which is ironic as the 416 is a more effective round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
Printable View
which is ironic as the 416 is a more effective round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
its bull shit as far as I'm aware nothing in the arms code or arms act that says you can not shoot an a cat firearm anywhere you have permission and its safe to do so
there's nowhere to my knowledge in the arms code that says you may use your acat rifle (unless its a 50)
the only rule that stands here is the ones in the arms code about safe shooting practices a 50 is exactly the same as a 22 just your safe fireing zone needs to be a bit (a lot) bigger
sounds like another case of the Ao's trying to make there own rules and laws to me but then I'm no expert
Which man?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock river arms hunter
From a military perspective, we have range danger areas in place for all ranges (RDAs). This enables us to train in different areas safely. Most gazetted ranges are up to 7.62 only. .50 cal (or larger than 7.62) is usually written up on an individual exercise basis (static or moving), due to the extended over shoot area/dangers. So I could understand the reasoning behind restricting civilian firers to .50BMG (templated) ranges. I would hate to imagine someone having a crack at a dear/tgt with no ground to capture a .50cal round...not to say that you would, but I'm guessing NZPHQ needs to cater to the most dangerous when it comes to this stuff? A possible solution (at a stretch) would be to produce your own templates for where you intend to shoot, and get them approved?
The issue with templates, is where would you draw the line? .50 BMG is not the only round out there that potentially has a huge danger area. Everytime you fire a rifle on DOC land or even a farm, there is no guarantee that you are shooting into a truly safe back drop, it comes down to judgement and risk assessment.
Just had a new s43A mail order form filled out yesterday to secure the purchase of a .22. The condition of the form being sent (via arms officer)to the seller was that the serial number was logged!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock river arms hunter
Righty then so their recording serial numbers..........
Did they give you the option to not give said serial number?
Mr L :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by tommygun
No, said it was required!
Import it, sell it to a mate. Buy it back a week later. Solves the problem
I recently had licence re-issued (10yrs) and when the AO came around for a "chat" and a "look" at my safe and security arrangements he whips out a piece of paper and asks "would you mind reading out the serial numbers and cal of your rifles". I said yes I do mind and reminded him he had no authority to do so. He looked a little miffed and told me it would be in my best interest you know for security. Pushy prick, Jog on i have the details i require for security. He left dejected and i was a little worried that i could have "poked the bear" so to speak.
One of the articles on the stop/go murder also said that they linked the guy to it through the serial number of the rifle, which had been recorded during a licence renewalQuote:
Originally Posted by Rock river arms hunter
Mate went through the same thing. Was told "we're not going to approve you're security if you don't give us your serial numbers and show me your semi autos". Came to nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reindeer
If you are so paranoid about the cops knowing your serial numbers, then why don't you guys simply put your A-cat guns at a mate's place before the cops come and do the security inspection?
Or hide them under the bed in the spare room until he's gone. You could just say you don't have any guns at the moment.
Might save you from getting convicted for murder at some time in the future.
Sounds like a good bit of police work. Not all licence holders stay 'fit and proper' to have guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilli_Dog
Leaving aside the way you seem to be implying that people who don't want their guns registered with no legal authority are likely to be murderers...Quote:
Originally Posted by systolic
It's about principle - if it's fine for the police to act outside the law when they think something is for a good reason, where do you draw the line? Is it ok for them to tamper with evidence because they're pretty sure the accused did it? Or lie about their actions because the truth is inconvenient? Some of them do that too, are you saying that's ok because they're police? Hey, maybe it's ok for police to shoot someone just because they think they might be a bad person? After all, if you don't give them a reason to think that then you have nothing to worry about.
The law is there for a reason and the police are subject to it for a reason too, it's not up to them to change it or break it when it suits them.
Sums it up perfectly, its not law, and you are actually upholding the law by refusing. If the law changes an serial nos are required then ok we supply them. Read George Orwells 1984 for a lession in death of civil liberties by a thousand cutsQuote:
Originally Posted by GravelBen
It's nothing about paranoia, it's about police following the written law and doing their job. Just because they might view a certain section of society with contempt, doesn't give them an excuse to make up their own rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by systolic
They haven't found the stop/go murder weapon, so can't really claim it's linked to the murder via the serial number. They just wanted to eliminate them forensically, but I get the impression he'd stopped cooperating by that point.
Also may help as evidence to wrongly convict you of a murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by systolic
It's not law to log serial numbers so when it's logged to you and you on sell it via direct hand over, it's still logged against you owning it.
The actual details are a bit tenuous, as others have said the gun was not found, but bassically they found one or two other guns from the same shipment, tested one of them and said it could be a match to the projectile which may or may not be a round nose or hollow point.Quote:
Originally Posted by systolic
My point was not about the actual case, just the fact that the Police have definitely started some sort of serial number register already.
I don't have a problem with recorded serial numbers helping convict felons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilli_Dog
Would Winders have been found to be the killer if the vetting officer hadn't recorded the make and serial number of his guns?
Well he's not been found to be the killer, so no. Also they suspected him because of his jeepQuote:
Originally Posted by systolic
Winders was convicted of murder, so yes he was the killer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
Stop-go trial: Quinton Winders guilty of the murder of George Taiaroa | Stuff.co.nzQuote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
Quinton Paul Winders has been found guilty of murdering road worker George Taiaroa.
The jury delivered its unanimous verdict at the High Court in Rotorua on Friday.
"Mr Winders, you are convicted of murder. You are now subject to the three strikes law," Justice Toogood said in convicting Winders, 45.
Umm. I think he has been found to be the killer.
Definitely found to be the killer. But I doubt that the serial number made the conviction since they didn't have the murder weapon to prove it was the same rifle. They just demonstrated that is likely to be the same ie not beyond reasonable doubt. It is after all a very common single shot .22. The other circumstantial evidence looks overwhelming. For the type of murder the guy could have used a crossbow if he didn't have a gun.
Very rare type of incident in NZ since they didn't know each other. Regardless of what you do including logging serial numbers, paperwork, background checks, interviews etc there is always a chance that someone will get through the net. Such is life. The only other way to reduce the risk further of such a thing happening is to prohibit personal ownership of firearms. Ultimately I think that would be the only thing to keep people like systolic happy.
You've conveniently ignored the point about police acting outside the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by systolic
Do you have a problem with the police breaking the law to gather information outside their authority about law-abiding citizens?
Fuck off. I've got shitloads of guns and don't have a problem with other people owing them. Stop being a wanker.Quote:
Originally Posted by 300CALMAN
I just don't have a problem with the cops knowing what the serial numbers are, anymore than I don't have a problem knowing what my car number plate is.
Probably 70% of my guns are on my pistol and collectors licences, so the cops already have the numbers. They can have the others too if they want them.
You must be a young guy, I admire your trust, they wore it out a long time ago with me!!!:)
Honestly that's fine, but you can't expect others to be okay with it too, just because you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by systolic
When I have a safe inspection and they ask to see guns serial numbers/cal's etc I will only show them anything that's registered on my E/B/C and nothing more on principle.
I have NO legal requirement and the fact they act like I do is the reason that I am not willing.
I'm more worried they have my address listed somewhere.
Where have I ever said that I'm not okay with people not wanting to list all their serial numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexla
Didn't I post a couple of hours ago how to AVOID doing just that?
Calm down, you can disagree with someone, someone can disagree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by systolic
Ah yes so he has. Have been busy the last couple days and missed that they'd come to a verdict.Quote:
Originally Posted by systolic
You did, but in your post you also implied we would do it out of paranoia and to help us potentially get off a murder charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by systolic
:o
Would you not want to get off, if you were charged with murder?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
Yes, who wouldn't...regardless of whether I did it, or not:DQuote:
Originally Posted by systolic
Ok that's 1 case of were it has actually helped.... For the other 99.8% of us I believe it's a invasion of privacy purely on the grounds of guilty until proven innocent which is their status quo at the moment!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilli_Dog
+1 Beavis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
I think someone's mangina is at that time of the month...... Guess who :-) :-)
Just take it back it bit, may individual opinions and the right to live ones life as they see fit reign supreme!