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

Originally Posted by Savage1

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Rushy

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.

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.

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

You still have access to an illegal weapon. It may be legal through your eyes but through mine its not.

Originally Posted by Toby

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 ?

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?

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Savage1

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".

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Toby

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.

I think you just came 360 degrees.. welcome to the institute of "we the people" Join here.

Originally Posted by krewzr

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.

People that said I'm mature=0 haha.

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.

Originally Posted by krewzr

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.

In 2009, when the NSA started with the blog "From my cold dead hand" the constitution also included the phrase :

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.

I also remember reading this post from you :

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.

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.

Q: how member signed up and paid members does the NSA have ?