Richard Lincoln

Quote:

---

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.[emoji16]

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

Quote:

---

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.[emoji16]

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.

How many people have been charged with leaving a gun unattended in a car while paying for gas or having a piss?

As opposed to those who leave machine guns in their car overnight outside a motel and have them stolen, shotguns in the back of the ute most of the evening in the pub carpark after duck shooting and have them stolen, or left permanently in the boot of the car because they can't be arsed putting them away properly and have them stolen.

Quote:

---

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.

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!

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by systolic

How many people have been charged with leaving a gun unattended in a car while paying for gas or having a piss?

As opposed to those who leave machine guns in their car overnight outside a motel and have them stolen, shotguns in the back of the ute most of the evening in the pub carpark after duck shooting and have them stolen, or left permanently in the boot of the car because they can't be arsed putting them away properly and have them stolen.

---

I hear what you are saying, and I agree completely. The problem identified here however is the law, about having laws that make sense. It is desirable to not have to rely on police discretion for our personal safety from prosecution and conviction when acting reasonably. Richard Lincoln acted unreasonably by following current law. Ain't good.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rock river arms hunter

Hi Team

So...........

Richard Lincoln has recently become a lawyer. As someone who knows him I can only speak of his passion which many will know anyway.

Contact Richard on: 0211525527 or you can email him on: rlincoln@cit.net.nz

---

Be clear here. Is he a Lawyer who has been Admitted to the Bar and has a practicing certificate, or is he simply someone with a law degree who is giving legal advice as a para-legal?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. [emoji16]


Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

And to be fair... none of you appear to know much about the situation at all. And all of you ought to be dismayed that the courts seem reluctant to hold the police to the same standard that the public are held to.

The Rule of Law is the legal principle is that all are subject to the law, including the police and given that the police would not prosecute their own errant member/s in this case, a private prosecution given the chance to proceed would have at least coveyed the general message that the courts were impartial irrespective of the final outcome.

In so far as Mr Lincolns comments to the policemans wife - I would have thought that was on the minor end of what could have been said given the totally unacceptable way the the police acted in this case. And that has been verfiied by the findings of the court after the police doubled down and prosecuted him for totally unsubstantiable reasons.

Personally I don't understand the findings of the Law Society - and I wouldn't be surprised that on appeal that decision gets changed. There is more to this that that alone... and clearly some have made decisions that would seem hard to justify on this basis alone.

Its entertaining anyway..