Thread: Anyone a member of SSANZ or The NZ NSA?

Originally Posted by gimp

The NSA make themselves look like crazy extremist assholes by having shit like

on their website. Yeah, "subtly" encouraging people to bury illegal guns. Good job retards, doesn't make the rest of us look like unbalanced idiots at all.


At least they got rid of all the US NRA inspired crap about having guns to overthrow the government, etc.

Thanks for your comments GIMP. NSA has not encouraged anyone to bury an illegal gun. It is not clear what you are refering to when you say "illegal gun." I have never heard of a gun being charged, convicted or serving a sentence.

The law in New Zealand makes it illegal sometimes for a person to be in possesion of a gun. The law may change soon and thereby create more circumstances which criminalise a civilian gun owner for possession of gun that is their property. Under these circumstances the person is obliged to dispossess themself of their gun. They may wish to store their gun for some future time when the law is relaxed and a new government brings about gun control laws that are rational and decriminalise the possession of such a firearm. The current owner may therefore wish to dispossess himself or herself of their gun by burying in a safe place for the day that the repeal of the offensive law occurs. For that purpose we advise gun owners in that position to use cosmoline and bury their gun in order to obey the law and dispossess themself of it, until the law is repealed. Incidently, this is exactly what has occurred in Australia and now, as the draconian restrictions over there are relaxed, more and more stored guns are able to be reclaimed by displaced owners.

This is one of the inherent problems with the changeability and uncertainty of law. For example, if homosexuality was criminalised in New Zealand, I think you would be niave to expect that all homosexuals would suddenly become hetrosexual. At best they could be expected not to engage in homosexual practices until they succeed in having the law repealed. The situation with unstable gun control law is really no different.

NSA members are a diverse range of people. Private professionals, lawyers and even a few police officers. I don't know any of our members who I would say is a crazy extremist asshole or a retard.

We have never encouraged or endorsed anyone to take up arms against the government. You may be confusing the NSA with the group responsible for the training camps in the Urewera; that was nothing to do with NSA or any of its members.

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln
National Shooters Association

Originally Posted by Kscott

Mikee FYI but over at the 'other' forum when the NSA was starting up, they alienated a lot of shooters by proclaiming "you're either with us or against us" in regards to the thumbhole case and NSA membership. Let's not also forget they started with the blog "From My Cold Dead Hands" and were suprised at the negativity it created from other shooters. And encouraging FAL owners to use a pvc pipe and bury your firearm to prevent any (non-existant) confiscation goes beyond reckless, and is just plain moronic.

Thankyou for your series of Replys KSCott.

Civilian gun owners widely supported and financed the resistance and court case which ruled against the police attempts to legislate sporting firearms into an MSSA category. A small minority criticised the legal action I took against police. I respect the right of anyone to acquiescence but it is not something I would do. I think the judgment of the High Court is sufficient to settle any argument about the rights and wrongs of the 'save our butts' court case. I was in fact surprised by the positivity and saw very little in the way of negativity.

We agree with you that there is no direct order of confiscation on the agenda. We did not suggest that there was. We believe that civilian gun owners will face restrictions in 2013 and many will be faced with the choice of dispossesing themself of their firearm(s). If they hand the firearms to police (as police will surely suggest) there will almost certainly be no compensation and the firearms will be destroyed and therefore unable to be reclaimed once the regulations are struck out by the High Court or the law is changed after the next election. We therefore encourage people to comply with the law by dispossessing themself of their firearm by storing it buried out of harms way and presevered for saftey in cosmoline. Once NSA has succeeded in getting the regulations struck off or the law changed, gun owners will be able to repatriate their firearms. It is worth mentioning that there is no government warehousing option that has been made available; all guns surrendered to police in these circumstances are permanently surrendered and destroyed: too late to get the family heirloom or favourite sentimentally valued rifle back once its been through the police crusher in the Lower Hutt armoury.

This is not like the land taken in Zimbabwe by Mugabe. Once Mugabe has gone the white farmers can return home and reclaim their titles. In our case the property taken is destroyed forever. Rivers, Perry and Taylor and co will eventually go, but that will not return the rifle that I bequeath to my son or grandson.

If you have some other useful suggestion as to what effected civilian gun owners ought to do to comply with the pending regulations, we would be grateful for your constructive comments.

Kind Regards
Richard Lincoln

So your saying people can legally bury firearms in pvc pipes to comply with the pending regulations?
Im not trying to be a smart arse, just trying to get my head around your statement

Originally Posted by savage270

So your saying people can legally bury firearms in pvc pipes to comply with the pending regulations?
Im not trying to be a smart arse, just trying to get my head around your statement

Tbh I thought that in a way is still in your possession

Originally Posted by Toby

Tbh I thought that in a way is still in your possession

Well, no - not in my opinion.

"Possession is 9/10th's of the law". You can't get arrested for something you don't have. If universal registration of firearms in NZ had succeeded, then yes, perhaps there'd be a case to answer for because the police would have the firearm and owner's details on record and if one wasn't able to account for that firearm then they could be charged with negligence or whatever the legally appropriate term might be.

Thanks for your comments GIMP. NSA has not encouraged anyone to bury an illegal gun. It is not clear what you are refering to when you say "illegal gun." I have never heard of a gun being charged, convicted or serving a sentence.

The law in New Zealand makes it illegal sometimes for a person to be in possesion of a gun. The law may change soon and thereby create more circumstances which criminalise a civilian gun owner for possession of gun that is their property. Under these circumstances the person is obliged to dispossess themself of their gun. They may wish to store their gun for some future time when the law is relaxed and a new government brings about gun control laws that are rational and decriminalise the possession of such a firearm. The current owner may therefore wish to dispossess himself or herself of their gun by burying in a safe place for the day that the repeal of the offensive law occurs. For that purpose we advise gun owners in that position to use cosmoline and bury their gun in order to obey the law and dispossess themself of it, until the law is repealed. Incidently, this is exactly what has occurred in Australia and now, as the draconian restrictions over there are relaxed, more and more stored guns are able to be reclaimed by displaced owners.

This is one of the inherent problems with the changeability and uncertainty of law. For example, if homosexuality was criminalised in New Zealand, I think you would be niave to expect that all homosexuals would suddenly become hetrosexual. At best they could be expected not to engage in homosexual practices until they succeed in having the law repealed. The situation with unstable gun control law is really no different.

NSA members are a diverse range of people. Private professionals, lawyers and even a few police officers. I don't know any of our members who I would say is a crazy extremist asshole or a retard.

We have never encouraged or endorsed anyone to take up arms against the government. You may be confusing the NSA with the group responsible for the training camps in the Urewera; that was nothing to do with NSA or any of its members.

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln
National Shooters Association

Don't be so stupid, encouraging people to bury a prohibited weapon is an offence, enough of an offence to get your FAL revoked.

Burying a weapon in the ground doesn't "dispossess" it from you. I suggest you look up the definition of possession before making such stupid statements. Look up the case law Sullivan v Earl of Caithness (1976) while you are at it.

I remember when Canada's LGR got shredded there were threads on CGN and CGS about what guns you were finally digging up after x number of years. Pretty hard case.

In answer to the last few replies to this thread:

@Savage1: Im not sure what in your opinion is a 'prohibited weapon'. As far as I am aware, the only weapons that are prohibited in NZ are anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions. NSA does not encourage people to bury anti-personnel mines or cluster munitions. Anyone in possession of such prohibited weapons ought to hand them into the nearest arms office or MoD bomb disposal unit.

I am not aware that it is an offence to encourage a person to bury something. If you can direct me to the section of the Summary Proceedings Act, Arms Act or Crimes Act that sets out a penal offence for encouraging a third party to bury something I would be interested to check that out. I am not aware that a firearms licence can be revoked for any reason other than the licence holder being considered not fit and proper to hold such a licence.

Most DC case and all High Court cases involving the Arms Act are reviewed by me as the president of NSA and I have never seen any case where a judge has convicted a person for unlawful possession of a firearm that they have preserved in cosmoline and buried in the ground.


@Ryan, Toby, Savage 270 & Savage1: The term "possession" has a complex, somewhat flexible but certainly unique meaning for the purposes of the Arms Act 1983. New Zealand cases such as Coorey v Police and Roberts v Police have established, for example, that "possession" has a different meaning for the purposes of the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Arms Act. Sullivan v Earl of Caithness (1976) is presumably a UK case that does not concern the NZ Arms Act; it is therefore not applicable.

There is no hard and fast meaning as to 'possession' for the purpose of the NZ Arms Act. An indicator may be a case (I have forgotten the citation but its widely known) about a civilian gun owner that had a sporting semi-automatic in his safe and a couple of normal capacity 30 round magazines were discovered in a space above his HWC. He was found guilty of unlawful possession of a MSSA. The Judge noted that the material fact on which the case turned was that both the rifle and the magazines were found in the same residential property. The Judge noted that had the rifle and the magazines been stored in different locations, so they were not immediately 'at hand' then the charge of possession of an MSSA would almost certainly not be sustained. This case would seem to indicate that even if a person has ownership of a firearm or parts thereof, and knows where to retrieve it from, if that is a remote location; such that the firearm or parts are not immediately at hand, then there is no possession.


All NZ legislation is required to be interpreted purposively (s5.1 IA 1999) and the purpose of the Arms Act is to control firearms and ensure public saftey. The primary concern which is repeated by members of our legislature ad nauseum is keeping guns out of the wrong hands. That of course strongly suggests that guns in the right hands or no hands at all are not the mischief which the Arms Act and it's regulations are aimed at. If the right hands disposses themselves of a gun pending a change in the legal landscape, and the right hands then repatriate that gun, it would seem that the working purpose of the Arms Act is met.

Hope this helps explain the position

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

Originally Posted by krewzr

In answer to the last few replies to this thread:

@Savage1: Im not sure what in your opinion is a 'prohibited weapon'. As far as I am aware, the only weapons that are prohibited in NZ are anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions. NSA does not encourage people to bury anti-personnel mines or cluster munitions. Anyone in possession of such prohibited weapons ought to hand them into the nearest arms office or MoD bomb disposal unit.

I am not aware that it is an offence to encourage a person to bury something. If you can direct me to the section of the Summary Proceedings Act, Arms Act or Crimes Act that sets out a penal offence for encouraging a third party to bury something I would be interested to check that out. I am not aware that a firearms licence can be revoked for any reason other than the licence holder being considered not fit and proper to hold such a licence.

Most DC case and all High Court cases involving the Arms Act are reviewed by me as the president of NSA and I have never seen any case where a judge has convicted a person for unlawful possession of a firearm that they have preserved in cosmoline and buried in the ground.


@Ryan, Toby, Savage 270 & Savage1: The term "possession" has a complex, somewhat flexible but certainly unique meaning for the purposes of the Arms Act 1983. New Zealand cases such as Coorey v Police and Roberts v Police have established, for example, that "possession" has a different meaning for the purposes of the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Arms Act. Sullivan v Earl of Caithness (1976) is presumably a UK case that does not concern the NZ Arms Act; it is therefore not applicable.

There is no hard and fast meaning as to 'possession' for the purpose of the NZ Arms Act. An indicator may be a case (I have forgotten the citation but its widely known) about a civilian gun owner that had a sporting semi-automatic in his safe and a couple of normal capacity 30 round magazines were discovered in a space above his HWC. He was found guilty of unlawful possession of a MSSA. The Judge noted that the material fact on which the case turned was that both the rifle and the magazines were found in the same residential property. The Judge noted that had the rifle and the magazines been stored in different locations, so they were not immediately 'at hand' then the charge of possession of an MSSA would almost certainly not be sustained. This case would seem to indicate that even if a person has ownership of a firearm or parts thereof, and knows where to retrieve it from, if that is a remote location; such that the firearm or parts are not immediately at hand, then there is no possession.


All NZ legislation is required to be interpreted purposively (s5.1 IA 1999) and the purpose of the Arms Act is to control firearms and ensure public saftey. The primary concern which is repeated by members of our legislature ad nauseum is keeping guns out of the wrong hands. That of course strongly suggests that guns in the right hands or no hands at all are not the mischief which the Arms Act and it's regulations are aimed at. If the right hands disposses themselves of a gun pending a change in the legal landscape, and the right hands then repatriate that gun, it would seem that the working purpose of the Arms Act is met.

Hope this helps explain the position

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

Sorry I was talking about restricted weapons. Telling people to bury restricted weapons in the ground to hide from the Police would be an offence under section 50 of the Arms Act and section 66(1)(d) of the Crimes Act.

Your right, a FAL cannot be revoked unless the holder is deemed not to be an unfit or proper person. Inciting people to commit an offence against the Arms Act would be than enough to show you to not be a fit or proper person.

NZ does use case law from other countries, especially the UK since our legal system was based on theirs. Possession generally means they have knowledge of the object and have physical control over it. Hence the case law I outlined earlier where the defendant was over 100km from the firearms and they weren't stored on his property but was convicted because he had knowledge of them and physical control of them.

How could you possibly think that hiding restricted weapons could be anything but illegal?!

How about you do something responsible and legal, and encourage people to obtain the appropriate endorsements if they want to possess restricted weapons rather than illegally bury them to hide them from the Police just in case there is a law change.

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

Originally Posted by Toby

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.

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.

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

Originally Posted by krewzr

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.

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

You like to point out exact wording in statues. In the Arms Act 1983 they refer to them as "Weapons".

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.

Originally Posted by krewzr

I ought to clarify that I am not discussing anything about weapons. What I am discussing here are firearms

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.