Thread: Call to Arms

Originally Posted by Krameranzac

NZ First update. You do not need to be a Facebook user to view.

https://www.facebook.com/RonMarkMP/v...5599608986165/

Thanks for that Karmeranzac just as I thought! Guys have a look at this ^^^^^^
They say it's a first draft but we need to be all over this like flys on poo. The Tory government did it to gun owners in a the U.K. Just like National will try to do it in NZ. We already know the usual suspects, but there seems to be a few wolfs in sheeps clothing out there!
I think you also need to add a where do you personally stand on shooting and hunting to any letter to an MP make the question one that has to be answered with a yes or no so you know where to caste your vote!
Man can't trust any of theses buggers.
As Snowy said there all the bunch of the Thieves! (He was talk about Egyptians just before going in at ANZAC cove but it seems apt)
Get your letters out now guys!!!!
🍻
Have a safe Easter ah!

Originally Posted by Savage1

Any one can import an MSSA, in parts, don't try and make out that the statement is incorrect.

Not sure what you are on about with that comment. The law currently requires a permit to import ANY part of an MSSA. Can people do so illegally? Of course they can. Mr Cahill's comments were not about the illegal importation of MSSAs though.

Anybody can ILLEGALLY import drugs or slaves into this country too....

Originally Posted by Savage1

Just because crime is at a "low" doesn't mean that it's not a problem or that there isn't going to be a problem, I'm actually finding there are more armed offenders out there, especially in the last 12 months, but this could just be regional, but there is a major problem.

The OFFICIAL NZ Police statistics and NZ Police submission to the Select Committee would differ with you on that.

Originally Posted by Savage1

The Police assosiation example involving the head hunter is a perfect example, he hasn't been prosecuted as there is proof that he supplied to unlicenced people.

So he wasn't prosecuted because there is proof that he supplied to unlicenced people. Maybe that's the problem, NZ Police only prosecute people were they don't have any proof....

Originally Posted by Savage1

In the last six months I've been involved in two incidents where guns were pointed at frontline police, one incident shots were fired and it was a MSSA.

Two incidents, with no injuries, in 6 months, is a major problem?

Originally Posted by Savage1

Just because something is an offence doesn't mean that it's a deterrent, just like speeding, lots of people speed on open roads, put a speed camera out there (a way of being caught) and they stop.

Your argument doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by Savage1

The PA presentation was reffering to too many firearms in the wrong hands, not in general.

Chris Cahill and his predecessor have made it abundantly clear their attitude about the number of firearms in civilian hands.

“There appears to be a glaring omission in the report when it comes to tightening up on the tens of thousands of firearms imported into New Zealand every year.

"We have to ask why on Earth we need all these firearms, why we need MSSAs and pistols, and why is it acceptable to not know where many of these weapons end up,” Mr Cahill said. Source

Originally Posted by Savage1

1) Yes possession of ammunition by a non-FAL holder is already an offence, I'm unsure why he thinks otherwise but is a very minor issue here.

The Select Committee not even knowing what the current law is, is a very minor issue. It discredits the entire Report and destroys any faith the firearms committee into the competency of the Select Committee members.

Originally Posted by Savage1

5) I disagree with this as well, too much hassle. I'd rather a compulsory notification sent to Police via e-form or similar. It's not about whether a criminal would obtain a p2p, it's that the FAL holder wouldn't sell to a person without one as they could be traced.

Hmmm...sounds familiar "Just because something is an offence doesn't mean that it's a deterrent". How would the NZ Police even know they had them? They couldn't be stolen?

Originally Posted by Savage1

6) they haven't defined what the new category would involve here so speculation can go both ways, it does need some kind of change to make less open to interpretation.

Open to interpretation? The definition is of MSSAs is pretty clear. It is only the NZ Police who likes to reinterpret the category of firearms. Thankfully the courts quashed their last attempt.

Originally Posted by Savage1

7)prohibition orders would stop people using them under someone elses supervision which isn't an offence and would remove any defence for having one, great idea for certain people.

If a 'fit and proper' person is supervising the use of the firearm, what is the problem?

If the person is not using it for a 'lawful, proper of sufficient purpose', charge them.

45 Carrying or possession of firearms, airguns, pistols, restricted weapons, or explosives, except for lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose
(1) Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to both who, except for some lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose,—
(a) carries; or
(b) is in possession of—any firearm, airgun, pistol, restricted weapon, or explosive.
(2) In any prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in which it is proved that the defendant was carrying or in possession of any firearm, airgun, pistol, restricted weapon, or explosive, as the case may require, the burden of proving the existence of some lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose shall lie on the defendant.

Originally Posted by Savage1

8)fit and proper is subjective to the police, that is in law, so if they decide to put it in a code book then it is arguable whether it is law or not. Sure it can be challenged in the courts but anything can be. Your argument is irrelevant to the point.

Your argument doesn't even make sense.....

Originally Posted by Savage1

9)stops muppets from intantly applying, getting turned down and dragging it through the courts. But agreed it's not really needed.

Stops 'muppets' from using their right of appeal? How dare these people use the judicial system in their defence....

Originally Posted by Savage1

10) It's the courts that decided that being a gangmember alone isn't reason enough not to be considered fit and proper. Police are bound by the courts decision so your whole argument is unfounded.

So, my argument that if you have not committed any crime, (you) should you lose your rights? is unfounded?

Originally Posted by Savage1

11) I actually think this is ok, they're already recording B C E cat weapons and it appears to be effective, sure there are negatives but there are certainly positives as well, the main one being the deterrence of on-selling to non FAL holders.

Effective? You're joking right?

I know dozens of people who have had incorrect details of BCE firearms on their licences.

The point you are really missing though. How many people will comply? How may will hide them away?

If the NZ Police do not know what people have now, how will the deter selling to unlicenced persons?

What was the compliance rate in Canada or Australia?

Originally Posted by Savage1

12)Judges can't just dish out maximum sentences cumulatively whenever they like, they're bound by legislation and are also open to appeal. To increase the penalties would give the judges more freedom to give bigger sentences. it's much easier to give 2yrs imprisonment on a 10yr max penalty that a 2yr max penalty.

Actually judges are REQUIRED to 'dish out' maximum sentences....


Sentencing Act 2002 - 8 Principles of sentencing or otherwise dealing with offenders
In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court—
(a) must take into account the gravity of the offending in the particular case, including the degree of culpability of the offender; and
(b) must take into account the seriousness of the type of offence in comparison with other types of offences, as indicated by the maximum penalties prescribed for the offences; and
(c) must impose the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence if the offending is within the most serious of cases for which that penalty is prescribed, unless circumstances relating to the offender make that inappropriate; and
(d) must impose a penalty near to the maximum prescribed for the offence if the offending is near to the most serious of cases for which that penalty is prescribed, unless circumstances relating to the offender make that inappropriate; and

Unless the possession of MSSAs, pistols and drugs is not a serious case....

Originally Posted by Savage1

13) selling firearms to unlicenced people?

That would already be an offence....

Originally Posted by Savage1

14) Who cares what section it is, that's erroneous. This is a great submission, financial burden? Do you expect them to spec bank safes? more likely BCE standards or less.

I care. It implies that it is 'criminal offending'.

So a farmer with their single shot .22LR must get a $900 E/C rated safe? With an engineers certificate produced every 24mths, because you know....metal dissolves withing 2 years...

Originally Posted by Savage1

15)there is nothing to say an endorsenment can't be issued until there is suitable storage arangements, this would remove that.

Yet, their IS something saying that a person can not take possession of an endorsed firearm until suitable security is in place.

[B]28 Security precautions in relation to pistols, military style semi-automatic firearms, and restricted weapons[/B]
(1)Every person who is lawfully entitled to possession of a pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon other than an air pistol by virtue of a permit under section 18 of the Act or a firearms licence endorsed under section 30 or section 30B of the Act shall ensure that, except when the pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon is in his or her immediate physical possession or is being used, in accordance with section 31 of the Act, for the purpose of making a broadcast or producing or staging a play or filming a cinematic production or television film or is in the custody of a licensed dealer or a member of the Police, it is—
(a)kept in a steel and concrete strongroom of sound construction and of a type approved for the time being in writing either generally or in the particular case by a member of the Police; or
(b)kept in a room of stout and secure construction capable of being adequately secured against unlawful entry, being in every case a room which is approved for the purpose by a member of the Police and which meets the following requirements:
(i)the room shall be in structurally sound condition:
(ii)the doors that give access to the room, and their locks, bolts, hinges, and other fastenings shall be in good condition:
(iii)the windows, skylights, or other things intended to cover openings to the room, and their locks, bolts, hinges, and other fastenings shall be in good condition:
(iv)the doors referred to in subparagraph (ii) and the windows, skylights, and other things referred to in subparagraph (iii) shall be capable of being secured against unlawful entry; or
(c)locked in a steel safe or steel box or steel cabinet (being in every case a safe, box, or cabinet of sound construction and of a type approved in writing either generally or in the particular case by a member of the Police) bolted or otherwise securely fixed (in a manner approved in writing either generally or in the particular case by a member of the Police) to the building within which the pistol or military style semi-automatic firearm or restricted weapon is kept.

Originally Posted by Savage1

16)Do you really have a problem with random inspections? I see no end of unsecured firearms by some great and generally responsible people, so many get stolen from unlocked safes too. It's hardly like your house is going to be searched whilst you're put in plasticuffs and are not free to leave. If all people were reasonable this kind of thing wouldn't need to be law.

Yes, I really have a problem with giving up my rights.

It's not like we haven't seen NZ Police acting unreasonable...

Originally Posted by Savage1

17)actually it's the police who decides who is fit and proper so it's up to them to revoke FALs, it's in the arms act.

So, you are saying that you already have the power. SO you don't need to change anything then.

Originally Posted by Savage1

You talk about effective enforcement however the problem is that the Police aren't able to enforce some of the current laws because of easy defences and lack of accountability of FAL holders for the whereabouts of their firearms. Have you ever investigated a burglary? If so you'd know just how notoriously hard they are to solve due to lack of evidence, and if this is how FAs are mainly obtained then increasing security should be first priority. Preaching about Police needing to solve more burglaries is just easy scapegoating.

So, because burglaries are "notoriously hard they are to solve, you punish the victims? That's not scapegoating?

Police complaining about how hard it is do do their job, but want more work to do....OK.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Not all people that're vetted 'fit and proper' are 'fit and proper'

So maybe the NZ Police should stop giving out licences in Wheatbix boxes then....

Originally Posted by Savage1

I'm not against you at all, just trying to add a bit of perspective and play devils advocate.

Good, I'm not against the NZ Police. I have great respect for the difficult and often thankless job you do. I just demand that the NZ Police are held accountable and operate under the legislative system that governs us all.

Making secret submissions to the Select Committee and lying to the media does not inspire trust though.

In a nutshell.

Originally Posted by Moutere

New Zealand does not have a firearms problem. New Zealand has an enforcement problem.
Thats the catch phrase right there.

This IS the big problem here when you give over law making to Police you WILL end with a police state.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Actually warrantless searches have always been around and are conducted on criminals daily, and if you had any understanding about law enforcement you would know why they're very necessary and what their limitations are.

And where was "searches" mentioned? I recall seeing "inspections", which are two completely different things. You don't like the other side exaggerating so why do it yourself?

inspection = limited search

you already have us on facial recognition

New biometric photo technology will help police nab crims captured on CCTV | Stuff.co.nz

Exaggerations or lies?

The problem is @Savage1 whats next? once these changes don't work what will be the next phase of law changes. Maybe the police should be campaigning to deal with the apparent changes to our culture that have criminals arming themselves and acting violently toward the Police (if this is indeed getting worse)? Or is that just too hard? Easier just to have a go at firearm owners?

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

inspection = limited search

you already have us on facial recognition

New biometric photo technology will help police nab crims captured on CCTV | Stuff.co.nz

Exaggerations or lies?

The problem is @Savage1 whats next? once these changes don't work what will be the next phase of law changes. Maybe the police should be campaigning to deal with the apparent changes to our culture that have criminals arming themselves and acting violently toward the Police (if this is indeed getting worse)? Or is that just too hard? Easier just to have a go at firearm owners?

Personally I think its just actually easier to appear to do something rather than actually do something.

Just in case you had any doubt about the intentions of the Police Association under Chris Cahill:

" We need to examine why semi-automatics are needed in a hunting environment " " bear in mind it's very easy to turn these weapons into full automatics and get them into the hands of criminals "

" I've sat around a fire talking to hunters and duck shooters and they don't use semi-automatic weapons because they don't need to. "

Morning Rural News for 20 April 2017 | Rural News | Radio New Zealand

Weird - the only firearms I use when I do get to go hunting are semi-automatic. I must be unique.

Sat around the fire talking out his arse I'd say

Originally Posted by Koshogi

Just in case you had any doubt about the intentions of the Police Association under Chris Cahill:

" We need to examine why semi-automatics are needed in a hunting environment " " bear in mind it's very easy to turn these weapons into full automatics and get them into the hands of criminals "

" I've sat around a fire talking to hunters and duck shooters and they don't use semi-automatic weapons because they don't need to. "

Morning Rural News for 20 April 2017 | Rural News | Radio New Zealand

well 10,000 bunnies so far. i would say well over 90% shot with a 10/22 or a semi 12gu.
deer and pigs shot with an sks or an l1a1 too.
and to top it off for those of us with buggered shoulders a semi take lots of kick away

Originally Posted by Koshogi

Just in case you had any doubt about the intentions of the Police Association under Chris Cahill:

" We need to examine why semi-automatics are needed in a hunting environment " " bear in mind it's very easy to turn these weapons into full automatics and get them into the hands of criminals "

" I've sat around a fire talking to hunters and duck shooters and they don't use semi-automatic weapons because they don't need to. "

Morning Rural News for 20 April 2017 | Rural News | Radio New Zealand

Easily turning semi's into full auto?
That can't be true is it?
How many criminal acts have happen in this country with full automatic rifles?

Sent from my SM-A500Y using Tapatalk

Richard Prosser MP NZ
Spokesperson for Outdoor Recreation
20 APRIL 2017

POLICE SECRETARY OUT OF LINE OVER HUNTING RIFLE COMMENTS

Police Association president Chris Cahill should stick to police union-related matters, and not interfere in the choice of legal firearms law-abiding licence holders use in the safe enjoyment of their sport, says New Zealand First Outdoor Recreation Spokesperson Richard Prosser

“Mr Cahill was on Radio NZ this morning repeating his questioning of the ‘need’ for-semi automatic hunting rifles and shotguns by hunters and duck shooters.

“He claims firearms which resemble military weapons and other semi-automatics pose a danger to the public.

The fact is police were unable to provide the recent Law and Order Select Committee inquiry into illegal possession of firearms with any figures to back up this claim – and that’s because they don’t pose any such danger.

“Sawn-off shotguns and cut-down .22s are the weapons of choice for criminals, not MSSAs that don’t even appear in the crime stats.

“Mr Cahill’s desire to further restrict and penalise law-abiding hunters and shooters will have no effect whatsoever on the criminals who are the problem.

“Frankly it’s none of his business what type of legal firearm people choose to use; he needs to focus on catching criminals and keep his nose out of law-abiding people’s business,” says Mr Prosser.

ENDS

Cahill is a lying sack of shit. He needs to fuck off back where he came from.

I couldnt believe the shit Cahill was spouting on RNZ today.
What a cock smoker.
He's either dumb as shit or an out and out liar.
Its not easy to turn semi autos into full auto
They are not more high powered than other firearms
They are useful in wide range of hunting applications.

Burn me at the stake if ya like, but some comments I've seen only confirm to Joe Public what Mr Cahill wants them to see.
Sure get passionate about it, but keep your emotions and comments civil. This is a public forum, and to an outsider we appear to be a pack of Neanderthal beasts beating our chests, waving threats etc around. Calling him names and saying how you're not going to abide by the proposals that are out on the table, makes us look like vigilantes.
Voice your concerns, with facts, but keep emotion and name calling out of it.
I'm concerned what is being proposed, and all the untruths, and incorrect facts being spouted to the public, but we're a minority in the grand scheme of things. There's 240,000 odd licence holders and only a proportion of them know anything about this. Theres probably 2.5-3 million others that don't give a toss. They're easily swayed by the police word, because they're the law. Little Ol granny's etc don't want swearing,cussing, name calling beasts in charge of 'extremely high powered weapons of destruction'
This is what we're fighting against.
Yes I have semi autos in my safe, and dammed if I want to give them up, but in the end majority normally rule. Next will be divide and conquer.
I think all we can do is keep proving we are worthy off possession, and pointing out, in a civil manner how some facts and figures aren't quite as accurate as the leaders are portraying.