Nick Taylor has already said as soon as they attempt to make it official, it's going straight to court.
Printable View
Nick Taylor has already said as soon as they attempt to make it official, it's going straight to court.
sent a letter complete with "read receipt" , no reply so guess its in the bin
Sent one as well but copied Stuart Nash, got an auto acknowledgement from him straight away and a read receipt later. Neither from the Police.
Now that we have limp-wristed nanny-state government in place, the rats have emerged and are sharpening their teeth. There is no doubt that there is a well-entrenched anti-gun faction in PNHQ, not to mention 'the trendy lefties' now festering on their plush lambskin-covered parliamentary seats. Do not expect any common sense Arms Act decisions to come in the next three years! All of the above-mentioned hoplophobes are convinced that semi-autos have a life of their own than can inhabit the brain of the user, at the same time conveniently overlooking the 'wet bus ticket' sentences dished out by the courts to violent offenders who misuse illegally owned firearms, and the mentally ill that are free to roam our streets. Of course, any changes they make 'will be for the greater good of the community'! Joe Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and the Kim dynasty all said the same thing! I see that our old nemesis, Phillip Alpers, must have got some more funding as he is now foisting his duplicitous scare-mongering on the unsuspecting public once again. I believe Alpers is a Jewish name. I wonder if any of his relatives were victims of similar disarming and subsequent horrors in the 1930's?Quote:
Originally Posted by kotuku
In short, fellow shooters, fight this Police paper with well-written, concise and logical facts. Be prepared to keep fighting for the next few years! I certainly shall be!
Apparently the email address the Police gave is incorrect.
https://www.facebook.com/firearmownersunitednz/
POLICE GAVE WRONG SUBMISSION EMAIL ADDRESS
We have just found out that the security policy submission email address provided by police is wrong.
Anyone who has made a submission please resubmit to the new address...
secure-storage-firearms@police.govt.nz
Please also include Stuart Nash MP Stuart.Nash@parliament.govt.nz
and opposition police spokesperson Chris Bishop chrisbishopoffice@parliament.govt.nz
The questions we ask:
Did they receive any submissions?
Is 1 week enough for submissions?
That's right. The Arms Act is the law, not the Police. Their job is to uphold the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
I am still at a bit of a loss as to what to submit. I'm going to read over it again and see what I can come up with
Sent from my GT-I9506 using Tapatalk
Don't insult ol dear uncle Joe by putting him in the likes of the Alpers catergoryQuote:
Originally Posted by gundoc
From a facebook site discussing this very issue
We need to send in our own submissions. Not all my own. I have borrowed to make the point.
To Whom It May Concern
I am writing to comment on your proposed changes by policy of the secure storage of Firearms as laid out in the above documents. Firstly in both versions you are trying to re-classify A-Category Semi-Automatic Firearms by way of separate security requirements compared to other A-Category Firearms. This contravenes the Law. Also in both versions you require Firearms Owners to sign a contract whereby you threaten revocation of the Firearms License and/or any endorsements if it is not signed.
"I acknowledge receipt from the New Zealand Police of a copy of "SECURITY CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR FIREARMS LICENCES AND ENDORSEMENTS" (Police Form POL67N). I understand that the Police may revoke the licence or endorsement(s) if I fail to observe any of the conditions imposed by the Arms Act 1983, the Arms Regulations 1992 and the "NEW ZEALAND POLICE AS SET OUT IN THE DOCUMENT"
This is absolutely outrageous when you consider that the highlighted part of the quoted text is Police Policy not Law.In short this is an Ultra Vires practice where Police are overstepping their mandate as enforcers of the Law not the makers of the Law. Also this then when signed will apply to any future Policy changes by Police. And it has to be asked will an applicants security not be approved if the said receipt/contract is not signed. In short Police are attempting to implement policy that has no legal standing. Being forced to sign this policy would remove our rights under the Arms Act. We saw Police attempt this earlier this year with the 2017 Arms Code.
There are issues with both proposals because any Police policies and practices must be consistent with the Law; neither proposal is.
Regulations 19 and 28 of the Arms Regulations 1992 sets out the conditions relating to security precautions. The legal authority for the promulgation of the regulation is s 74(1)(j) of the Arms Act 1983. The authority to prescribe security precautions for firearms is vested in the Governor General; not the Police. Therefore Police may not insist on security precautions that are not prescribed by Regulations made by order in council in congruence with s 74(1)(j). Regulation 28 is partially ultra vires because the Governor General has ostensibly delegated anon-delegable power by making security precautions subject to police approval. This delegation is not authorised by the empowering Act. Therefore the ostensible police veto is not enforceable because it is unlawful (see Hawkes Bay Raw Milk Producers Co-op Ltd v NZ Milk Board [1961] NZLR 218 (CA).).
If the Police believe that the present security requirements set out in the Arms Regulations are inadequate, the response ought to be directed at changing the law rather than the Police policies and practices. Trying to foist unauthorised (and therefore unlawful) Police policies on civilian gun owners and enforcing them by unauthorised practices bypasses the parliamentary process and oversight of the legislature; that is unacceptable in a free and democratic society such as New Zealand and as previously discussed, doomed to the same judicial rejection as the police pistol grip policy in 2009.
almost like the aussie where they have a separate classification for centerfires and another one for rimfires and shotguns. Oh and don't forget that when the port Arthur kneejerk laws came in they didn't think of lever action shotguns so they are still ok.
Also how you are allowed a pump action centerfire but not a P/A shotty. All comes down to what was used at the massacre and the doofus' that have no idea about firearms writing up quickly enabled laws.