Thread: Sad Commentary on Life and Balance.

I sit in both camps here. I along with a lot of others I imagine, seen all of those kids from the states where they start arguing with the coppers about their rights and it usually makes it worse regardless of it being right. I do understand it though.
The last thing we want is it happening a lot, nearly everyone complying because they are doing nothing wrong and next thing you know a few years down the track the rules get changed on the sly because we were all doing it anyway.
The next worst thing is they don't change the rules but you get a copper expecting compliance just because, someone says no and it gets pear shaped.

Originally Posted by Marty Henry

I believe if you are pulled over for any reason and a regi check shows the registered owner has a fal that is flagged as "firearms" for the officers conducting the stop.

I would say that the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 and the Arms Act 1983 apply (re vehicles being stopped and searched). The main aspect seems to be that the person with the firearm must prove they have lawful purpose. This applies to non restricted firearms.

I believe the threshold for using search and surveillance act powers, is they need to reasonably suspect that you are in commission of a crime against the arms act, or that you are preparing to commit one. It's not meant to be just a piece of legislation they can use to nullify all of your rights.

Originally Posted by Brakelie

This link opens up a pdf of a guide for firearms related interactions with Police put together by Nicholas Taylor.
https://tsnz.nz/function/file/2C3F83...4-EF2EC26436B9

Excellent article, well put together and makes for very good reading.

Originally Posted by Beavis

I believe the threshold for using search and surveillance act powers, is they need to reasonably suspect that you are in commission of a crime against the arms act, or that you are preparing to commit one. It's not meant to be just a piece of legislation they can use to nullify all of your rights.

I agree.

The social contract is that everyone obeys the law.
You, me, the Government AND the Police.

It's not complicated.

I think, at the end pf the day, you act how you want to act, the police will act how they want to act. If it comes to it, a Judge will sort out who is right and who is wrong.

Originally Posted by Mrfants

I would say that the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 and the Arms Act 1983 apply (re vehicles being stopped and searched). The main aspect seems to be that the person with the firearm must prove they have lawful purpose. This applies to non restricted firearms.

As a law abiding licensed firearms owner, there is no need to prove you have lawful purpose. You have been deemed fit and proper during the license process. End of.

Originally Posted by inglishill

I think, at the end pf the day, you act how you want to act, the police will act how they want to act. If it comes to it, a Judge will sort out who is right and who is wrong.

At great personal cost to you, and non the police

Originally Posted by imaca

At great personal cost to you, and non the police

Not necessarily. I realise my comment lacked clarity. If you know what the Police are doing is testing the bounds of what they are lawfully able to do, or are outright being unlawful, then the comment stands. It was not a 'Do as you will" comment

[QUOTE=whanahuia;1646126]

Quote Originally Posted by Tahr View Post
Being polite and cooperating when it will cause no one harm is not giving up your rights. And regardless, we always maintain the ability to enforce our rights when we really do need to. No one likes a smart arse, so why be one for no good reason./QUOTE]

I think you are both correct. Me personally most days Id just say sure, look away. But if I caught an attitude or felt the motive was insincere, it would be more likely to be a no with the question Reason?

Yes, this is where I sit. As I said we can choose to waive our rights and choose to enforce them. It's contextual and its a continuum. Arguing with the Police when you have nothing to lose seems pointless and confrontational to me. And from my experience will make things worse rather than better. You need to know when to give a little, when to give a little back, and when to dig your toes in. I expect that some Police don't understand the gun laws like they should, and that most gun owners know even less. Hardly a recipe for a black and white conversation on the side of the road.

And to add. If I was a cop on my way home from a shift of dealing with thugs, domestic violence and road deaths and some smart prick started arguing and spouting gun law to me I would want to drag them out of the car and taser them. Even if they were correct. I would make a bad cop

Four years down the track from being vilified for the actions of an Aussie nutter and this subject of illegal firearms in this country still riles me. The Police (as an organisation ) whilst complicit in the actions of the Aussie nutter are not my enemy and those of them on the front line have my utmost respect and will enjoy my absolute compliance provided that they do not attempt any over reach. Chris Cahill on the other hand garners zero respect from me through his campaign of lies and deceptions and I would not cross the road to piss on him if he was on fire. “Know your enemy and know yourself”.

Originally Posted by Tahr

And to add. If I was a cop on my way home from a shift of dealing with thugs, domestic violence and road deaths and some smart prick started arguing and spouting gun law to me I would want to drag them out of the car and taser them. Even if they were correct. I would make a bad cop

I think the best cops are borderline crims themselves

yes undercover drug cops a few years back got to smoke the best so they knew what it was many I have no doubt really liked it