Thread: Here we go folks

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.

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....