Thread: Gun shop owner vows to prosecute TV3 reporter

Originally Posted by Maca49

I believe Mr Tipple doesnt have an FAL, his past 'crimes' prevent him qualifying. His sons have the licences? is that correct, if so she cant really have a crack at him? Point of interest if shes not charged at all, she will sit in the same camp as Tame Iti, shooting the NZ flag with a shotgun in a public place and not being prosecuted.

Yes but for his sins uncle Tama now controls Te Uruwera.

And now the Dom Post wades in.

Editorial: New Zealand's gun laws still too lax | Stuff.co.nz

maca49 i'm not sure if your facts are correct about DT. although the debate is not about him personally.

Originally Posted by lophortyx

maca49 i'm not sure if your facts are correct about DT. although the debate is not about him personally.

No I support Tipple, just meant was all the shit dragged up on him is irrelevant, he's paid his dues and a price if this is correct,

I don't know why some have compared us, as gun owners, with the US. The US has the RIGHT to own and bear arms embedded in law by their Constitution. We don't even have a Constitution; and the PRIVILEGE of owning and bearing arms is "granted" to us by politicians elected by us to represent us - and Greg O'Connor wants to be one of them. He plans to ride his hobby-horse in to town and clean up. The sad thing is that he will quite likely to succeed. An even sadder thing is that we will likely let him. The woman broke laws and put herself in this position. And let's not forget the origin of this whole issue - Greg O'Connor. TV3's dumb reporter let her stupid self be manipulated into this situation. She should face consequences just as you or I would - for being so bloody stupid, if nothing else. The fact is, she has been used by O'Connor - no great intellect himself - but she has flopped straight into his agenda. Savage1, with all due respect, the boss of your union is a conniving, manipulative, self-serving, media whore with political ambitions. Good that a hole has been patched, but if O'Connor was for real he would have taken it to the Commissioner, not a so-called journalist. Fact is, he has dropped her in the shit. I hope he catches some of the splatter.

Originally Posted by keneff

I don't know why some have compared us, as gun owners, with the US. The US has the RIGHT to own and bear arms embedded in law by their Constitution. We don't even have a Constitution; and the PRIVILEGE of owning and bearing arms is "granted" to us by politicians elected by us to represent us

Well actually, we do have the RIGHT to own arms (if your protestant).
Subjects’ arms

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law:

Source: Bill of Rights 1688

The New Zealand Parliament use the Bill of Rights 1688 to give themselves Parliamentary Privilege.

The Bill of Rights 1688 also forms part of New Zealand law by virtue of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988.

Source: New Zealand Parliament - Parliamentary privilege

Additionally, Firearms Licences are SHALL issue (subject to age and being a fit and proper person), as specified in the Arms Act.

24 Issue of firearms licence

(1)

Subject to subsection (2), a firearms licence shall be issued if the member of the Police to whom the application is made is satisfied that the applicant—
(a)

is of or over the age of 16 years; and
(b)

is a fit and proper person to be in possession of a firearm or airgun.


Now, time to turn 1 gun into 5 guns.

Originally Posted by Koshogi

Well actually, we do have the RIGHT to own arms (if your protestant).
Subjects’ arms

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law:

Source: Bill of Rights 1688

The New Zealand Parliament use the Bill of Rights 1688 to give themselves Parliamentary Privilege.

The Bill of Rights 1688 also forms part of New Zealand law by virtue of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988.
etc etc..

Now, time to turn 1 gun into 5 guns.
Attachment 41808

@Koshogi you are a legend. You obviously read much more useful law than me, cant wait to bring that up in my next conversation about firearm law.

If you want to look closely at the wording of the 1688 Act, it is of no further legal authority than existing law. The words "may have" and "as allowed by law" being critical.

However, the continued misunderstanding of what are legal rights and the unjustified introduction of the word "privilege" whenever it suits to convey a need to feel grateful and to encourage us not rock the boat, is pure propaganda.

The American Constitution is "entrenched law" meaning that it has extra protection from being changed. The power and effectiveness of the constitutional law is of no more significance than ordinary statute law outside of the protection from change that it enjoys.

The rights conveyed in Constituational law are also of no more significance than rights conveyed in ordinary law, they are just harder to change.

Legal rights are legal rights, the protection of those legal rights might have pragmatic effect, but they do not inherently have greater significance to any right conveyed in law.

We have legal rights to own use and possess firearms as prescribed in statute law. Yes that is potentially more open to be changed and that may change our response marginally to how we interact with lawmakers, but it is not a privilege.

If we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot by thinking this way, we are far more conditioned to accepting decisions made on our behalf because psychologically privileges can simply be taken away. A govt is far less likely to consider doing this when it is seen as an attack on legal and legitimate choice, an attack on individual freedoms , and an attack on legal rights recognised in law.

Its not a fricken privilege.....

if I was the owner of the licence number they used id be out for someones head