Thread: Here we go folks

My letter.

Alastair Scott

Proposed Firearms Act Shortened Firearms Amendment

I have studied this draft that you have proposed and am at a complete loss as to it’s purpose and expected outcome.

There are many good reasons to shorten a firearm, ranging from to repair damage, make the firearm a good length to fit across a quad bike for farmers and hunters, make the firearm a good fit for users (great for teaching the young safe use), fitting sound suppressors which is good for both humans, dogs and not alert prey. There are many, many more legitimate reasons for shortening a firearm.

As is stands the proposal would affect every responsible firearms owner that I know. I have been thinking very hard about this and cannot think of one that this would not affect. The cost of the required buy back for the government would be heading towards the billions of dollars. Without a buy back there would be a massive voter backlash come the next election with about quarter of a million licensed firearms owners, and probably at least double that with affected family members no longer able to participate and financially affected.

Section 38B (2) (a) (ii) seems to indicate that any shortening will put the firearm into the category of pistol. Yet this is already covered in current legislation. Completely negating this entire proposed amendment.

Section 38B (5) thus seems to be increase the frequency of renewal of permits, which after the massive increase of applicable firearms covered by section 38A will put a massive administrative burden on police. This will take them away from their other duties of actually fighting crimes.

In summary, this proposed amendment would serve absolutely no good purpose and should be abandoned as it is already covered by current legislation. What is missing is the effective application of the current legislation through police and judiciary.

It will either:

Make legitimate responsible voting licensed firearms owners into unintentional criminals or financially burden them.

Increase the administrative burden of both police and users, taking police resources away form fighting crimes.

Through inconveniencing farmers and hunters affect the ability to control pests on farms, lowering productivity and ultimately the countries productivity, whilst simultaneously increasing financial burden on the same.

Do nothing to deter the current criminal sector. Will they stop on the middle of holding up a dairy or bottle store, having stolen a car to drive there (likely with no valid drivers license), with a stolen firearm that they are currently not licensed for either, that they have chopped to a length that would make it a pistol, and think “Oh I need to whip down to the police station to get a permit for this thing”? They have already broken many laws that they had no intention a obeying, will one for make a difference? The penalty of the new law will likely be served consecutively with some of the others making it completely ineffective also.


Yours faithfully

Originally Posted by systolic

It's a good thing no-one jumped to conclusions and started firing off abusive or nose-out-of-joint emails before finding out exactly what was actually intended by this proposed amendment.

@systolic, do you believe the proposal as it is worded is

a) even remotely workable ?
b) well researched ?
c) something that the average law-abiding firearms owner would approve of ?
d) the level of quality in legal drafting we could expect from a member of parliament

Intent has nothing to do with it. What we have here is an embarrassingly poor proposal by an MP that reflects not only on himself, but also on his colleagues (do they just allow anyone to draft what they want without any quality control ?)

Here is a reply i just received from Alastair Scott

"Thanks for your comments on the draft document. the wording will be changed to be more specific, referencing 762mm. The purpose is to increase penalties for gangs. Not to be a nuisance to legitimate users."


Regards


Alastair


So are they re inventing the wheel here, seems like a waste of bloody time and Money.
.

Originally Posted by Malhunting

Here is a reply i just received from Alastair Scott

"Thanks for your comments on the draft document. the wording will be changed to be more specific, referencing 762mm. The purpose is to increase penalties for gangs. Not to be a nuisance to legitimate users."


Regards


Alastair


So are they re inventing the wheel here, seems like a waste of bloody time and Money.
.

So all they really need to do is change the penalties in the current legislation. Not that the crims are likely to bother looking them up before ignoring them.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

So all they really need to do is change the penalties in the current legislation. Not that the crims are likely to bother looking them up before ignoring them.

Exactly!

https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2018/07/a...ing-something/

Originally Posted by Tommy

Exactly!

https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2018/07/a...ing-something/

And they're not looking at much change from the current penalties.

45 Carrying or possession of firearms, airguns, pistols, restricted weapons, or explosives, except for lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose

(1)

Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to both who, except for some lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose,—
(a)

carries; or
(b)

is in possession of—

any firearm, airgun, pistol, restricted weapon, or explosive.

(2)

In any prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in which it is proved that the defendant was carrying or in possession of any firearm, airgun, pistol, restricted weapon, or explosive, as the case may require, the burden of proving the existence of some lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose shall lie on the defendant.

50 Unlawful possession of pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon

(1)

Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who—
(a)

is in possession of a pistol and is not a person authorised or permitted, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that pistol; or
(b)

is in possession of a restricted weapon and is not a person authorised or permitted, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that restricted weapon; or
(c)

is in possession of a military style semi-automatic firearm and is not a person authorised or permitted, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that military style semi-automatic firearm.

I’m seeing stuff on Facebook about this, it looks like they have listened to us, so well done to all who have helped

From Chris Bishop National’s Spokesperson for Police

The National Party is doing some work around the penalties for criminal use of firearms particularly by gangs. We want to make it harder for gangs to get firearms and easier to hold them to account when they do. This makes our communities safer and that’s a real focus for the National Party. However we must always work to find the right balance, and we will be very careful not to impinge on the rights of legitimate firearms users.

As part of these efforts Alastair Scott MP has been exploring ideas to look at raising the penalties for possessing and using sawn off rifles and shotguns. The feedback coming through from legitimate firearm users and the various associations has been very clear and very helpful and will be reflected in any legislative proposal.

We will listen and we will address your concerns. The current proposal is an idea and has not been discussed by the National caucus yet, nor has any bill been entered in the Parliamentary ballot. The draft that Alistair has circulated for feedback will need to be changed to focus more on penalties instead of a permitting system before we consider it further. We will make sure we get the balance right and we will make sure legitimate users aren’t adversely affected.

As Police spokesperson, I am very keen to engage with licenced firearm owners. Later in the year along with your local National MPs I will be holding a series of “National Firearms Forums” where licenced firearms owners will have the opportunity to meet me and in some cases our Justice spokesperson Mark Mitchell. The forums will be a great opportunity for licenced firearm owners shape our policy going into 2020. The sessions will primarily be held in the evening to allow people to attend after work and will be held in as many parts of the country as feasibly possible.

If you have any comments or questions please email me: Chris.bishop@parliament.govt.nz

Originally Posted by Beetroot

I think he means he has had a good amount of feedback.

I think he actually had the best of intentions with the bill, but didn't realise the impact of leaving out a few key words.

I think this whole debacle along with the on going AR15 one is actually good they have happened together.
It's shown both the Police and MPs the firearms owners are very proactive in looking after the rights they have and are willing to stand up for them.
But at the same time the majority of owners are also very keen to see harsher penalties for the criminals whole do break the law.

I just hope that all of or at least most of the submissions have be well thought out and written intelligently, not just saying " if use tri 2 tak my gunz il fkn stab u pig shit cahnt".

So an honest mistake like Trumps last *&^% up?

Sent email to Mr Scott and copied in my electorate MP.

Originally Posted by ebf

@systolic, do you believe the proposal as it is worded is

a) even remotely workable ?
b) well researched ?
c) something that the average law-abiding firearms owner would approve of ?
d) the level of quality in legal drafting we could expect from a member of parliament

Intent has nothing to do with it. What we have here is an embarrassingly poor proposal by an MP that reflects not only on himself, but also on his colleagues (do they just allow anyone to draft what they want without any quality control ?)

@ebf

Answer to your questions..
a) Nope, not even remotely workable
b) Nope, not even remotely researched
c) Nope, no average law abidning firearms owner would remotely approve
d) Unfortunately, this is a big YES. As has been shown, this is exactly the sort of thing we can expect from a member of parliament. Especially one who thinks Chris Cahill is capable of telling the truth....

Originally Posted by Fireflite

So an honest mistake like Trumps last *&^% up?

Yes I think so, not that I know (or care) what Trumps mistake was.

From what I have read it seems clear the intent was to tackle those who shorten a firearm for the sole purpose of making it easily concealable for use in less than lawful purposes.
Not to criminalize me for shortening my 17hmr 1mm when I had the barrel threaded.
I think the intent was an honest one, as had the MP concerned been of the gun grabbing ilk he would've started with restrictions based on semi auto or similar as a first step with the intention of taking it further from there.

I don't believe he realized how big of an impact only a few words could have on such a matter.
You may think that a politician/MP/professional would know the importance of correct wording but honestly they don't have a clue, that's why it was put out for public consultation as a draft and for a final would've been looked over by a lawyer/solicitor to see if the words he had written actually meant what he thought in legal speak.

You would not believe the things Real Estate agents write as clauses in Sale and Purchase agreements, legal documents and expect people to sign.
I have had many S & P agreements that I was expected to sign given to my lawyer to check over and he said were just a load of shit, would never hold up in court, were flat out wrong, or had been explained to me (by an agent) so far from what was legally written it's was border line illegal.
These were written by "Professionals" whose bread and butter is selling house so you would expect them to understand how a Sales and Purchase agreement works and the implications they can have if it all goes tits up.

So yes, I think the man had the best of intentions and can see how this could have been an honest oversight.

Originally Posted by Beetroot

Yes I think so, not that I know (or care) what Trumps mistake was.

From what I have read it seems clear the intent was to tackle those who shorten a firearm for the sole purpose of making it easily concealable for use in less than lawful purposes.
Not to criminalize me for shortening my 17hmr 1mm when I had the barrel threaded.
I think the intent was an honest one, as had the MP concerned been of the gun grabbing ilk he would've started with restrictions based on semi auto or similar as a first step with the intention of taking it further from there.

I don't believe he realized how big of an impact only a few words could have on such a matter.
You may think that a politician/MP/professional would know the importance of correct wording but honestly they don't have a clue, that's why it was put out for public consultation as a draft and for a final would've been looked over by a lawyer/solicitor to see if the words he had written actually meant what he thought in legal speak.

You would not believe the things Real Estate agents write as clauses in Sale and Purchase agreements, legal documents and expect people to sign.
I have had many S & P agreements that I was expected to sign given to my lawyer to check over and he said were just a load of shit, would never hold up in court, were flat out wrong, or had been explained to me (by an agent) so far from what was legally written it's was border line illegal.
These were written by "Professionals" whose bread and butter is selling house so you would expect them to understand how a Sales and Purchase agreement works and the implications they can have if it all goes tits up.

So yes, I think the man had the best of intentions and can see how this could have been an honest oversight.

You know, I'd totally agree with that if it weren't already illegal for them to:

A. Illegally possess a firearm in the first instance.
B. Commit a further offense by cutting the firearm down.

He's under the impression that the max time punishable for having a pistol is less than a A category pistol, but I'll explain again why he's wrong.


Section 45: Carrying or possession of firearms, airguns, PISTOLS (added emphasis), restricted weapons, or explosives, except for lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose.
Punishable by: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to both.

Section 50: Unlawful possession of pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon.
Punishable by: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both.

These are separate offenses and the police have the option of charging someone for both in the case of a pistol as well as an MSSA or restricted weapon.

However the issue is the police only pursue the latter charge instead of the two for their own reasons (Probably more work) and even if they did, they'd not get jail time for those offenses and even if by some miracle that they did, it'd be served concurrently anyway, so it wouldn't make any difference apart from what's on their criminal record.

Guys, just be aware that sending an email is very well n all, you will receive an automated response.

But sending a hand written letter means that by law MP's have to personally reply as i understand it. So a ton of handwritten letters will really make him sit up and take notice.

My vote goes to timattalon for the best reply so far.

However we should not be asking for this bill to be amended. It must be withdrawn completely. There is nothing wrong with the current legislation. If he wants to make a positive change, then change the sentencing!