Thread: Police at it again

Originally Posted by Jexla

Personally I think you've got that wrong.
Sure Mike seemed ok at the meetings, it was his job to appear that way and everything he said was lip service.
Cahill is nothing but a mouth piece for Mike and his CO's, where they can't be seen to saying the things he does.
Mike's office are the perpetrators of this policy, Mike is the head of that office. Police have been trying this stuff on and off testing the waters before there was ever a labour government also.
This isn't the government, this is the unelected government, the police.

I am reluctant to believe you, just don't want to. I want to believe in the good of government and police, I suppose just like the victim of a con artist later describes he or she deeply wanted to believe the con artist was honest and straight. Disappointing, what else to say.

Anyway, this is clearly what the recent redacted police recommendations to the minister of police were about. If that is the case and a conversation took place on this topic I just can't imagine MOP is entirely ignorant of this deliberate obstructionism being carried out now. Two-face?

And then this happens...

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...home-detention

It states "Patterson was able to buy 10 firearms on Hayes' TradeMe account using his name and firearm licence. The guns included two AK-47 type weapons. " and then it adds "While Hayes held a gun licence it didn't permit him to own military style semi-automatic weapons either.". So much for accuracy. If he got them from trade me they would not have been MSSA and if they are now MSSA it is because they modified them afterwards....

Another question arises. If he enabled an unlicensed person to obtain firearms, is he still a fit and proper person to hold a license??????

Originally Posted by Cordite

I am reluctant to believe you, just don't want to. I want to believe in the good of government and police, I suppose just like the victim of a con artist later describes he or she deeply wanted to believe the con artist was honest and straight. Disappointing, what else to say.

Anyway, this is clearly what the recent redacted police recommendations to the minister of police were about. If that is the case and a conversation took place on this topic I just can't imagine MOP is entirely ignorant of this deliberate obstructionism being carried out now. Two-face?

Hardly redacted and personally doubt he didn't understand what was being said after they said "...this approach by Police is subject to legal challenge"

Originally Posted by timattalon

And then this happens...

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...home-detention

It states "Patterson was able to buy 10 firearms on Hayes' TradeMe account using his name and firearm licence. The guns included two AK-47 type weapons. " and then it adds "While Hayes held a gun licence it didn't permit him to own military style semi-automatic weapons either.". So much for accuracy. If he got them from trade me they would not have been MSSA and if they are now MSSA it is because they modified them afterwards....

Another question arises. If he enabled an unlicensed person to obtain firearms, is he still a fit and proper person to hold a license??????

Lots of info missing here, how'd he get a mail order form completed with someone else's license?
He didn't.

Originally Posted by Cordite

@veitnamcam

My point was also a general one. A considerable proportion of the population are to a point alienated from the cops, what with being on the bottom of the social pile, criminal records etc. Alienate an additional quarter million people in the normal, law-abiding band. Not good.

We have no interest in a poor relationship with police, and police have no interest in a poor relationship with 250,000 LFAOs. But good relationships always take two happy parties.

Yep the motiviation seems bizarre. Dont go thining they dont monitor this forum and facebook groups as well.

Originally Posted by Jexla

Hardly redacted and personally doubt he didn't understand what was being said after they said "...this approach by Police is subject to legal challenge"

Attachment 91057



Lots of info missing here, how'd he get a mail order form completed with someone else's license?
He didn't.

So are they getting all motor vehicles capable of over 100km/h, and parts that could be used to modify or repair them, seized as well? That is a way people are getting around the 100km/h speed limits and breaking the law.

Originally Posted by GDMP

I would have said they most certainly do need 'us'.....they need the responsible firearms community to work WITH them,not be at loggerheads with them.That does not help anyone.And the way this policy change was sprung on everyone, without even any prior notification of the change.....is to me,not a very fair/reasonable way to do things....

They're not interested in "working with us". They are interested in one thing only - control. Maintaining it and expanding it where possible.

Originally Posted by Ryan

They're not interested in "working with us". They are interested in one thing only - control. Maintaining it and expanding it where possible.

That would be when "them and us" deteriorates into "them vs us". It's a fuzzy thin blue line.

Originally Posted by Cordite

That would be when "them and us" deteriorates into "them vs us". It's a fuzzy thin blue line.

I believe that moment to be past tense now

Hi Guys ,

They will do what ever they want too , right or wrong , legal or illegal , those words are meaningless to them , by fair means or fowl they will get their way , we need to be more political , and either form own party ? , or get reps in a existing party , AND vote for the party that has our interests at heart , & that means to me , not sticking to maybe your normal party , ie National or Labour or NZ1st or Greens , BUT the ONE that best aligns with hunters/shooters etc , that is whats needed by US .
But few will do that , they will still vote for their usuall party reguardless .
I see firearm ownership as the main indicator of a truely free democratic country , so , it shows Freedom , & that should be a Major aspect to most people that understand real freedom .
Me I have always voted for National , apart from the one time social credit was around , as they are usually pro business , anti hand outs , and have worked in real jobs in the real world & tend to run country like a business , ie live within their means etc , not spent 15-20yrs at UNI , as professonal students/teachers , .
So next election I will vote for the party that was the best to offer for hunters etc , and that maybe a party I have never voted for before .
SO I vote for Freedom , thats more important than , being blinkered into always voting for your default party , also we need to make it clear that IF they lie & go back on thier word then we will vote against them next election , so as to hold them to account .
Funny thing is , that this is not Labour or any party pushing this , its the Police , they are un-affected my our voting , BUT the Parties that are thier Bosses , are affected by voting , maybe they will listen , Opps maybe not .

Rant over

Police advised the Minister of Police that shooters undermine the objective of the act by importing parts and assembling them into MSSAs, even if they do it legally.

"...and undermined the objective of the 1992 amendment act, that is to limit the number of MSSAs in New Zealand".

First of all they don't know the difference between aim and objective. You set an objective task to complete, aiming to achieve something thereby.

Second, I digressed, is the reduction of the number of MSSAs in NZ the actual stated aim of the act?

Originally Posted by Cordite

Police advised the Minister of Police that shooters undermine the objective of the act by importing parts and assembling them into MSSAs, even if they do it legally.

"...and undermined the objective of the 1992 amendment act, that is to limit the number of MSSAs in New Zealand".

First of all they don't know the difference between aim and objective. You set an objective task to complete, aiming to achieve something thereby.

Second, I digressed, is the reduction of the number of MSSAs in NZ the actual stated aim of the act?

If this were truely thir intention they would have only puta restrictions on upper and lower recivers, it doesn't matter how many barrels, triggers, pistol grips, gas blocks a person has without the upper and lower recivers only one rifle can exist.

In fact they should just restrict the importing of lower recivers, as these are the only parts that actually have a serial number that then becomes the MSSA (or not).

Either the Police have completely different intentions than what they are saying, or they are totally incompetent/oblivious to how an AR15 actually works.

I think it's probably both.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

I cant see that ever happening.
They dont need us.

Sent from my SM-A320Y using Tapatalk

I cant see them ever being forgiven. fucking pencil pushing blue fuckers.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

So are they getting all motor vehicles capable of over 100km/h, and parts that could be used to modify or repair them, seized as well? That is a way people are getting around the 100km/h speed limits and breaking the law.

exactly.

Originally Posted by Ryan

They're not interested in "working with us". They are interested in one thing only - control. Maintaining it and expanding it where possible.

more so interested in cuffing each other and deploying the truncheons.

Originally Posted by Tommy

I believe that moment to be past tense now

My pal Ice Cube just called. He said "I told you so. Dumb cracker."