Thread: Call to Arms

All the replies with original messages are gonna break the interweb. @Savage1 "When is the Police Association going to lobby for random searches on gang pads and recidivist burglars?

Sent from my SM-G388F using Tapatalk

Made a post on the other thread, don't agree with what everyone is saying. Some recommendations aren't entirely stupid some go to far. Have written my letters as should all of those making any comments on the forum. Hope everyone who is commenting on this subject has made some at least that might make a difference instead of batching about this here.

Originally Posted by Savage1

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

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 problem is that any person can import the parts to assemble a MSSA or buy up a-cat firearms and onsell them to anyone without any kind of trail. 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.

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.

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.

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

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.
2)3)4) Agreed, not really needed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
9)stops muppets from intantly applying, getting turned down and dragging it through the courts. But agreed it's not really needed.
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.
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.
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.
13) selling firearms to unlicenced people?
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.
15)there is nothing to say an endorsenment can't be issued until there is suitable storage arangements, this would remove that.
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.
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.

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.

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

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

Thanks for you input to this thread Savage1.

I have a major problem with "Random inspection" if a gang members p lab cant be randomly inspected at any time with no reason then why can I not tell police wanting to inspect my security(which is well above minimum A spec) to fuck off if I am in the middle of bumming the missus,celebrating an event, just dont feel like dealing with the man.
Why should I have less rights than known criminals known to be performing criminal acts?

And I also have another major problem with police telling us what arms are acceptable....in no short time we will all be using slingshots or be criminals....dont say it isnt so your spokesperson clearly wants no arms available to the public.

The problem overall I have with the submission, is the fact it has missed the target. It isn't difficult to read between the lines and see that the police association are saying "actually you guys(licensed gun owners) are the problem". But are we? Are the criminal organisations not? So say the police get what they want, we still have these organisations and their members out there. Peddling meth. Stealing guns. Laundering money. And I'm left wondering what lobbying the police are doing to deal with them properly. Why should I be subject to this kind of scrutiny and warrentless inspection when these parasites have rights against this, and get pathetic sentances when caught? These people are half the reason we have to lock firearms away. They are the problem. Deal with them.

Warrantless searches has to be the most fucked up thing a select committee has ever suggested in NZ history. We wouldn't do it to criminals, so why the fuck would we do it to those deemed fit and proper by the police themselves?

If you suspect someone of committing a crime get a fucking warrant like you have to with everyone else.

Originally Posted by Jexla

Warrantless searches has to be the most fucked up thing a select committee has ever suggested in NZ history. We wouldn't do it to criminals, so why the fuck would we do it to those deemed fit and proper by the police themselves?

If you suspect someone of committing a crime get a fucking warrant like you have to with everyone else.

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?

This is why I will never support registration.

Originally Posted by Beavis

The problem overall I have with the submission, is the fact it has missed the target. It isn't difficult to read between the lines and see that the police association are saying "actually you guys(licensed gun owners) are the problem". But are we? Are the criminal organisations not? So say the police get what they want, we still have these organisations and their members out there. Peddling meth. Stealing guns. Laundering money. And I'm left wondering what lobbying the police are doing to deal with them properly. Why should I be subject to this kind of scrutiny and warrentless inspection when these parasites have rights against this, and get pathetic sentances when caught? These people are half the reason we have to lock firearms away. They are the problem. Deal with them.

Hear hear!

I really like how, when presented with the opportunity to ask for the courts to actually enforce the law as it already stands, and apply deterrent penalties, they instead go wobbly over a whole pile of other options that have been proven to not work very well or at all.

"Anyone can import an MSSA" - this report makes for increased border inspections?

" 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 holder" - During my last interaction with the police AO, the records were 40% accurate on what I actually had. They aren't up to it. The AO was telling me an M1 carbine was a bolt action, while she held it in her hands. Had no idea what MSSA features actually were. Didn't care either.

"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." - Why wasn't this this crux of the report? Penalise the lawbreakers!

13) That's already illegal last time I checked

14) There's already a shit fight going re certing perfectly good safes, while giving licences to HeadHunters. While I would personally agree that some of the police's own guidelines are pretty lax, the police at the moment are being pretty difficult for the sake of it, so not trusting bullshit castle is perfectly reasonable imho. They quit lying through their teeth on national TV, and Joe license holder might actually trust them. They aren't, so we don't.

16) Let's talk about that kilo of meth that went missing. When was that discovered? Where did it go? Maybe it should have been on a list? Who's accountable for that? Where are we with that investigation? How's Mike Sabin? (We trust you all, cos you're all good guys right? I'm pretty sure you are, but there are some pretty fucking bad eggs in the NZ police). My gear is locked up tight, cos I'm a fit and proper person. Why push for me to be checked without a warrant, at random, when you could push for checks of, I dunno, criminals?

17) Contradicts 10)


Look I respect that you actually answered, but they just plain missed the point of this inquiry (purposely or otherwise). It's that simple. Opportunity lost. They didn't even bother to familiarise themselves with the current laws beforehand either, it was a lazy hackjob with an agenda. THAT is why people are angry with this.

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

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

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?

Search / inspect... sama sama

Inspect to see what is there. If it's not there, presumably there are grounds then to search for it.

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?

You should be a politician next.

Originally Posted by Savage1

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

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 problem is that any person can import the parts to assemble a MSSA or buy up a-cat firearms and onsell them to anyone without any kind of trail. 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.

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.

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.

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

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.
2)3)4) Agreed, not really needed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
9)stops muppets from intantly applying, getting turned down and dragging it through the courts. But agreed it's not really needed.
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.
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.
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.
13) selling firearms to unlicenced people?
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.
15)there is nothing to say an endorsenment can't be issued until there is suitable storage arangements, this would remove that.
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.
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.

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.

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

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

I see and understand that there are clearly different perspectives on these issues. My biggest concern is around the sheer volume of resources in dollars and manpower hours that will be needed to cope with the suggestions. The delays show us they cannot cope with the resources that are available now. If we were to put a value or indication on the cost in staffing and dollars, would these resources not be more beneficial to be spent on actually targeting the criminals? The police , and especially the front lie cops, have enough of a challenge now. Let put the resources that we can into the place where it will do the most good. The Canadians spent over $2billion on registration before giving up. That is nearly $60 per person in Canada. To put that in perspective that would be about $227 million in NZ. Lets put that to better use.

If police are being confronted by criminals with guns, why don't we just allow police to carry all the time? It seems like a case of tail wagging dog to me.

Originally Posted by tararua

If police are being confronted by criminals with guns, why don't we just allow police to carry all the time? It seems like a case of tail wagging dog to me.

That would get my full support. I have no concern with full time armed police.