Thread: Richard Lincoln

Never heard of the bloke, but he sounds like quite a vindictive character. What he did to that constable’s wife was a low blow. It’d be good to have more firearms advocates in the profession, but you can’t slap your blinkers on and ignore his past because of your support for that.

"Lincoln then filed a private prosecution against the senior constable alleging several crimes including aggravated assault, kidnapping and perverting the course of justice.
The District Court declined to accept the filing of the charges saying Lincoln was using the criminal law to extract revenge."

Oh dear! Law is NEVER vindictive...

But should maybe have left it at the failed prosecution. Reading about the toilet case incl the judgment, there was some really bad behaviour and intransigent stupidity going on, and in the main not by Mr Lincoln.

Originally Posted by Cordite

But should maybe have left it at the failed prosecution. Reading about the toilet case incl the judgment, there was some really bad behaviour and intransigent stupidity going on, and in the main not by Mr Lincoln.

Weird that, I've taken firearms to gunsmiths on several occasions, even stopped for a pee , and have not once been stopped by the police. I wonder what was different in my case ? A tiny amount of common sense maybe ?

Originally Posted by Cordite

"Lincoln then filed a private prosecution against the senior constable alleging several crimes including aggravated assault, kidnapping and perverting the course of justice.
The District Court declined to accept the filing of the charges saying Lincoln was using the criminal law to extract revenge."

Oh dear! Law is NEVER vindictive...

But should maybe have left it at the failed prosecution. Reading about the toilet case incl the judgment, there was some really bad behaviour and intransigent stupidity going on, and in the main not by Mr Lincoln.

Like the search warrant being obtained on mental stability grounds after they'd had him cleared for interviewing.

Originally Posted by ebf

Weird that, I've taken firearms to gunsmiths on several occasions, even stopped for a pee , and have not once been stopped by the police. I wonder what was different in my case ? A tiny amount of common sense maybe ?

Richard put his rifle over his shoulder and carried it into the public toilets (so that he obeyed the law and did not leave it unattended in a vehicle), people saw him carrying a rifle in public and called the Police.

Originally Posted by ebf

Weird that, I've taken firearms to gunsmiths on several occasions, even stopped for a pee , and have not once been stopped by the police. I wonder what was different in my case ? A tiny amount of common sense maybe ?

Well your breaking the law leaving them unattended in your car??

Originally Posted by stug

Richard put his rifle over his shoulder and carried it into the public toilets (so that he obeyed the law and did not leave it unattended in a vehicle), people saw him carrying a rifle in public and called the Police.

Exactly. What would you do @ebf? I'm interested to know how you'd apply your tiny amount of common sense in this scenario? ;-)

@Sasquatch, the law is grey. It is not the black and white of Mr Lincoln's world.

In the majority of cases the judges take the view of "what would a reasonable person do".

So, it today's day and age, a reasonable person would NOT carry an uncovered "black" rifle in public, because they would know that it is extremely likely to cause alarm and distress... Or maybe they would if they are trying to cause an incident...

To answer your question directly, what would I do ? Ensure that the firearm is made in-operable, by removing the bolt or securing a trigger lock. Cover it or make sure it is not visible. Lock the vehicle, and go pee, pay for fuel or do whatever. I will not be away from the vehicle for extended periods, I will try to park it in a secure, visible area, etc.

Originally Posted by Maca49

Well your breaking the law leaving them unattended in your car??

Not 100% sure on that.
Have been informed recently that there will be clarification from the police in time on this.

As it was explained and I understand it, a firearm will be able to be left unattended in a vehicle if said firearm is locked to the vehicle.
Not sure if there will be a time-limit etc but have been told it is in the works.




Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by ebf

@Sasquatch In the majority of cases the judges take the view of "what would a reasonable person do".

So, it today's day and age, a reasonable person would NOT carry an uncovered "black" rifle in public, because they would know that it is extremely likely to cause alarm and distress... Or maybe they would if they are trying to cause an incident...

Yes but I asked what YOU would do in that scenario? Because if it's leaving said "black" rifle in your car unattended, then technically you just broke the law. People have been prosecuted for doing this - regardless of what rifle's gender identity is.

Do you think it would of made a difference if it wasn't a "black" rifle? What about a bog standard Tikka T3? Would you be more inclined to walk it into the toilet then?

I think you replied and quoted while I was still adding to my post :-)

To answer your question directly, what would I do ? Ensure that the firearm is made in-operable, by removing the bolt or securing a trigger lock. Cover it or make sure it is not visible. Lock the vehicle, and go pee, pay for fuel or do whatever. I will not be away from the vehicle for extended periods, I will try to park it in a secure, visible area, etc.

Originally Posted by ebf

@Sasquatch, the law is grey. It is not the black and white of Mr Lincoln's world.

In the majority of cases the judges take the view of "what would a reasonable person do".

So, it today's day and age, a reasonable person would NOT carry an uncovered "black" rifle in public, because they would know that it is extremely likely to cause alarm and distress... Or maybe they would if they are trying to cause an incident...

To answer your question directly, what would I do ? Ensure that the firearm is made in-operable, by removing the bolt or securing a trigger lock. Cover it or make sure it is not visible. Lock the vehicle, and go pee, pay for fuel or do whatever. I will not be away from the vehicle for extended periods, I will try to park it in a secure, visible area, etc.

And hope no one breaks in to your car and takes it, because the dilemma would be, do you report it or forget it to stop a police enquiry

All good. That is a sensible thing to do but unfortunately, as it stand's you could be charged with an offense depending on who you got, which frankly IMO, isn't good enough. I'm not saying what you'd do is wrong, because i believe it's not - But this "grey" area needs to be cleaned up in the act.

I hope @R93 is right and that at least what is common police practise (firearms locked in vehicles) would be granted for us civvies.

Originally Posted by R93

Not 100% sure on that.
Have been informed recently that there will be clarification from the police in time on this.

As it was explained and I understand it, a firearm will be able to be left unattended in a vehicle if said firearm is locked to the vehicle.
Not sure if there will be a time-limit etc but have been told it is in the works. Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Bullshit!
Police cannot clarify anything. There has to be a change to the legislation.

We are all breaking the law when we leave a firearm in a vehicle. We do it because we are too afraid to comply with the law, and we know that the armed thugs in our police force can shoot us down with impunity to enforce their "grey policy", should we risk carrying a firearm in public.
Richard Lincoln was risking his life to obey the law, and was fortunate enough not to be shot while armed gun-thugs held him at gunpoint when they stopped him on the Queens highway. Having a firearm shoved in your face for obeying the law.

Police involved should be charged with presenting a firearm, and threatening to kill.
While the Arms act doesn't apply to police, the penalties in the Crimes act certainly do!

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Exactly. What would you do @ebf? I'm interested to know how you'd apply your tiny amount of common sense in this scenario? ;-)

To strike a conciliatory tone, perhaps bring the rifle to the toilet but it in a case -- no law mandating a case however, but, like you say, common sense. I do recall a recent instance of AOS holding someone up at gunpoint, threatening his life, for having walked along the road with a gun in a case, you are nowhere safe from stupidity I'm afraid.

I have on at least one occasion had to visit the public toilet late at night and brought a bolt action with me from the car, over shoulder, not in case. Felt uncomfortable doing it, but as they say, in and out, dark, no-one around and back in car and off before any stupid calls could be made, law obeyed. I'm obviously not going to get accepted by the Christchurch Law Society either... but then again I don't have a law degree.