Thread: National creates a Hunting and Fishing portfolio

Small win is still a win

It's merely "Polly wants a cracker"- speak at present. I won't be changing my voting plan.

I wonder if creating a portfolio like that, and a minister later on, they would not be able to “ control “ certain fish and game policies regarding fresh water quality in favour of the farmers organisation …but I m maybe wrong

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Of course they'll create a populist shadow portfolio.

They'll leap at anything that might gain them votes.

The real question is "what will they deliver?"

Remember the Blue team backed the Red team's first firearms law reforms.

They only changed their minds when they saw what way the wind was blowing later.

A plague on all parliamentary parties.

Ask National if they are going to revoke the Mil ban and give us our guns back. Dont be silly. National still has the mad Judith Collins whose counterpart in Labour is the dull as dishwater Nanaia Mahuta. The problem is the graft that Mahuta chiseled out of contracts for her hubbie will be taken up by some National grifter.

Originally Posted by Friwi

I wonder if creating a portfolio like that, and a minister later on, they would not be able to “ control “ certain fish and game policies regarding fresh water quality in favour of the farmers organisation …but I m maybe wrong

I knew those farmers were up to something

Originally Posted by TeRei

The problem is the graft that Mahuta chiseled out of contracts for her hubbie will be taken up by some National grifter.

yup the more things change the more they stay the same..........
we are in for a tough few years no matter who will be rattling the chains at the end of the year

Originally Posted by TeRei

Ask National if they are going to revoke the Mil ban and give us our guns back. Dont be silly. National still has the mad Judith Collins whose counterpart in Labour is the dull as dishwater Nanaia Mahuta. The problem is the graft that Mahuta chiseled out of contracts for her hubbie will be taken up by some National grifter.

They will never bring back MSSA. I think that has to be accepted. And frankly I’m comfortable with that.
On the fence with a small magazine capacity sporting semi.

I think the more pertinent topic or question is:
What do we/you want from any govt in terms of hunting or fishing?
Deer populations are growing rapidly, Fallow have spread massively in the last 10 - 15 years.
We don’t have a lack of opportunities to hunt.
It’s essentially free.

I’ve never supported the gun registration, but only because I don’t trust the data security. Not because I give 2 rips if they know I have 3 guns or 30.
But reading the story in last weekends Herald, i understand why now. I think they called them strawmen. Or straw licenses.
Basic premise of the issue is there are license holders who buy firearms and immediately on sell them to gang members or the unlicensed for profit.
There are blokes making a living doing this.
How else do you stop it?

I personally would like to see access to public lands tidied up.
Farmers will hate it, but access to crown land locked beyond private property must be guaranteed for all.
Crown land locked away by private interest, and then benefited by proxy by the private land holder should have a cost for that privilege.
A simple way of working it, allow access, or pay for exclusive use.

Originally Posted by Lauries Hut

They will never bring back MSSA. I think that has to be accepted. And frankly I’m comfortable with that.
On the fence with a small magazine capacity sporting semi.

I think the more pertinent topic or question is:
What do we/you want from any govt in terms of hunting or fishing?
Deer populations are growing rapidly, Fallow have spread massively in the last 10 - 15 years.
We don’t have a lack of opportunities to hunt.
It’s essentially free.

I’ve never supported the gun registration, but only because I don’t trust the data security. Not because I give 2 rips if they know I have 3 guns or 30.
But reading the story in last weekends Herald, i understand why now. I think they called them strawmen. Or straw licenses.
Basic premise of the issue is there are license holders who buy firearms and immediately on sell them to gang members or the unlicensed for profit.
There are blokes making a living doing this.
How else do you stop it?

I personally would like to see access to public lands tidied up.
Farmers will hate it, but access to crown land locked beyond private property must be guaranteed for all.
Crown land locked away by private interest, and then benefited by proxy by the private land holder should have a cost for that privilege.
A simple way of working it, allow access, or pay for exclusive use.

Police figures and statements don't support the idea that criminals are obtaining firearms from license holders selling them in large numbers.


You still don't get it. Just because you don't want a semi auto is no reason to not support their legal use. Your firearm of choice will be on the chopping block soon enough.

A more pertinent topic isn't access to public land, it's the new costs, and regulations for ranges and events.

Main issue with the strawman argument is that a registry will only be one more thing stopping the honest law abiding license holders selling to gangs. There aren't enough workers to review 3very license holders' transactions to verify the goods exist where they are meant to.

But, the way E cat was being managed was what created the gaps that Tarrant exploited and something had to change there. Unfortunately it wasn't productive long term or for the betterment of public safety...

Originally Posted by Danger Mouse

Police figures and statements don't support the idea that criminals are obtaining firearms from license holders selling them in large numbers.


You still don't get it. Just because you don't want a semi auto is no reason to not support their legal use. Your firearm of choice will be on the chopping block soon enough.

A more pertinent topic isn't access to public land, it's the new costs, and regulations for ranges and events.

Hell where do I start?

“Police figures and statements don’t support” I find that fairly had to believe. If you want to make such claims, stump up your evidence for all to see.

“You still don’t get it” quite an assumption from a short post. I lost a semi. I’d still like to use one.
The problem is not their legal use.
The problem is F-wits like Tarrant and god knows how many loopy Americans, who have exclusively used such weapons, to shoot up large numbers of innocents.
We fortunately live in a democracy, and we as a community of firearm users, need to present well, and fit in the the voting public. If we’re lucky Act will have their hands on the strings of power by the end of the year. They will possibly have the power to minimise further damage. Perhaps undo some of the more onerous rule changes. But life is a compromise from start to finish. This is a compromise we will have to accept. I didn’t say I liked it, I simply accept it.

“A more pertinent topic” What I said was; “What do we/you want from any govt” so yes that means you Danger Mouse. Rather than dismiss others, why don’t you just add your point. It’s a valid one.

Originally Posted by Danger Mouse

Police figures and statements don't support the idea that criminals are obtaining firearms from license holders selling them in large numbers.


You still don't get it. Just because you don't want a semi auto is no reason to not support their legal use. Your firearm of choice will be on the chopping block soon enough.

A more pertinent topic isn't access to public land, it's the new costs, and regulations for ranges and events.

Hell where do I start?

“Police figures and statements don’t support”
I find that fairly had to believe. If you want to make such claims, stump up your evidence for all to see.

“You still don’t get it”
Quite an assumption from a short post. I lost a semi. I’d still like to use one.
The problem is not their legal use.
The problem is F-wits like Tarrant and god knows how many loopy Americans, who have exclusively used such weapons, to shoot up large numbers of innocents.
We fortunately live in a democracy, and we as a community of firearm users, need to present well, and fit in the the voting public. If we’re lucky Act will have their hands on the strings of power by the end of the year. They will possibly have the power to minimise further damage. Perhaps undo some of the more onerous rule changes. But life is a compromise from start to finish. This is a compromise we will have to accept. I didn’t say I liked it, I simply accept it.

“A more pertinent topic”
What I said was; “What do we/you want from any govt” so yes that means you Danger Mouse. Rather than dismiss others, why don’t you just add your point. It’s a valid one.

There is no reason we can't manage the ownership and use of centrefire semi auto rifles for sport shooters under a reimagined E endorsement.

We already do this for pistols under a B endorsement, and machine guns, pistols and select fire rifles under a C endorsement.

I might even put it to Mr Mclay to see where he stands on this issue.

Originally Posted by Lauries Hut

Hell where do I start?

“Police figures and statements don’t support” I find that fairly had to believe. If you want to make such claims, stump up your evidence for all to see.

“You still don’t get it” quite an assumption from a short post. I lost a semi. I’d still like to use one.
The problem is not their legal use.
The problem is F-wits like Tarrant and god knows how many loopy Americans, who have exclusively used such weapons, to shoot up large numbers of innocents.
We fortunately live in a democracy, and we as a community of firearm users, need to present well, and fit in the the voting public. If we’re lucky Act will have their hands on the strings of power by the end of the year. They will possibly have the power to minimise further damage. Perhaps undo some of the more onerous rule changes. But life is a compromise from start to finish. This is a compromise we will have to accept. I didn’t say I liked it, I simply accept it.

“A more pertinent topic” What I said was; “What do we/you want from any govt” so yes that means you Danger Mouse. Rather than dismiss others, why don’t you just add your point. It’s a valid one.

You mean like nz polices own media statements? Or the OIA requests?

And in the US the majority of furearrelated deaths is with handguns. Besides which, what happens in the US has little bearing on NZ. Jackie used the pokices negligence in giving Tarrant a license, as a platform to promote her self image if Saint cindy. She didn't achieve anything other than being seen to be doing something. A recurring theme which is why the wheels finally fell off.

You still missing the point, you want to throw other disciplines of hunting and shooting under the bus? It comes back on you. NZDA got a rude lesson on that.

The main problem is sentences for selling to unlicenced people are too light. Home or community detention and PD for fucks sake. Make it hurt. Starting point of five years. No discounts for what ever bullshit the defence lawyer dreams up. No early parole. No easy jail's either.

Originally Posted by Steve123

The main problem is sentences for selling to unlicenced people are too light. Home or community detention and PD for fucks sake. Make it hurt. Starting point of five years. No discounts for what ever bullshit the defence lawyer dreams up. No early parole. No easy jail's either.

Pointless if the courts don't apply the penalties