSA and its members. You are welcome to post links to information and if people see fit, they can go and look at the material themself: but please refrain from copying and republishing.
> 
> Thanks
> Richard Lincoln



  Sorry about that NOT !!! Public domain once you post it same as this here. Same as your comments about hiding or dispossesing firearms as you may not have the correct licence or what ever to possess.
 Im pretty sure if next time you fight something on these lines if someone told the court heres this off their NRA website they could accept it into the process and all form their own decisions on the comments.
 What peed me off is that you talk about personal abuse in one of your comments  then seems to me you go make Toby look like quite foolish in that posting . Kinda like a look at this my little coup...

 If the media choose to use any thing off face book or websites when its out there its out there.
 You have no disclaimer on your website about information usage that I could easily find.
 End of the day I'm actually not against you or the organisation you support.
 I was about to join it and support it but now Im unsure which is why I posted the statement  "tell me why I should" and why I visited the site looking at stuff
 and was disappointed at the maturity of the comments and the bull..

  Competition to use the hardest words one can find   Thanks Mikee. Kscott is a well known nay sayer and appologist of inferior intellect ...

 Reeks of Old boys club old man say what..

 Challenge remains change my mind. There is a place for the NRA but it needs to be absolutely without people at the top holding pissing competitions.. and in the public domain ensuring

 all content can with stand any scrutineeing as to private agendas as we all know how one comment can be taken many ways as well as one suggestion.

  Sorry to fellow members for possibly once again breaking no politics rules...

----------


## Savage1

> Im sorry to but you are mistaken. I have read several recent NZ cases that do deal with the issue of possession for the purposes of the Arms Act. Robertson v Police is the most prevalent authority. As I said before, the Courts of New Zealand have expressly said that the meaning of possession for the purpose of the Arms Act is particular to that Act in this country. The meaning of "possession" in the context of other NZ statutes and other jurisidictions is not applicable (thats the stated view of the NZ judiciary.) 
> 
> I don't think this is worth pursuing any further. Clearly their are several individuals on here who subscribe to the view that burying a firearm will not amount to parting with possession of it (although no-one has yet been able to cite an authority for that view.) You are entitled to your opinion. Lets just leave it there.


Are the simple questions getting a little hard to answer?

----------


## Rushy

No apology needed Happy.  This is not what I would consider political although there are some that may consider it "hot air"

----------


## distant stalker

> Yes I agree: I think it is important when discussing legal issues to be accurate. The Arms Act refers to "restricted weapons" and the regulations deem certain objects, ranging from tasers and pepper sprays through to full auto guns as "restricted weapons." Weapons are also refered to in the purpose section of the Arms Act. However, I choose to draw a clear distinction between a weapon and a firearm. The authority that I rely on is any reputable dictionary; all of which refer to a weapon as being an object used to attack or defend; normally in inter-human relationships. I am uncomfortable with the proposition that civilian sporting firearms are used for this purpose and police are adamant that civilian firearms cannot be possessed for that purpose. I note that I clarifed that that was my personal stance on the discussion.
> 
> S66 of the Arms Act is something that a civilian gun owner would need to take into account, if they had decided to disposess themself by burial, as to where they would bury the firearm. It would probably need to be on public land: i.e in a remote conservation area or similar.
> 
> S19 of the regulations does not apply unless possession exists. The whole point of burial is dispossession; therefore once the firearms are not in the possession of the licence holder, the security precautions do not apply. There are similar comparisons in regard to criminal possesion of firearms - unlicensed persons in unlawful possession of a firearm are not required to store the firearm in the regulated security precautions.
> 
> I think this is matter that we ought to simply be able to hold different opinions on. I am not asking you to agree with me anymore than I am willing to concede that your view is the correct one. 
> 
> Kind Regards
> Richard Lincoln


the phrase clutching at straws comes to mind
 the argument is hugely subjective. the guidelines of this forum outline that we do not welcome political discussion. I think we will have a clean up of this thread when I'm at a computer

----------


## Ryan

> Well AAB285 is a law. You have said that you are intending to comply with that law, but also that you would not comply with a law that restricted your Sunday morning sleep in. 
> 
> I wanted to find out what you take into consideration and how you decide which laws to comply with and which you choose to disobey. I also wanted to know your view on how other people ought to make those decisions. Really the question is, how far does the government have to go, before you make a personal decision to say "NO" 
> 
> I suppose I do not understand how people can criticise others who might make a well considered personal moral decision not to comply with AAB285 but at the same time, they would resort to civil disobediance if deprived of a sunday morning lay in. 
> 
> How do we decide as individuals when to withdraw our consent to government infringement of our rights... and unless an individual can honestly say that he or she would obey every law without question, even one that demands their prescence at the nearest state gas chamber, how can it be right to claim the moral high-ground and denigrate a person or organisation who disobeys what is considered a clearly unjust and irrational law? It all seems a little hypocritical don't you think?


If you do not wish to comply with AAB 285 then that's your prerogative and I have not, nor will I criticize you or anyone else for doing so. As adults, I believe everyone can make up their own mind about what's wrong and what's right. Personally I have far more important things to worry about and now is not the time for me to entertain political martyrdom - as noble as the cause may be.

----------


## mikee

Happy, Just to clarify  I started the thread you refer to in the NSA forums. It is in the members section which as far as I am aware is not visable to Joe Public. So how you got there is anybods guess. I don't really care either way what organisation you join. I won't need to hide anything any where, I never do. I have all the appropriate endorsements / security to own/use what I do. I joined the  NSA cause Colfos advise over the Stock debacle was just to roll over and comply.

I see you have a STI AR now, well if its a A cat rifle then you were able to buy it because the NSA won their case of the "Check your stock" interpretation. 

Ditto all the parts now coming in for them (AR's) before that you needed special reasons. 

No more from me on this.

----------


## Happy

I see you have a STI AR now, well if its a A cat rifle then you were able to buy it because the NSA won their case of the "Check your stock" interpretation. 

Ditto all the parts now coming in for them (AR's) before that you needed special reasons. 

No more from me on this.[/QUOTE]

  Cheers Ears didnt see you write anything silly... Yes mines ACat but my safe is E just need to find some people to say great things about me now...

----------


## krewzr

> If you do not wish to comply with AAB 285 then that's your prerogative and I have not, nor will I criticize you or anyone else for doing so. As adults, I believe everyone can make up their own mind about what's wrong and what's right. Personally I have far more important things to worry about and now is not the time for me to entertain political martyrdom - as noble as the cause may be.



I'm not sure what I will do if AAB285 is enacted (and there are some doubts that it will be) but if anyone decides that being told you can't hold your firearm 3 degrees more to the vertical without a special endorsement is about as ridiculous as being told you can't sleep in past 5am on Sunday morning... I certainly won't criticise them for taking a stance of civil disobediance.

----------


## krewzr

> What peed me off is that you talk about personal abuse in one of your comments  then seems to me you go make Toby look like quite foolish in that posting.


Happy I don't really follow what you're saying but if I can clarify the comment quoted above. 

I was not complaining about personal abuse. My point was that trying to negate the validity of a persons argument by attacking the person rather than the argument is a flawed form of debate that is usually resorted to by those who actually cannot raise a valid counter argument. Otherwise known as "shoot the messenger." 

My comment about Toby was not intended to make him look foolish. I think he is very astute and has obviously thought through his feelings on this subject and arrived at the conclusion that, yes... sometimes a person cannot comply with a law because it falls outside what they can morally accept. 

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

----------


## kiwi39

> Sorry about that NOT !!! 
> 
>  Reeks of Old boys club old man say what..
> 
>  Challenge remains change my mind. There is a place for the NRA but it needs to be absolutely without people at the top holding pissing competitions.. and in the public domain ensuring
> 
>  all content can with stand any scrutineeing as to private agendas as we all know how one comment can be taken many ways as well as one suggestion.
> .



Methinks the pissing competitors aren't going to be happy, happy ... Remember, Some people a cause, some people need those contests in their lives.

The sad thing is, there probably is an issue that the wider hunting and shooting fraternity do need to deal with, but a lot of them will be less than keen to deal with 3rd year law students with too much time on their hands.



Tim

----------


## Beavis

This kind of petty shit is rampant in the Kiwi hunting and shooting community

----------


## krewzr

I only jumped on here to add some balance to the comments of KScott. The original discussion seemed to set the scene for a NSA v COLFO debate. I think NSA and COLFO are chalk and cheese and a comparison is pointless. Each organisation has its merits and its faults. Each also has its supporters and detractors. 

What I personally hope for is that all civilian gun owners will put their efforts and resources into resisting irrational gun control laws that cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. My greatest fear is that civilian gun owners will fight amoungst themselves in a blind lemmings stampede towards the sort of infringments on their rights that occurred in the UK and Australia.

So anyway... I'm a member of NSA and a financial supporter of COLFO.  I think COLFO have useful role as a UN NGO for international representation of NZ civilian gun owners. NSA have a useful role keeping the domestic front lines secure. So +1 for both orgs from me.

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

----------


## mikee

> This kind of petty shit is rampant in the Kiwi hunting and shooting community


Yep based on past experiences the different shooting groups will be lining up and stepping over each to sell each other out providing they get to keep doing what they do. 

Sooner all Licenced Firearms Owners wake up and stick together the better.

And Kiwi39 I think that that 3rd year law student you refer to is Richard Lincoln, the same one if I am not mistaken referred to in Police Vs Lincoln court case re the "Check your stock" thing. 
NSA didn't appear till after. I could be completely wrong here though

----------


## Kscott

> My point was that trying to negate the validity of a persons argument by attacking the person rather than the argument is a flawed form of debate that is usually resorted to by those who actually cannot raise a valid counter argument. Otherwise known as "shoot the messenger."


And yet on your own forums I'm labelled "is a well known nay sayer and appologist (sic) of inferior intellect ..."

The NSA seems to have difficulty accepting they are simply a small, vocal, hypocritical minority. 

This 'petty shit' Beavis ?  Here ? Or on a closed forum where debate, reason and disagreement is accepted nor tolerated, especially if it's repeated outside the closed community. Personally I think it's a shame the openness other forums have that allow any member of the public to see discussion and viewpoints isn't tolerated on the NSA, yet god forbid anyone criticse them, because they're labelled sheeple and fools and we're one step away from Nazi Germany in the 1930's.

----------


## RimfireNZ

All I was after in starting this thread was to see which NZ shooting organisations would be worth supporting to fight for our rights as NZ citizens to own firearms, and to stop this silly bullshit about semi-auto's and types of stocks etc etc.

I've joined SSANZ (I'll admit the cheap subscription to my favourite gun magazine made that an easy call) and had the full intention of joining the NSA.

But after this shitfight I'm not so sure. I want to be represented by *responsible citizens who are for the safe promotion of gun ownership, shooting sports and hunting*. I don't want to be represented by an organisation that has members talking about burying (what would be, restricted) guns on public land. We don't need any more bad eggs making the gun community look bad. Especially when they get caught red handed with an "us vs them" attitude and turn around and have a go at people on this forum. 

We're all gun owners, and we're all in this together. We can't afford to not be together on this. I'm still going to consider the NSA... as I said we can't afford to not stick together on this, but boy this has made me a lot more skeptical about it.

----------


## Beavis

I used to be a member of SSANZ, but they have no clout and are withering away into nothing. If you read some of their past newsletters, you will see that their support of citizens owning guns to fight off govt terror and self defense goes further at times than what has been said by some NSA members. I suggest that if everybodies sensibilities are hurt by the NSA or SSANZ or what ever, then they go an school up on law and form a new organisation to rep shooters. I'll happily join. I'm tired of all this bitch fighting and political rhetoric. I just want to keep and shoot my guns. I'll pay my sub to whoever stands up to bullshit.

----------


## mikee

> I used to be a member of SSANZ, but they have no clout and are withering away into nothing. If you read some of their past newsletters, you will see that their support of citizens owning guns to fight off govt terror and self defense goes further at times than what has been said by some NSA members. I suggest that if everybodies sensibilities are hurt by the NSA or SSANZ or what ever, then they go an school up on law and form a new organisation to rep shooters. I'll happily join. I'm tired of all this bitch fighting and political rhetoric. I just want to keep and shoot my guns. I'll pay my sub to whoever stands up to bullshit.


Totally agree 100%

----------


## RimfireNZ

> I'm tired of all this bitch fighting and political rhetoric. I just want to keep and shoot my guns. I'll pay my sub to whoever stands up to bullshit.


+1

----------


## krewzr

> All I was after in starting this thread was to see which NZ shooting organisations would be worth supporting to fight for our rights as NZ citizens to own firearms, and to stop this silly bullshit about semi-auto's and types of stocks etc etc.
> 
> I've joined SSANZ (I'll admit the cheap subscription to my favourite gun magazine made that an easy call) and had the full intention of joining the NSA.
> 
> But after this shitfight I'm not so sure. I want to be represented by *responsible citizens who are for the safe promotion of gun ownership, shooting sports and hunting*. I don't want to be represented by an organisation that has members talking about burying (what would be, restricted) guns on public land. We don't need any more bad eggs making the gun community look bad. Especially when they get caught red handed with an "us vs them" attitude and turn around and have a go at people on this forum. 
> 
> We're all gun owners, and we're all in this together. We can't afford to not be together on this. I'm still going to consider the NSA... as I said we can't afford to not stick together on this, but boy this has made me a lot more skeptical about it.


I think both COLFO and NSA promote safe gun ownership, shooting sports and hunting. 

We know historically (from 1992) that in the aftermath of legislation that places unjustified restrictions on firearms, a certain percentage of civilian gun owners will reach the point of civil disobediance; we would rather see these CGOs bury their gun in a safe place out of harms way, and safely preserved in cosmoline until the law is changed, rather than see them get prosecuted for having a gun they ought not to have or worse still sell it to the gangs or drugs dealers.

As I discussed with Ryan, there comes a point when each individual makes a moral decision that enough is enough; they make a conscious and conscientious decision to withdraw consent and resort to civil disobediance. You may not agree with your neighbours decision to disobey the law that states that all even numbered properties are forfieted to the crown; you may instead sit on your hands knowing that your odd numbered property is safe (for now anyway) ... but the different points at which we each reach the limit of our tolerance ought not to prevent us uniting for the common good of ensuring that neither odd or even numbered property is forfieted to the crown.

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

----------


## krewzr

> I'm tired of all this bitch fighting and political rhetoric. I just want to keep and shoot my guns. I'll pay my sub to whoever stands up to bullshit.


+1

----------


## Happy

As we all will especially if they show maturity and self control and don't do shit or make comments that not only makes them look silly but disassociates us normal people Bury my guns f off dug 1500 fence post holes last few years I m over digging holes what's the new age no work required alternative please ??

----------


## Admin

This thread is over

If you want to discuss your views, do it on your own forum Richard

----------

