Thread: Richard Lincoln

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 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 JWB

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!

Sorry! I didn't realise I had to clarify how law is changed in this country on a forum consisting of mostly intelligent people.

I will take it under advisement in future.

I/we heard it in a forum that has a vested interest in the act.
Also relayed by someone who deals with police and politicians every day.
Not even saying it will happen. Just that there is a push from police to clarify it.

I would also ask before you accuse police of presenting a firearm and threatening to kill, learn what an ROE is.

Might help with your understanding of situations like Lincoln found himself in.


Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by R93

Sorry! I didn't realise I had to clarify how law is changed in this country on a forum consisting of mostly intelligent people.

I will take it under advisement in future.

I/we heard it in a forum that has a vested interest in the act.
Also relayed by someone who deals with police and politicians every day.
Not even saying it will happen. Just that there is a push from police to clarify it.

I would also ask before you accuse police of presenting a firearm and threatening to kill, learn what an ROE is.

Might help with your understanding of situations like Lincoln found himself in.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

So what DOES it mean when someone with a uniform points a gun at you? Is it not someone presenting a firearm and making an unmistakable threat to your life? The police ROE is surely not law, so should be open to the challenge of law. Gutless Law Society maybe not wishing to rock the boat, fair enough, but checks and balances my sphincter.

Originally Posted by Cordite

So what DOES it mean when someone with a uniform points a gun at you? Is it not someone presenting a firearm and making an unmistakable threat to your life? The police ROE is surely not law, so should be open to the challenge of law. Gutless Law Society maybe not wishing to rock the boat, fair enough, but checks and balances my sphincter.

I'd say it means do exactly what the person with the gun says immediately and without argument.

Originally Posted by Cordite

So what DOES it mean when someone with a uniform points a gun at you? Is it not someone presenting a firearm and making an unmistakable threat to your life? The police ROE is surely not law, so should be open to the challenge of law. Gutless Law Society maybe not wishing to rock the boat, fair enough, but checks and balances my sphincter.

If you are known to be carrying a firearm or have one in your possession how can you not expect to be addressed with firearms once police are involved for whatever reason?





Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by R93

If you are known to be carrying a firearm or have one in your possession how can you not expect to be addressed with firearms once police are involved for whatever reason?
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

You appear to agree it does mean the cops presented a firearm and threatened his life. And he should expect that for being a law abiding firearms owner and the police become involved with that, for whatever reason of worried phone calls they happen to receive.

Saying that... he should maybe have expected it if he set out to deliberately provoke a showdown with police over a poorly conceived law. Is that scenario remotely possible given his litigious bent (as lawyers do have, not singling him out) mixed with his political activism? I don't know the guy, I just read and try to fathom him. Surely he owned a soft case then, and any case he had could have readily accommodated his little black gun.

Originally Posted by Cordite

You appear to agree it does mean the cops presented a firearm and threatened his life. And he should expect that for being a law abiding firearms owner and the police become involved with that, for whatever reason of worried phone calls they happen to receive.

Saying that... he should maybe have expected it if he set out to deliberately provoke a showdown with police over a poorly conceived law. Is that scenario remotely possible given his litigious bent (as lawyers do have, not singling him out) mixed with his political activism? I don't know the guy, I just read and try to fathom him. Surely he owned a soft case then, and any case he had could have readily accommodated his little black gun.

To be fair I have no interest or know anything about the guy Lincoln or his problems.

I just know and expect that if a complaint is made about me (bogus or not) and I have a firearm in my vehicle or on me I will have firearms pointed at me when being confronted by police until such time I am deemed to be safe.
Imo the very act of having a firearm pointed at me is a threat to my life.
If by police I will address it very slowly and deliberately.


Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Cordite

So what DOES it mean when someone with a uniform points a gun at you? Is it not someone presenting a firearm and making an unmistakable threat to your life? The police ROE is surely not law, so should be open to the challenge of law. Gutless Law Society maybe not wishing to rock the boat, fair enough, but checks and balances my sphincter.

The gutless approach by the Law Society would have been to let this chap in.

On the matter of who makes law. Of course the Parliament does. But the Police are acting quite properly when they make clear how they do, or intend to, interpret the law. Guided of course by the intent of the Act and common law (one would hope).

Originally Posted by Tahr

The gutless approach by the Law Society would have been to let this chap in.

On the matter of who makes law. Of course the Parliament does. But the Police are acting quite properly when they make clear how they do, or intend to, interpret the law. Guided of course by the intent of the Act and common law (one would hope).

Remains to be seen. If Mr Lincoln has guts, he'll cut his losses and work out something actually better to do than practise law, at least in the short term.

congratsR93-commonsense applied
JWB take a deep breath
look in the mirror


give yourself 6 bloody good swift uppercuts


then
slow


slow

sloowly

say

WTF WAS I THINKING??????????

hers me thinking you were an intelligent sort of cove

seems in this case I was that far out buses dont even fucking run there!

Originally Posted by JWB

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

John, remind me which government agency in New Zealand is responsible for administering the Arms Act and Regulations ?

Are you saying that agency can not clarify aspects of how they are doing their job ?

Originally Posted by ebf

John, remind me which government [agency] in New Zealand is responsible for administering the Arms Act and Regulations ?

Are you saying that agency can not clarify aspects of how they are doing their job ?

Just correcting. I'm sure you are not really confusing police and government.