Thread: Here we go folks

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 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....

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

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by oneipete

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.

awesome, do they have to reply with a hand written letter also?

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!

Originally Posted by NZVarminter

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!

I do wonder if Politicians think it's easier to just make a new law rather than convince gutless Judges to actually hand out decent sentences.
That's the only reason I can think for the Bill, surely the MP in question is aware of the current laws (you'd bloody well hope so).

I foresee things only getting worse (weak sentences) with Andrew Little saying he wants less people in prisons.

Originally Posted by Beetroot

I do wonder if Politicians think it's easier to just make a new law rather than convince gutless Judges to actually hand out decent sentences.
That's the only reason I can think for the Bill, surely the MP in question is aware of the current laws (you'd bloody well hope so).

I foresee things only getting worse (weak sentences) with Andrew Little saying he wants less people in prisons.

There used to be room in Australia for that type of person but now they are refunding them back to us....even if they did not come from here to start with

Originally Posted by oneipete

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.

Well.... Better touch up my handwriting ha.

Originally Posted by Beetroot

I do wonder if Politicians think it's easier to just make a new law rather than convince gutless Judges to actually hand out decent sentences.
That's the only reason I can think for the Bill, surely the MP in question is aware of the current laws (you'd bloody well hope so).

I foresee things only getting worse (weak sentences) with Andrew Little saying he wants less people in prisons.

I doubt it. That Iranian woman knows bugger all about firearms laws but thinks that pistols are unregulated.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by NZVarminter

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!

I see this bandied about a bunch, but statistically harsher sentencing has a pretty negligible effect on crime rate. The biggest deterrent comes in an uptake of certainty of sentencing. Ie how likely is it that I will get caught. In short if we want to reduce the crime, we need police and investigation resource out there catching more crims. That or some sort of wholesale seeping social and economic change, but I think the police resource is.probably the easier answer.

I don't really get what this bill is meant to achieve, and don't see it going anywhere