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

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.

No,you have the absolute right to do anything not proscribed by law.

Originally Posted by ebf

Well, this thread has been pretty predictable...

@Cordite, @Maca49, what would it take in terms of behavior from an anti-1080 person for you guys to stand up and say "oi, that's not acceptable, stop that !"

If someone threatens DOC staff, or police involved in keeping the protestors and workers apart, is that ok ?

If someone actually assaults DOC staff or police is that ok purely because they are fighting for a "noble cause" ?

Is willful damage to property (cutting fences, padlocks, damaging vehicles) ok ?

Not saying this person has done any if these, just trying to figure out what your threshold is .

@ebf,

None of the above are acceptable, since you ask, and some of them are incompatible with owning a FAL, that is, any involving violence or threats. As you can be a cannabis grower / seller and still have a FAL, who am I to then turn around and say that damaging a few vehicles/padlocks/fences should then disqualify someone from having a FAL? And gang members??? The bar is often set quite low to get that piece of plastic, but then all of a sudden Mel Aitken comes out with that oppressive sophistry to justify revoking a FAL. This is about more than just 1080.

Can I ask, @ebf ... how acceptable is it to deprive an unpopular, obnoxious, but law-abiding person of his gun license through an inference of an inference of an inference? At what threshold should we ALL be up in arms (figuratively speaking!) about that?

At least one bod in the preceeding posts has confessed to trespass snd poaching while armed. You better go and hand over your srms and fal hadn't you.
I reckon the self rightous on here should act responsibly and shut up until the full history and facts are known. Cops might evrn take your fal because your mouths flap without just cause

I'm pretty happy for the police to err on the side of caution when it comes to firearms and people who may be unstable...

After all, we live in a country with a fairly solid legal system, and he has recourse to the courts if he feels that his "rights" have been violated.

And the thing to keep in mind is all of this is speculation. None of us really know what threats he made or did not make. Like I said, that is for the police to decide, and I am happy that they get it right most of the time.

Some of these guys are pretty far out on the nutcase scale, we are talking folks who believe in chemtrails and all kinds of government conspiracies.

Originally Posted by madjon_

not quite,Permit to procure from sports shop round to constable Boyd.

Yes permit to procure before paper licence and plastic card. I was referring to our colonial days prior to needing a "permit" to own firearms.

Originally Posted by R93

Yup. Trying to find out what the lethal threat he was supposed to have made as well. If calling people terrorists is all he did then he has a case.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Any luck there @R93?

All the usual linch mob on here are throwing him to the wolves already but I cant find any reference to his lethal threat if there ever was one.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Any luck there @R93?

All the usual linch mob on here are throwing him to the wolves already but I cant find any reference to his lethal threat if there ever was one.

@veitnamcam

He called them something in a letter written to them. If they then disseminate it, that cannot be rationally used against him, even if Mel Aitken's logic is otherwise valid (which it isn't).

Same as if I go to person X in private and call him a paedophile to his face - he can't make that out to be slander or libel, and it's only HIS problem if he chooses to go round telling people what I accused him of at our meeting.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Any luck there @R93?

All the usual linch mob on here are throwing him to the wolves already but I cant find any reference to his lethal threat if there ever was one.

No mate. Haven't heard anything from home but no doubt will in the next few days when I get there.

I have a mate that is part of this group of anti 1080 types. I will get hold of him when I get home.
He gets judged all the time on his looks and ideas yet is one of the most stable blokes I know. He is just passionate about what happens to him and his family's future..... Go figure.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by ebf

I'm pretty happy for the police to err on the side of caution when it comes to firearms and people who may be unstable...

After all, we live in a country with a fairly solid legal system, and he has recourse to the courts if he feels that his "rights" have been violated.

And the thing to keep in mind is all of this is speculation. None of us really know what threats he made or did not make. Like I said, that is for the police to decide, and I am happy that they get it right most of the time.

Some of these guys are pretty far out on the nutcase scale, we are talking folks who believe in chemtrails and all kinds of government conspiracies.

@ebf

Sarcasm about someone's rights is unwise at best, especially when you add a qualifier when pointing out that our legal system is solid.

We all sing the same tune once we're on the receiving end ourselves, but by then the boat is gone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lfInFVPkQs
This explains it

Only time will predict what happens to this chap in regards to his FAL. We wouldn't know half the facts.
Don't forget these types are always being dragged down...just the way the top lot want it.

Originally Posted by doinit

Only time will predict what happens to this chap in regards to his FAL. We wouldn't know half the facts.
Don't forget these types are always being dragged down...just the way the top lot want it.

And for the record, agree it must be sorted through the courts.

A shame this has an overlay of the divisive 1080 issue. This may confuse things (talking of not seeing the wood for the trees) and should not obscure that this is essentially a matter of a FAL holder who claims to be law abiding and who was stripped of his right to have firearms on questionable grounds. 1080 should not prevent any shooters' organisation from coming to his legal aid.

Originally Posted by Cordite

And for the record, agree it must be sorted through the courts.

A shame this has an overlay of the divisive 1080 issue. This may confuse things (talking of not seeing the wood for the trees) and should not obscure that this is essentially a matter of a FAL holder who claims to be law abiding and who was stripped of his right to have firearms on questionable grounds. 1080 should not prevent any shooters' organisation from coming to his legal aid.

It is for the courts to decide of course and everything we say here is purely conjecture including this.....

The feeling I get is that this has been put on him because he was being a pain in the councils arse. And that they know it wont stick but it will cost him a lot of time and money to defend his innocence while of course having the inconvenience of not having a FAL and all the media attention discredits him further regardless of the outcome.
Meanwhile we the taxpayer pay for the ensuing debarkle.

If he is found not at fault and on the evidence we have been provided he should be I sincerely hope those pressing charges are forced to pay his legal costs and compensation from their pockets not the public purse.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

It is for the courts to decide of course and everything we say here is purely conjecture including this.....

The feeling I get is that this has been put on him because he was being a pain in the councils arse. And that they know it wont stick but it will cost him a lot of time and money to defend his innocence while of course having the inconvenience of not having a FAL and all the media attention discredits him further regardless of the outcome.
Meanwhile we the taxpayer pay for the ensuing debarkle.

If he is found not at fault and on the evidence we have been provided he should be I sincerely hope those pressing charges are forced to pay his legal costs and compensation from their pockets not the public purse.

In that case, if he is found to have actually made threats that have not been published, then first I hope he recieves more than a wet bus ticket, and two I would like to see stuff ACTUALLY report an accurate article for a change. From what I understand, there is a lot of flexibility / understanding / tolerance from the police on the west coast as they understand that tensions are running hot there and they are trying to keep the piece.

I think the biggest debacle in this is everyone is up in arms over something STUFF has published when we should all know now, that if the truth is what you seek, you won't find it there.......

I personally doubt the cops would take a license over the use of the words Terrorist in a letter. But I fully expect STUFF is happy quoting the words that will provide click bait rather than publishing what was ACTUALLY written.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

It is for the courts to decide of course and everything we say here is purely conjecture including this.....

The feeling I get is that this has been put on him because he was being a pain in the councils arse. And that they know it wont stick but it will cost him a lot of time and money to defend his innocence while of course having the inconvenience of not having a FAL and all the media attention discredits him further regardless of the outcome.
Meanwhile we the taxpayer pay for the ensuing debarkle.

If he is found not at fault and on the evidence we have been provided he should be I sincerely hope those pressing charges are forced to pay his legal costs and compensation from their pockets not the public purse.

What evidence has been provided? Why should anything be provided to anyone other than the people directly involved?

Or should the guy's licence be given back, or not, on the basis of media reports and the opinions of those, including me, that know fuck-all about the case?