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

Originally Posted by krewzr

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.

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 ?

What does this have to do with AAB 285?

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?

Originally Posted by Ryan

What does this have to do with AAB 285?

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Savage1

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.

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.)

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.

Originally Posted by krewzr

@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

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...

Originally Posted by krewzr

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.)

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.

Are the simple questions getting a little hard to answer?

No apology needed Happy. This is not what I would consider political although there are some that may consider it "hot air"

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.

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

the phrase clutching at straws comes to mind
the argument is hugely subjective. the guidelines of this forum outline that we do not welcome political discussion. I think we will have a clean up of this thread when I'm at a computer

Originally Posted by krewzr

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.

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?

If you do not wish to comply with AAB 285 then that's your prerogative and I have not, nor will I criticize you or anyone else for doing so. As adults, I believe everyone can make up their own mind about what's wrong and what's right. Personally I have far more important things to worry about and now is not the time for me to entertain political martyrdom - as noble as the cause may be.

Happy, Just to clarify I started the thread you refer to in the NSA forums. It is in the members section which as far as I am aware is not visable to Joe Public. So how you got there is anybods guess. I don't really care either way what organisation you join. I won't need to hide anything any where, I never do. I have all the appropriate endorsements / security to own/use what I do. I joined the NSA cause Colfos advise over the Stock debacle was just to roll over and comply.

I see you have a STI AR now, well if its a A cat rifle then you were able to buy it because the NSA won their case of the "Check your stock" interpretation.

Ditto all the parts now coming in for them (AR's) before that you needed special reasons.

No more from me on this.

I see you have a STI AR now, well if its a A cat rifle then you were able to buy it because the NSA won their case of the "Check your stock" interpretation.

Ditto all the parts now coming in for them (AR's) before that you needed special reasons.

No more from me on this.[/QUOTE]

Cheers Ears didnt see you write anything silly... Yes mines ACat but my safe is E just need to find some people to say great things about me now...

Originally Posted by Ryan

If you do not wish to comply with AAB 285 then that's your prerogative and I have not, nor will I criticize you or anyone else for doing so. As adults, I believe everyone can make up their own mind about what's wrong and what's right. Personally I have far more important things to worry about and now is not the time for me to entertain political martyrdom - as noble as the cause may be.

I'm not sure what I will do if AAB285 is enacted (and there are some doubts that it will be) but if anyone decides that being told you can't hold your firearm 3 degrees more to the vertical without a special endorsement is about as ridiculous as being told you can't sleep in past 5am on Sunday morning... I certainly won't criticise them for taking a stance of civil disobediance.

Originally Posted by Happy

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.

Happy I don't really follow what you're saying but if I can clarify the comment quoted above.

I was not complaining about personal abuse. My point was that trying to negate the validity of a persons argument by attacking the person rather than the argument is a flawed form of debate that is usually resorted to by those who actually cannot raise a valid counter argument. Otherwise known as "shoot the messenger."

My comment about Toby was not intended to make him look foolish. I think he is very astute and has obviously thought through his feelings on this subject and arrived at the conclusion that, yes... sometimes a person cannot comply with a law because it falls outside what they can morally accept.

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

Originally Posted by Happy

Sorry about that NOT !!!

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.
.

Methinks the pissing competitors aren't going to be happy, happy ... Remember, Some people a cause, some people need those contests in their lives.

The sad thing is, there probably is an issue that the wider hunting and shooting fraternity do need to deal with, but a lot of them will be less than keen to deal with 3rd year law students with too much time on their hands.



Tim

This kind of petty shit is rampant in the Kiwi hunting and shooting community