Thread: Anti-1080 protester has firearms licence revoked after delivering threatening letter

this will probably start a shit fight but that is not the intention

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/107...atening-letter

Great to see our police enforcing the Firearms Act.

Say/write stupid things; have consequences. :-)

Originally Posted by craigc

Great to see our police enforcing the Firearms Act.

Say/write stupid things; have consequences. :-)

Have to agree, Doesn't appear 'fit and proper' unfortunately

His mate was on his FB page, openly wishing for "another Stanley Graham" to sort out the local police, who he referred to as "stormtroopers". Absolute fucking looney tunes, he needs a visit too

just to point out I am not a supporter or fanatic

Having a FAL is a privilege not a right, start making threats to any government agency regardless of the intention and you will end up neck deep in shit. After seeing the video and the manner in which he spoke to the Police, of which they both held a very polite and professional manner by the way, I'm not surprised he lost his FAL.

I am as anti 1080 as the next guy but I'm not a dickhead about it.

If in the first instance you have an FAL and own firearms and then you make overt threat toward others using the word lethal in amongst what you say, what other conclusion do you think the Police would arrive at. That shit is as dumb as the dumbest thing on national dumb day.

Originally Posted by Rushy

dumb as the dumbest thing on national dumb day.

That's a memorable quote.

Originally Posted by oneshot

Having a FAL is a privilege not a right, start making threats to any government agency regardless of the intention and you will end up neck deep in shit. After seeing the video and the manner in which he spoke to the Police, of which they both held a very polite and professional manner by the way, I'm not surprised he lost his FAL.

I am as anti 1080 as the next guy but I'm not a dickhead about it.

A Firearm License is a right governed by law , that is why the term " shall issue " is used in the legislation and also why it is mentioned in the Bill of Rights 1688 .
And as for the "threats " , their going to have a hard time explaining how calling someone a 'Terrorist " is somehow an indirect threat ?? . He may not be a rocket scientist but the Police are drawing a long bow .

First and foremost I want to state that following this sort of action I would expect revocation of a firearms license to be a natural response to the threats made and that the police actions in this case were what I would ask and expect them to do.

He has "indirectly threatened staff with "lethal force" because of their stance on 1080.". I would be curious how INDIRECTLY it is to go to the point of revoking a license.

He may well be a sound safe a potentially "fit and proper" person to have a license, or he may not. And in all likelihood the threats are all emotive strongly worded statements and with little or no intention of following through and causing anyone harm. However due to the nature of these statements, it does (and rightly so) fall to him to prove to the police that he should be allowed his license back. Whether he can or not will decide whether he gets it back or not.

The 1080 topic has some very strong conflicting opinions on both sides, and both sides are feeling hard done by. But I do not believe either side has the right to threaten the other at a personal level. If he is feeling so strongly about this that he has written and committed to these statements to the level that the police are claiming (and they will obviously have hard copy) then it could easily be that he is currently not fit to hold firearms.

I would also point out that I also understand his frustration around the issue, and would point out too, that if these anti 1080 protesters were not feeling completely ignored it may be that would not have come to this.

I have to ak the question ? . What was the Indirect threat ???? . Calling someone a name is not a threat .

I have to ask the question, how do people who regularly dominate the media consider themselves ignored?

I'm constantly ignored but have never threatened anyone.

Does she alone have the right to do this? Or would there be consultation? That’s a lot of power to one person?

The guy is a nutter, and may very well NOT be fit and proper, but I can't find any reference to any threat of lethal force. He called people terrorists.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk