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

I didn't say threats specifically from this one individual, I'm talking about ongoing threats to DOC staff nationwide. For example if I wrote a letter to local DOC staff saying they might get shot at if they drop 1080 here (without saying anything about doing it myself), I would expect to loose my FAL too.

"Citations" (among many available with google and 30 seconds to spare);

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/...aff-threatened
https://www.doc.govt.nz/news/media-r...eats-to-staff/

Originally Posted by Maca49

What happened to the guy that assaulted Scribe? Or did that not happen?

Hopefully he got an award

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

The initial letter would have bullet pointed reasons they have to revoke his licence, for some reason he hasn't put that up.

Originally Posted by Creeper

Hopefully he got an award

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Your profile photo is going to give me nightmares !!

Originally Posted by timattalon

As with ALL Stuff articles, not all the truth will be there. The use of the word Terrorist will grab headlines and is there for click bait. The actual threats may not have been published for any number of reasons, but the main one I can think of is that it would be detrimental to the story which is to encourage the conflict.

Or it may not have been published if there is a genuine belief that someone will try to commit the act. Either way I trust Stuff about as much as I trust twigs and tweets to tell the truth. Remember that their motto is Never let the facts get in the way of a good headline....

Personally, if the police have seen fit to follow through with this, I would like to believe there is more to it than a simple reference to terrorism in a letter. That term does not by itself equate to a threat of lethal force so one must conclude that there had to be an actual threat of some sort within the unpublished part of the letter.

@timattalon

To re-quote Mel Aitken: "You ... indirectly threatened the [council] employees with lethal force in relation to their support or stance towards 1080 drops, citing said employees to be deemed as terrorists,".

"The mustbemoretothisstory" response is well and good but not as a knee jerk response. The quote of Mel Aitken clearly states what is the basis for her action: that calling someone's actions "terrorist actions" means (first logic jump) that you are "calling them terrorists" and that calling someone terrorists means [logic long jump here] that you "indirectly threaten" them [here's another long jump] "with lethal force" [when he himself only actually calls for an action on their part - that they "cease and desist"]. Mel Aitken may be acting ill advisedly, but I don't think she'd bother to do such mental gymnastics if it was a simple case of someone having made an actual threat of violence.


@Marty Henry

Re stashing his guns with a mate, he is not going to access his guns because he's a law abiding citizen. Also too busy enjoying dragging the cops to court, with reasonable expectation of getting his FAL back. I hope he has a good barrister - not a lot of money about on the West Coast, thanks in part to Twig & Tweet.

I see that he gave his firearms to another FAL holder stating that they once belonged to his farther.
Can't see anything wrong with that in general. There still under lock and key and he would not have direct access to them.
Yes I'd take his FAL license away if these allegations are true. (His firearms can then be past to another family member with the correct FAL so that the family heirlooms are not destroyed).
But I would also do similar to what he has done if I was getting divorced or had any altercation where I thought my FAL would be in jeopardy. From what has been printed in the press the police seem to have this right. Which is good, but why do (separate issue) do gang members and associates still have FAL? You just need to have them drive past to feel threatened.
I do hope that this is not a witch hunt! With the powers that be trying to shut up our right to protest! That would be JUST as alarming as what this chap has allegedly done.

Originally Posted by Creeper

Hopefully he got an award

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Why..? 🤨


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Ben Waimata

I didn't say threats specifically from this one individual, I'm talking about ongoing threats to DOC staff nationwide. For example if I wrote a letter to local DOC staff saying they might get shot at if they drop 1080 here (without saying anything about doing it myself), I would expect to loose my FAL too.

"Citations" (among many available with google and 30 seconds to spare);

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/...aff-threatened
https://www.doc.govt.nz/news/media-r...eats-to-staff/

Neither of these quote the man specifically...infact those links involve us all as "Cunters" even if you dont agree with the sentiment as I am sure most of us do not. (even if you dont hunt it wont matter Eugenie hates you too)

Presumably you own a firearm or two and may even be a hunter as well so therefor under the evidence presented (none) you and I and every other licensed firearms owner are in the sights of the govt if you dare question its motives or direction.....best be a sheep ay?...well at least until your throat is cut.

Originally Posted by Sideshow

I see that he gave his firearms to another FAL holder stating that they once belonged to his farther.
Can't see anything wrong with that in general. There still under lock and key and he would not have direct access to them.
Yes I'd take his FAL license away if these allegations are true. (His firearms can then be past to another family member with the correct FAL so that the family heirlooms are not destroyed).
But I would also do similar to what he has done if I was getting divorced or had any altercation where I thought my FAL would be in jeopardy. From what has been printed in the press the police seem to have this right. Which is good, but why do (separate issue) do gang members and associates still have FAL? You just need to have them drive past to feel threatened.
I do hope that this is not a witch hunt! With the powers that be trying to shut up our right to protest! That would be JUST as alarming as what this chap has allegedly done.

What allegations?

Exactly what is happening.

What has he allegedly done?

I dont know the man...I dont follow anti 1080 protesting.
From that "news" report and a link of the revocation of his licence video shared to me by a member I believe the man is being harrased and victimised as other protesters have been by our govt and police.

I and many of you other forum members may not agree with this mans protest but surely we must all agree harassment for legally protesting something you believe strongly in is oppression plain and simple.

Anyone remember Apartheid ?

Freedom of speech and peaceful protest must be upheld without retribution by "the man" or we will end up with a dictatorship.

Originally Posted by Cordite

@timattalon

To re-quote Mel Aitken: "You ... indirectly threatened the [council] employees with lethal force in relation to their support or stance towards 1080 drops, citing said employees to be deemed as terrorists,".

"The mustbemoretothisstory" response is well and good but not as a knee jerk response. The quote of Mel Aitken clearly states what is the basis for her action: that calling someone's actions "terrorist actions" means (first logic jump) that you are "calling them terrorists" and that calling someone terrorists means [logic long jump here] that you "indirectly threaten" them [here's another long jump] "with lethal force" [when he himself only actually calls for an action on their part - that they "cease and desist"]. Mel Aitken may be acting ill advisedly, but I don't think she'd bother to do such mental gymnastics if it was a simple case of someone having made an actual threat of violence.


@Marty Henry

Re stashing his guns with a mate, he is not going to access his guns because he's a law abiding citizen. Also too busy enjoying dragging the cops to court, with reasonable expectation of getting his FAL back. I hope he has a good barrister - not a lot of money about on the West Coast, thanks in part to Twig & Tweet.

Boy you really over think things , you're not a " snowflake " I hope ? .

Originally Posted by Tankd

Boy you really over think things , you're not a " snowflake " I hope ? .

Sometimes people can’t see the wood for the trees....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This isn't about freedom of speech. Its about "fit and proper". That's the acid test isn't it?

As Timtalon said earlier, I don't think that we are getting all of the information presented cleanly and as anyone who has been near a Stuff article knows, they don't report accurately a lot of the time

What does seem clear is that the cop gave him a warning and he failed to respond

No matter how strongly one feels about the issue, sometimes ya need to use ya head

Originally Posted by Tahr

This isn't about freedom of speech. Its about "fit and proper". That's the acid test isn't it?

I agree but yet there still no evidence to show he is not fit and proper.