Thread: Protesting Confiscation Events

Originally Posted by ebf

Sasquatch, if it was an inalienable right (ala Mruka) we would not be having this discussion...
If you can point me to such a "right" in the Arms Act or the Interpretation Act, I will eat my gnome hat

I think it goes to something a lot more fundamental and so obvious we don't even see it, namely (warning: controversial) our inalienable right to self defense.

Even American 2nd amendment proponents will admit the 2nd amendment of their constitution did not institute the right to bear arms, but rather recognised the pre-existing right, i.e. it stated the right "should not be taken away" rather than their founders inventing a brand new right (don't ask me to quote exactly).

Without weapons/arms etc. only the strong (mainly men) have the prerogative of self defense, weapons are in effect the great leveller.

Disclaimer: I own my weapons for fun, not for self defense, but the above I do hold to be self-evident.



On a little sub edit, the right of self defense is not self-evident to US justice, heard of someone getting done for resisting arrest insofar that he insisted on holding up his hands to cover his head as the police baton strikes came raining down...

Originally Posted by ebf

Sasquatch, if it was an inalienable right (ala Mruka) we would not be having this discussion...

If you can point me to such a "right" in the Arms Act or the Interpretation Act, I will eat my gnome hat

I’ll find it for you tomorrow!

Originally Posted by Rushy

I hold my view because the way I interpret the clause is that being issued an FAL is not an inalienable right as it has conditions

It is an interesting one, many of what we consider basic human rights are also conditional and not inalienable in our society, with the government assuming the power to deny certain rights as they see fit.


For example, freedom of movement is generally considered a basic human right but the authorities will deny that right (by imprisonment etc) if they decide you don't deserve it. The right to participate in government and free elections depends on you being old enough to vote. You could run through the whole list of 'basic human rights' and come up with similar conditions for many of them.

This page: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (abbreviated) lists "Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights" as the 30th basic human right, which is a tad ironic given the way governments generally seem to consider it their job to administrate (aka interfere with) peoples rights.

So that reasoning doesn't really distinguish one conditional right/privilege from another apart from the level of qualification to keep or lose it.

Originally Posted by Cordite

I think it goes to something a lot more fundamental and so obvious we don't even see it, namely (warning: controversial) our inalienable right to self defense.

Even American 2nd amendment proponents will admit the 2nd amendment of their constitution did not institute the right to bear arms, but rather recognised the pre-existing right, i.e. it stated the right "should not be taken away" rather than their founders inventing a brand new right (don't ask me to quote exactly).

Without weapons/arms etc. only the strong (mainly men) have the prerogative of self defense, weapons are in effect the great leveller.

Disclaimer: I own my weapons for fun, not for self defense, but the above I do hold to be self-evident.

There was substantial debate among the founding fathers in regards to the Bill of Rights. The US Constitution essentially spelled out the various limits and checks and balances placed on government but came up a bit short in regards to the citizens. Some of the founding fathers considered these inalienable rights to be self evident but others disagreed in that over time, tyranny would always try to reassert itself so best to add them to the Constitution and put them in stone. Although the 1st and 2nd Amendments are ones often referenced some of my favorites are the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Originally Posted by ebf

Sasquatch, if it was an inalienable right (ala Mruka) we would not be having this discussion...

If you can point me to such a "right" in the Arms Act or the Interpretation Act, I will eat my gnome hat

Firearms ownership is listed as a right in the English Bill of Rights Act 1689, which predates the Second Amendment by 100 years and still carries weight of law here.
The Bill of Rights Act was last invoked here(successfully, I might add) in the 1970s.

Also, the very concept of a human right precludes a government giving it to its people.
Human rights just exist. They always have and they always will. All governments can do is choose whether or not to recognise and respect them.
There is absolutely nothing any government can do to make a human right cease to exist.

Also, according to the US Supreme Court, the Second Amendment is subject to "reasonable restrictions." We have Antonin Scalia to thank for that.
There is no definition of what is and isn't a "reasonable restriction," so that is the excuse local, state, and federal government agencies use to fuck people over all the time.
There are millions of people who have to fight each and every day just to maintain what rights they have left, and even then bad laws and regulations still get passed

Will you be having sauce with that gnome hat @ebf ?

Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk

In regard to the right to use reasonable force in self defense (so far no disagreements across the board), I submit that if you are deprived of the reasonable means of EFFECTIVE self defense you are in effect deprived of your right to reasonable self defense.

Self defense must by its nature be effective, or it is just a gesture of self defense (like screaming no no to a determined rapist, so that he can be charged in court later, if he does not strangle his victim and only witness in between).

This means I cannot erect a water cooled machine gun nest on my roof. Whether you can be deprived of semi-automatics, to be reasonable you would have to look at the self defense environment and see if a semi is proportional to the threat, but then there are other uses of semis. I suspect not, as no criminal would take on a home invasion if they thought the inhabitant had "just" a semi auto .22LR at hand. Any bang stick would do. The other issue is out and about rather than home self-defense and here we have the issue of hand guns. In other words, as much as I disagree with the Government's decision, semi confiscation does not impact on anyones right to effective self-defense.

@veitnamcam, still waiting for a direct answer Cam...

Pointing at ancient English laws and US laws does not quite cut it in terms of the NZ situation.

I'll even be very generous and include the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990.

If someone can show me these rights in there, I guess I'll be asking Dundee for a large bottle of Watties

@ebf

In response to your generosity - I'll start with the low-hanging fruit of the 1990 Act

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 / #26:

Retroactive penalties and double jeopardy

(1)No one shall be liable to conviction of any offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute an offence by such person under the law of New Zealand at the time it occurred.

(2)No one who has been finally acquitted or convicted of, or pardoned for, an offence shall be tried or punished for it again.

So:

1. Is the forcible confiscation of firearms not a retroactive penalty?

2. How can we be legally subject to an amnesty (which by its very definition is only applicable to criminals) when purchase and possession of firearms was not "an offence by such person under the law of New Zealand at the time it occurred"?

Originally Posted by ebf

Pointing at ancient English laws and US laws does not quite cut it in terms of the NZ situation.

Well; since the Treaty Of Waitangi is only valid because of English law (remember the Crown... with whom the Treaty was agreed under English law...) we can't cherry-pick applicability of said English law & precedent, and on the one hand say the TOW has total legal enforceable validity 150+ years later, yeah verily even unto radio spectrum and special Parliamentary seats etc., so forth - but other English law is not relevant at all, no sirree, nothing to see here. move along...

@ebf, reverse that onus of proof and show us where it says it's a privilege.

If we accept that it's a human right - albeit one that's not recognised in NZ law - yet the law simultaneously stops short of explicitly calling it a privilege, what is it? Sounds like it's a grey area, legally speaking. Perhaps "conditional entitlement" describes it better?

Certainly the police's mantra is "privilege not a right". Although, given the evident ease at which privileges can be taken away, I'm not sure that parroting it on their behalf is particularly helpful.

@sightpicture

you are talking about the new laws (prohibited firearms), not the original item under discussion (right to own firearms).

pretty sure there will be legal challenges to some (or all) of the new laws. if any of that includes a defense of "right to bear arms" I would be very surprised if it got anywhere in NZ

i suspect the courts will point out that the counter argument to point 1 would be the payment offered for those items.

point 2 is a meaningless argument, the law has changed, the amnesty is an acknoledgement that people are now on the "wrong side" of the law through no fault of their own. amnesties after law changes are not new... so i'm not really sure what the point is you are trying to make there.

@PommyMcPomFace, "parroting it on their behalf" REALLY ?!?

there are very specific rights - go read the NZ Bill of Rights Act

If you want to argue about implied rights, good luck with convincing the courts in NZ that you have a case

Originally Posted by Rushy

Sasquatch / ebf the debate about whether obtaining a firearms license in New Zealand is a right or a privilege to me pivots on interpretation of the Arms Act clause below.

24. Issue of firearms licence
(1). Subject to subsection (2), a firearms licence shall be issued if the member of the Police to whom the application is made is satisfied that the applicant—
(a). is of or over the age of 16 years; and
(b) is a fit and proper person to be in possession of a firearm or airgun.

I have always contended that it is a privilege to have a firearms license in New Zealand but many read the words “shall be issued” and interpret them to imply a right. I can absolutely understand how those that hold this view arrive at that conclusion. I hold my view because the way I interpret the clause is that being issued an FAL is not an inalienable right as it has conditions (in that you must be of a certain age and be fit and proper). This debate will continue forever because to me each individual’s interpretation is subjective.

Thank you Rushy. In English law, Shall does not refer to the future. It can be paraphrased as "has the duty to" and refers only to capable subjects (meaning, Lessor, or Buyer shall do something, but not Property or Product shall). (Must refers to the duty to perform of inanimate subjects (like the product or the property)). With this legal (not 'civilian') language interpreted, a right is not invoked but a duty is. I.e. the police have to issue a firearm to all those people who satisfy 1 & 2. If the police disagree, next step is a courtroom if the prospective fit and proper person wishes to invoke the law to have the police perform their duty. Differences like this fund lawyers' Maseratis.

Originally Posted by ebf

@sightpicture

you are talking about the new laws (prohibited firearms), not the original item under discussion (right to own firearms).

I have addressed that separately just above, thanks.