Printable View
I don't know dude but it sounds dodgy as fuck hiding weapons, and to me its illegal because you know where they are and you have access to it. Not a very good message to send out. I could be wrong of course as I'm only 17 and don't know fuck all but I feel its wrong.
Thanks for your clarification.
Section 50 of the Arms Act is a penal provision that makes it an offence to be in unlawful possession of a pistol, MSSA or restricted weapon. Section 66 of the Crimes Act is essentially an offence concerning aiding and abetting. I believe the argument in a nutshell can be condensed to this question: Whether or not a person who coats a firearm in cosmoline and buries it, still retains possession of it?
You believe that they do and offer a UK case in support of that argument. I believe that they do not and offer several NZ cases in support. The only conclusive determination of that question would be by a NZ court of law considering that specific question of law. Because there is no existing case law which answers that question, we ought to simply agree to disagree.
Kind regards
Richard Lincoln
I ought to clarify that I am not discussing anything about weapons. What I am discussing here are firearms; sporting equipment used for recreational and occupational shooting. Weapons in New Zealand are held by the government (police and MoD) and criminals; these are used for shooting people and are not covered by the licensing, endorsement and permit provisions of the Arms Act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
Kind regards
Richard Lincoln
You like to point out exact wording in statues. In the Arms Act 1983 they refer to them as "Weapons".Quote:
Originally Posted by krewzr
I fail to see how the examples you have given show that they wouldn't be in possession of a firearm if the buried it. It would be an offence against s19 of the arms regulations.
Suggest you look at Section 66 of the Arms Act and think of how that would apply if the weapons were found buried on your property.
Remember ignorance/arrogance to law is not a defence.
Richard this is semantics. Weapons definitely can be firearms and clearly even sporting firearms can be weapons. As far as I am concerned Toby's comment is valid. Burying my income in an effort to claim I was dispossessed of it would not result in the government holding the view that I should not be taxed on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by krewzr
Yes I agree: I think it is important when discussing legal issues to be accurate. The Arms Act refers to "restricted weapons" and the regulations deem certain objects, ranging from tasers and pepper sprays through to full auto guns as "restricted weapons." Weapons are also refered to in the purpose section of the Arms Act. However, I choose to draw a clear distinction between a weapon and a firearm. The authority that I rely on is any reputable dictionary; all of which refer to a weapon as being an object used to attack or defend; normally in inter-human relationships. I am uncomfortable with the proposition that civilian sporting firearms are used for this purpose and police are adamant that civilian firearms cannot be possessed for that purpose. I note that I clarifed that that was my personal stance on the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
S66 of the Arms Act is something that a civilian gun owner would need to take into account, if they had decided to disposess themself by burial, as to where they would bury the firearm. It would probably need to be on public land: i.e in a remote conservation area or similar.
S19 of the regulations does not apply unless possession exists. The whole point of burial is dispossession; therefore once the firearms are not in the possession of the licence holder, the security precautions do not apply. There are similar comparisons in regard to criminal possesion of firearms - unlicensed persons in unlawful possession of a firearm are not required to store the firearm in the regulated security precautions.
I think this is matter that we ought to simply be able to hold different opinions on. I am not asking you to agree with me anymore than I am willing to concede that your view is the correct one.
Kind Regards
Richard Lincoln
With all due respect Rushy, that is a different question. You could disposses yourself of your income by spending it; that does not make it exempt from tax. The question here is, if you spent your income would you still be in possession of it... many would wish that that was so, including me, but I think the answer is fairly obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
Kind regards
Richard Lincoln
You still have access to an illegal weapon. It may be legal through your eyes but through mine its not.
Toby, what is an illegal weapon ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
Well to me you said when the police make them illegal bury them, You still have access to that illegal weapon. I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you said but that's how I read it.
Wow, so lets get this clear, you think it is perfectly legal and responsible to go bury firearms on public land just in case the law changes?! And you would rather promote this than telling people to get the appropriate endorsements so they can legally possess and use the firearms?! If it is perfectly legal then I suppose you would have no problems telling the Police what you have done.
You sound like a real "fit and proper person".
Surely this is a piss take?
Toby the police cannot make a weapon illegal. This is why it is important to be accurate in the wording that you use. There is no such thing as an illegal weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
I understand you are 17. I assume you would therefore know a thing or two about cars. A car, by analogy cannot be illegal. It may be illegal to operate a car on a road when it has been modified in such a way that it does not comply to warrant standards. So it is not the car that is illegal, its the use of the car under certain circumstances that is illegal. There is no such a thing as an illegal firearm. The issue in this case is not about access, its about possession.
As for your use of the term weapon. I have covered that off earlier. My personal view is that sporting firearms ought not to be called weapons; anymore so than a divers knife or a fish-hook. It is in fact sporting firearms that we are discussing. Any police officer will insist that a civilian may not use a firearm as a weapon.
If I can now turn to what I think you might be trying to say: you would refer to an illegal firearm. What I think that you mean is that if the legislature bring in regulations that require a special endorsement, and the gun owner does not obtain such an endorsement for his or her effected gun , then he or she is unlawfully in possession of that gun. If that is what you mean then that is correct.
That returns to the original discussion. Whether or not a person who buries a firearm, is still in possesion of that firearm? That is the question of law and the answer to that question resolves the issue of whether or not an offence is committed.
In Coory v Police, the facts are these. Mr Coory left his firearms in the attic of an unlicensed friends house. He was charged with supplying a firearm to an unlicensed person. He was convicted. He appealed to the High Court and then the Court of Appeal. The issue that the High Court and Court of Appeal had to consider on appeal was the meaning of the word "supply". The High Court found that "supply" meant to "part with possession". That interpretation was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The appeal was unsuccessful and the conviction was upheld.
On the facts then, Mr Coory was deemed to have parted with possession because he left his firearms in the attic of some other persons house. The additional fact that that person had no licence, made that an offence (there would have been no offence if the person had had a licence.)
The question then becomes, does a person who leaves a firearm somewhere else (for example buried or in the attic of a 3rd party) part with possession ? On the decision of the Court of Appeal in Coory, it would seem that the answer is yes: a person who leaves a firearm somewhere else (for example buried or in the attic of a 3rd party) parts with possession of it.
Returning to the original issue; if a person parts with possession of a firearm (for example by burying it) do they commit an offence of unlawful possession of a firearm? The decision of the Court of Appeal is a compelling precendent to say that they do not : because they have "parted with possession of it."
It is not important what my own or your respective view is. We will not be the ones who decide the outcome of a potential prosecution; that is a matter for the courts. As a 3rd year law student and having extensive experience in legal research and practice, my modus operandi is to predict as best I can, what the Courts may decide; based on my experience, case law, statute and policy. There is a strong argument based on NZ case law that a person who burys their firearm parts with possession of it and thereby cannot commit the offence of unlawful possession.
Kind Regards
Richard Lincoln
I have stated that we ought to agree to disagree on this issue. If you have some case law or other authority that you can advance the topic with, I would be very interested to hear it. If your argument is that burying a firearm on public land is unlawful then I invite you to make your case.. otherwise I think the topic has run its course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
I would not like to see more of this
Kind regards
Richard Lincoln
Yeah I know where your coming from but my gut instinct is telling me its still wrong. Even if by law its right in my mind its wrong and I rather be at peace with my self.
Good on you ! For a 17 year old to make a moral decision regardless of the law is a sign of maturity and self determination. When you later read of the origins of the Magna Carta, the words of St Augustine and Dr Martin Luther King, when you consider the full history of my fore-fathers who fought for freedom in the two great wars, when you strain your eyes through dawns early light to see the few remaining veterans gathered at the Centopaths and when you see the inherent rights, freedoms and liberties in the youthful smiles and laughter of your children and grandchildren... then you will face further moral decisions... like how much will you let your government take from you before you say NO... and again you will have a gut instinct, again even in law if its right, in your mind it may be wrong.. I hope and prey that your mortal need to be at peace with yourself will see you make the right moral choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
I think you just came 360 degrees.. welcome to the institute of "we the people" :thumbsup: Join here.
People that said I'm mature=0 haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by krewzr
I have one burning question.............What is cosmoline? and why is it better than grease?
Ok thats two.
Wikipedia say's...
Cosmoline is the genericized trademark for a generic class of rust preventives, typically conforming to MIL-C-11796C Class 3, that are a brown colored wax-like mass; have a slight fluorescence; and have a petroleum-like odor and taste (as detected when working with it).
Chemically, cosmoline is a homogeneous mixture of oily and waxy long-chain, non-polar hydrocarbons. It is always brown in color, but can differ in viscosity and shear strength. Cosmoline melts at 113-125 °F (45–52 °C) and has a flash point of 365 °F (185 °C).
Its most common use is in the storage and preservation of some firearms, hand tools, machine tools and their tooling, and marine equipment. Entire vehicles can be preserved with cosmoline. Notable Egyptologist Dr. Zahi Hawass recently disclosed that ancient Egyptian mummification practices from the third to fifth dynasties utilized a chemical compound molecularly similar to cosmoline.
In 2009, when the NSA started with the blog "From my cold dead hand" the constitution also included the phrase :Quote:
Originally Posted by krewzr
I also remember reading this post from you :Quote:
Provision 2
Petitioning, lobbying and pleading the freedom of responsible possession, control, and use of firearms by the membership with the Government of New Zealand and to make submissions and argue the implementation of sensible arms control legislation based on sound science, factual evidence, valid statistics and practical research.
Yet once again, the claim of "they're going to take away our guns" comes out. The suggestion that firearms will be confiscated is based on the irrational fear that you prefer to circulate amongst your own members, where everyone nods in approval. It's ok folks, you can bury your firearm on public land and it technically won't be in your possession.Quote:
The NSA intends to ensure that Arms control law is sensible, practical and not based on unfounded emotional fear, melodrama and sensationalism. We simply seek the truth and balance. I encourage all sport shooters to consider joining the NSA. However if you don't feel that it is appropriate for you to do so, we respect your position. Regardless of your choice, the NSA will do its very best to protect and serve your heritage and freedoms, and those of your children, and your grandchildren, just the same as Charlton (Heston) did for so many years.
Q: how member signed up and paid members does the NSA have ?
Bugger cosmoline : VACUUM SEAL STORAGE BAGS | Brownells
While I fully agree with the wrongness of AAB-285-2 I think it would play out like this:
Police find a "Cache" of reclassified firearms
The media goes nuts about how "high powered assault weapons" like the ones used to shoot up US schools are everywhere
PNHQ has a cry baby to the MOP, the pollies bowls invert
Said gun owner gets shafted big time by the judiciary and the jury, unless Richard and the team can work something out
If anyone ever entertains the thought of doing this, for every-bodies sake, don't get caught.
My opinion is that the NZP feels that they lost face in losing the court case against Richard. AAB-285 is their misguided and callow attempt to reassert their authority by creating a law to combat a "problem" which simply never existed and in so doing, will only create even further problems as alluded to by Richard Prosser's address in parliament, viz "burying firearms in a pipe". Criminalising otherwise law abiding firearm owners because they are in possession of a firearm that happens to have a few different aesthetic and non-functional features makes zero sense to me and is an inappropriate use of tax payer's funds which could be better used to fight actual crime.
That said however if (when?) AAB-285 does come into law and some of the firearms in my inventory will re-classified as E category I will, as a responsible owner and law abiding citizen, obey the law and upgrade my security and apply for the correct endorsement. I could easily bury them somewhere and forget about them for a while but why would I deny myself the enjoyment that I get out of using them and live in perpetual fear of a visit from Old Bill in the hopes that one day, the law might change? How long could one be waiting? Years, perhaps a lifetime. Burying them and not using them for x amount of time is a similar deprivation to having them taken off you and destroyed for the amount of use one would get from them.
Even though I am opposed to the law, like any other citizen of this country we can't pick and choose which laws we wish to abide by and if one wishes to challenge the law it's probably better to do so from a position of obedience than defiance.
Ryan, the reason they are seeking to restrict these firearms is because they don't like them. Don't underestimate the haters. There is no sensible reason to restrict them other than people don't like them and it is the govt's prerogative to impose laws upon us.
Well, I don't like country and western music but that doesn't give me the right to tell other people not to listen to it. The NZP's dislike of these particular types of firearms is completely irrational.
True but they don't give a flying fuck what we thinkQuote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
Clearly. The government is meant to serve the people's interests, not the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
Ryan: can you answer this question. Is there any law that the government could enact, that you would not obey?
Well we know the law change is not about public safety. If it was about safety we would see a forceful effort to disarm the gangs and criminals-not further restrict the law abiding.
Since the 1992 amendment that reclassified certain rifles as "MSSA" when was the last shooting crime carried out by a license holder using a MSSA style rifle. The last shooting using a MSSA style rifle that I can remember was Jan Moliner in Napier-who was unlicensed.
Maybe the issue is about control and as Ryan said "payback" for the Police losing in a high court case.
In the USA the current proposed "assult" Rifle Ban is again not about public safety, as overall only 2% of shooting crimes committed in the USA were carried out with "assult" style rifles (Congressional research study). The vast majority of shootings in the US are with handguns in the possession of the criminal fraternity.
Its more about control than public safety. With a bit of a "I don't like them guns, so why should you", mentality thrown in the mix.
Cheers.
That's a bit of a vague question there Richard and would depend on the law enacted. If the government said that it was mandatory for all males to be out of bed at 0500 every Sunday morning to sing the national anthem then no, because that's just silly and would never happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by krewzr
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
That is the funniest god damn thing i have heard for a long time. The governments job is to assert control on the people, period.
I'm available for children's parties, weddings and Bar Mitzvahs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Towely
See this page Login :fire:
If this page disappears I have a copy
Some comments there have actually just about pretty much put me off NSA . My way or the highway rings a bell ???
I was thinking when I saw the hide your guns in plastic pipe stuff that its actually not a good way to promote yourself as you
do start to loose credibility real quick.. Page above comments don't help. Just makes NRA look like boys camp where you toss toys around...
Go ahead try to win back my potential subscription Richard.. You re gonna need to use standard NZ language and write it slowly for me cos I only read slowly. NOT .. :huh:
Bugger you have to be logged on to read it .... I got a log in with out being a member somehow....
Hard to read but best I can do... Kids stuff really
Mikee
NSA full member
Newbie
Posts: 1
Karma: +0/-0
[applaud][smite]
Thread on NZ hunting and shooting.co.nz
« on: Wed,26,12,12 »
Have a look here Richard
NSA or SSNZ
Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Man
NSA full member
Newbie
Posts: 10
Karma: +0/-0
[applaud][smite]
Re: Thread on NZ hunting and shooting.co.nz
« Reply #1 on: Thu,27,12,12 »
Thanks Mikee. Kscott is a well known nay sayer and appologist of inferior intellect ...
Herbie's rant seems to be a very selective version of what happened!
In 1991 the Arms Amendment Bill was already in parliament when the commissioner made the ultra vires decission to 'ban' the importation of all the affected firearms. After the court case which showed he had acted incorrectly (and incidently the ruling set Commonwealth precident law ...) the Cabinet passed a Customs prohibition order (in Council) to prevent importation with the agreement that this would be lifted after the Bill became law thus allowing importation of MSSAs under the new controls. This is why MSSAs have been imported with 'special reasons' since that time.
In 2009 the Butt Hole Stock fiasco was another attempt at imposing police 'policy' which was ultra vires and beyond their powers. Once again it was either compliance (the colfo path) or another court case.
Either we have control by unlawful police 'policy' or a set of properly passed laws and regulations which are available for all to read and understand. Either 'agreements' made behing closed doors by shaddowy individuals or rule of law.
Or do we trust individuals who specialise in 'the supply of special products for law enforcement, police, military and security professionals' to represent us? The truth is that simple - is it not?
« Last Edit: Thu,03,01,13 by Southern Man »
Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Krewzr
Administrator
Newbie
Posts: 5
Karma: +0/-0
[applaud][smite]
Re: Thread on NZ hunting and shooting.co.nz
« Reply #2 on: Mon,07,01,13 »
There appears to be a number of posts on there from COLFO board members. I think they blame NSA for their funding being cut by several large shooting clubs. Would'nt mind being blamed for that if we had received the funding instead ! lol
Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Krewzr
Administrator
Newbie
Posts: 5
Karma: +0/-0
[applaud][smite]
Re: Thread on NZ hunting and shooting.co.nz
« Reply #3 on: Tue,08,01,13 »
This just toooo good. One 17 year old has just completely flipped his own argument and become one of us
http://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co.n...html#post72226
Logged
So that is affirmative. You would resort to civil disobediance if the government tried to legislate away your right to lay in bed on Sunday morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
Do you think that all males in New Zealand would resort to civil disobediance if such a law was passed ? and if not, what pecentage of males do you estimate would, respectively obey and disobey ?
@Happy
We would appreciate it if you did not copy material from the NSA forum and publish it elsewhere. Doing so raises privacy issues and content ownership issues for NSA and its members. You are welcome to post links to information and if people see fit, they can go and look at the material themself: but please refrain from copying and republishing.
Thanks
Richard Lincoln
What does this have to do with AAB 285?Quote:
Originally Posted by krewzr
Your "case law" around possession goes back to how the person dispossessed the firearm by supplying it to an unlicensed person, this case doesn't outline possession at all, it outlines supply, in which he dispossessed the firearm by placing it in somebody else's possession.
We don't have any case law surrounding possession of a firearm so it would fall back on case law from other commonwealth countries for guidance, of which there are prime examples.
How would you explain going from having the firearm in your possession to not having it in your possession and it not being stored properly? Are you trying to say it would be perfectly legal for me to go dispossess myself of some firearms by throwing them in the middle of a park? Since you say storage only applies to possession. Otherwise I could throw my firearms over the back fence instead of locking them away after every time I use them.
I ask once again, why are you encouraging people to illegally bury firearms on public land rather than apply for the correct endorsements or store with another person who does have the correct endorsements so they can continue to use and enjoy their firearms?
Well AAB285 is a law. You have said that you are intending to comply with that law, but also that you would not comply with a law that restricted your Sunday morning sleep in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
I wanted to find out what you take into consideration and how you decide which laws to comply with and which you choose to disobey. I also wanted to know your view on how other people ought to make those decisions. Really the question is, how far does the government have to go, before you make a personal decision to say "NO"
I suppose I do not understand how people can criticise others who might make a well considered personal moral decision not to comply with AAB285 but at the same time, they would resort to civil disobediance if deprived of a sunday morning lay in.
How do we decide as individuals when to withdraw our consent to government infringement of our rights... and unless an individual can honestly say that he or she would obey every law without question, even one that demands their prescence at the nearest state gas chamber, how can it be right to claim the moral high-ground and denigrate a person or organisation who disobeys what is considered a clearly unjust and irrational law? It all seems a little hypocritical don't you think?
Im sorry to but you are mistaken. I have read several recent NZ cases that do deal with the issue of possession for the purposes of the Arms Act. Robertson v Police is the most prevalent authority. As I said before, the Courts of New Zealand have expressly said that the meaning of possession for the purpose of the Arms Act is particular to that Act in this country. The meaning of "possession" in the context of other NZ statutes and other jurisidictions is not applicable (thats the stated view of the NZ judiciary.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
I don't think this is worth pursuing any further. Clearly their are several individuals on here who subscribe to the view that burying a firearm will not amount to parting with possession of it (although no-one has yet been able to cite an authority for that view.) You are entitled to your opinion. Lets just leave it there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krewzr
Sorry about that NOT !!! Public domain once you post it same as this here. Same as your comments about hiding or dispossesing firearms as you may not have the correct licence or what ever to possess.
Im pretty sure if next time you fight something on these lines if someone told the court heres this off their NRA website they could accept it into the process and all form their own decisions on the comments.
What peed me off is that you talk about personal abuse in one of your comments then seems to me you go make Toby look like quite foolish in that posting . Kinda like a look at this my little coup...
If the media choose to use any thing off face book or websites when its out there its out there.
You have no disclaimer on your website about information usage that I could easily find.
End of the day I'm actually not against you or the organisation you support.
I was about to join it and support it but now Im unsure which is why I posted the statement "tell me why I should" and why I visited the site looking at stuff
and was disappointed at the maturity of the comments and the bull..
Competition to use the hardest words one can find Thanks Mikee. Kscott is a well known nay sayer and appologist of inferior intellect ...
Reeks of Old boys club old man say what..
Challenge remains change my mind. There is a place for the NRA but it needs to be absolutely without people at the top holding pissing competitions.. and in the public domain ensuring
all content can with stand any scrutineeing as to private agendas as we all know how one comment can be taken many ways as well as one suggestion.
Sorry to fellow members for possibly once again breaking no politics rules...