Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Man
well thats comprehensive..... a strategy and agenda, an admission that they already operate outside of the law, and active political interference...
no nothing to worry about.....
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Man
well thats comprehensive..... a strategy and agenda, an admission that they already operate outside of the law, and active political interference...
no nothing to worry about.....
Well now that seems pretty conclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Man
Does any of it say that they should ban all firearms and disarm citizens? Have the Police made any moves to ban any type of firearm?
It says Police has given careful consideration to the Thorpe Report, nowhere does it say they will be enacting all the recommendations from it.
Why would have they mucked around with pistol grips if they were just going to ban them outright anyway, it doesn't make any sense.
The actions that Police have taken speak a lot louder than those quotes you have put up from four years ago, and I haven't seen any attempts to ban any firearms.
The thumbhole stock issue, the pistol grip reclassification, refusing import of firearms on totally baseless and legally shaky reasons, hand ins...
What sentence do you think the crim in Auck will get for possessing a, i take it stolen, E Cat, MSSA? Probably with no FAL.
How would it compare if a licensed, "law abiding" person with an A cat had a legit one in their possession .
Crimson get it to easy, I'll watch this with interest , probably won't get another mention in the media though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
Its not a legitimate argument to say that because I don't know about it, it can't exist....
Have a look for Practical Shooting Insititute vs Commissioner of Police where a total ban on the importation of ALL semiautomatics was overturned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
Look at "A Review of Firearms Control in New Zealand" a report made by NZ Police to Thorp
7.4 Such weapon types that should be banned include shotguns with barell less than a certain length, firearms that discharge a bullet of a size greater than .50 calibre, and 'bullpup' firearms of any type.
Have a look through the Police Firearms Manual where the word 'banned' appears numerous times.
Wake up and sniff the 'banning' frevour!
Sure that's not a legitimate argument, but when you piece it together with the actions of the Police then that is a very valid argument, actions speak louder than words and so far there hasn't been any actions or direct statements saying that the Police are aiming to disarm the population or ban MSSAs. Until there is, just get out and enjoy your hobby.
I get sick of people scaremongering by selecting certain pieces of information and ignoring the big obvious picture.
The Thorp Report was an independent review commissioned by the NZ Police, Thorp produced it. Very big difference to what you are stating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Man
When I looked at the arms manual the word banned appeared once and the word banning once, neither time was it in reference to taking firearms off people.
I think you are the one that needs to wake up and stop spreading misinformation.
http://www.police.govt.nz/service/fi...anual_2002.pdf
8.12 Firearms Approved
for Import
The importation of the following shall only be approved through the Manager: Licensing
and Vetting. The applicant is to provide written explanation for wanting to import these
firearms, including why the general rule banning their import should not apply.
a) pistols or restricted weapons or parts of pistols or restricted weapons,
b) military style semi-automatic firearms or parts thereof,
c) semi automatic shotguns or parts thereof,
d) pump action shotguns or parts thereof,
e) firearms concealed within another item (eg: walking stick firearms)
f) doubled barrelled exposed hammer shotguns
g) rifles, carbines or shotguns less than 762 mm (30 inches) in overall length
h) firearms with folding, sliding, telescoping or other retractable stocks
Banning their import effectively is a policy banning continued ownership. You are now in denial!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
Really?
Having an opinion without knowing what you are talking about is such a strong position to be starting to be an authority on any thing....
A foot soldier in any organisation, is not privy to policy and strategy planning.... however the people that dialog with those that do, certainly know more than you
You have no idea by your own admission what the situation is..... and when informed, you still don't shut up....
Big picture??
Here's the big picture... the police are actively implementing policies which are outside the law in order to make it difficult for people to acquire MSSa type firearms. When challenged in court they lose, and then they seek to get the law changed. They act illegally and they interfere politically.
.. and your solution is "enjoy your hobby, until the police make a direct announcement." Will they advise you first?
Please let us know when they do....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
The quote is from the Police report to Thorp made by the Opperations Suport Group - not from the Thorp Report itself
Also have another look at the Arms Manual - banned appears more than once.
The statement that I am spreading misinformation is untrue - you are spreading untruths!
So this one excerpt means that Police are trying to ban civilian ownership?! Since when were the items on that list banned from import? Pretty easy to get a hold of a,b,c,d,f,g,h. Last I checked there were plenty being imported. Not to mention this only applies to the certain firearms that aren't on the approved list. This is far from evidence of Police wanting to disarm the population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Man
Keep trying.
1. Before a Permit to Import is issued for any firearm a check shall be made to ensure the
firearm has been approved for import into New Zealand. A list of firearms approved for
import is available on the Police website. This list is not exhaustive – if a firearm is not on
the list a check should be made with the Police Armourer.
2. The description must be precise. It must specify make/model/type and action
(e.g.: “Mossberg 500” is an inadequate description as there are many models of Mossberg
500, some of them banned from importation).
Despite the clear fact that PSI vs COP made it abundantly plain that Police do not have and never have had the power to 'ban' any importation. A general rule of banning is pretty plain speaking to me - as I understand plain English.
It is blatantly obvious the police want to disarm the population, they are only succeeding in small steps,every police force anywhere would love to be the only people with firearms...makes the job a whole lot easier.
What police and govt fail to see is disarming the law abiding has no net gain at all unless they fear a civil war,overthrow of police/govt.
Criminals dont obey the law so any law changes to restrict or ban means only the big blue gang and all the other gangs have firearms(the armed forces probably have a couple as well)
Everyone else is trying to disarm their civilian population because its easy to control a angry population armed with rocks,bits of timber,handfuls of their own shit etc when you have firearms.
Its been going on since the dawn of civilization, It is always the goal of those in power to disarm anyone and everyone who may oppose.
Oh I don't know.... that could be scaremongering..... :D
The thing is in a democracy, the govt does not have a mandate to disarm to people because it is supposed to represent the people interests...
The interests of the people are for accountable govt. Not that the public has any right to be threatening its leadership by being armed, but the reality is that any population that is disarmed means less accountable govt.
The police just want to make their job easier. A lot of the antis genuinely believe that less arms in the community will mean a safer community. You can understand the logic, but reality doesn't seem to work that way.... they ignore that.
A lot of the political thinking is just about political expediency. If it is popular to ban firearms, and who doesn't like to be told that they are being made safe, then govt will be incentivised to go down that road...
Its not always a conspiracy, often its just the mechanics and how it works.
But anybody who doesn't understand that the police do have an agenda, has their head somewhere dark.....
Democracy is nothing more than tyranny of the majority. Two foxes and a chicken voting on what's for dinner. The foxes don't need a gun, the chicken does.
Our mate the police armorer also basically has the power to ban the import of what ever he wants - the option to appeal is there, if you are loaded and have spare time.
They can enjoy prying that from my cold dead hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
If the Police really wanted to ban firearms from civilian ownership then how do you think they would go about it. They've had over 15yrs since the Thorp report and what actual steps have they really taken? If they wanted to achieve that goal they would stop all imports, stop issuing FALs and endorsements, make licencing fees astronomical, revoking FAL from anybody with any kind of conviction and start pushing bills before the select committee increasing their power to cover all of these things, just to name a few. What have they really done? Tried to reclassify a tiny fraction of firearms so that you need to get an endorsement to own them, and offered that endorsement for no cost and given a grace period, that really sounds like a conspiracy to me. They haven't even tried to implement registration for A-cat.
When I take in all the facts available I quickly realise that they have no intention to disarm the population, that's just fantasy, unless they have a 200+ year time frame.
If Police were looking at banning any class of firearm I would have thought it would have been the pistols targeted first.
I realise this is just my opinion and I have no hope of changing or influencing anyone else's.
Hahaha an American telling us about gun control hahahaha
Now this thread has really jumped the shark
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado
Read Arms Amendment Act 2012 in toto - the latest legislation pushed before the House ... by Police.
Also be aware that initially it had been written so that ANY firearm could be declared an MSSA by Order in Council (requested by Police) It was only a handful of the wide-awake that stimied that.
The other suggestions as to Police making it harder or more difficult as prevented by the present law ... and the fact that those very same wide-awke persons keep taking them to task when the begin going there. They have tride banning imports have racked up the cost of firearms licences - from $4.00 FOR LIFE to $123.40 for a ten year expiring licence plus $200 for an endorsement.
They admit their practices are not necessarily reflected in legislation ...
I have been involved since before 1983 and since 1990 have seen the gradual deterioration od firearms licence holders position. Three times now have been forced to Court to protest ultra vires behavior and been successful at slowing down the rot. Off to Wellington again to give evidence at a Regulations Review Committee hearing regarding the complaint about the 'Pistol Grips' regulation.
Basically a complaint that the Order is a major extension of the number and style of pistol grips restricted by law and in our view places unreasonable limitations upon the safe use of semi-automatic firearms by restricting the use of a Court acknowledged safety feature.
Cheese! How mcuh clearer does it need to become?
Hey guys circles a good to go round and round, most of us are now on the same page / belief. How are you going forward from here? You need to gel the group and set sail!
Well - for a start putting our hands in our pockets and raising some serious funding to assist those who do something would be a good way forward ...
If he did he probably knows a lot more about the subject than you do. But pretty sure he didn't say anything about gun control, he said quite a bit about said a lot about democracy though...Quote:
Originally Posted by 308
Goodo Who, What, When?Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Man
GunDoc and JayDee from sportshooter forum have set up the "Firearms Fighting Fund" as a non-profit organisation which helps fund the National Shooters Association and other personal firearms law inititives.
Both are recently retired - GunDoc from a career as a Firearms manufacturing Gunsmith and JayDee as a Toolmaker.
Both have been involved in Firearms lobbying and several Court Cases (GunDoc as a Court recognised firearms expert and JayDee giving advice as an 'ordinary man' in several Court matters. Both were involved with PSI vs COP back in 1990 and assisted with Lincoln vs Police in 2009 (the Check Your Stocks reversal) and also in the recent NSA Statemen tof Claims case. I know them both - hence my knowledge of the cases.
Firearms Fighting Fund
WestPac
03 1599 0030592-00
Any donations are greatfully accepted - presently helping with the Regulations Review Committee 'pistol grips' regulation complaint.
:thumbsup: great!
While it is interesting that it's not directly to the worthy but elusive NSA I'll be throwing some $ at that account on payday,as I do to other orgs that fight for our tools from other angles.
You only get the rights/privileges (whatever you want to call it) that you fight for-and the combo of colfo and NSA fight for it so fund them-even $5 helps.
I'm not associated with any of them directly for those who may wonder-hell both orgs probably think I'm a pain in there arse
res mate, you'll just be sending beer money down to a couple of law students down in christchurch :D
"elusive" is an interesting choice of word.
And there we go.... not only inaccurate but part of the problem.. and defamatoryQuote:
Originally Posted by ebf
The only organisations that have actually done anything about this stuff, the only reason you can still import firearms products, the only groups that actually challenge the illegal activities of the police...... and thats the support they get from the community they help....
Ebf - if you would prefer that I don't call into question your capacity, then stop giving licence....
Richard Lincoln of NSA fame is a 50 year old law student - who is working through his 3rd year of a law degree to better be able to conduct Court cases - now that is dedication.
Gundoc and JayDee are very much long term and hard core Gun Lobby personalities who have been at the coalface since before the 1983 Arms Act - and got stuff done or been instrumental in it succeeding. PSI vs COP and the 2009 Touch Our Butts amoung these successes.
They have become used to derogatory comments from the uninformed and plainly jealous BenDover merchants throughout that time.
Touchy point Sidney, or should I say Richard ? Want to have another go at answering questions about membership :D ?
Res, dude, it is your money, do with it what you want. For me, I choose to support organisations that are happy to publicly disclose their membership numbers (not some fantasy they dreamt up), easily verifiable by dividing the subs income. Can you easily get hold of financial statements for the last couple of years ? How hard is it to get info about organisational structure, regional representatives, background of the leadership team etc. Think of it as buying shares in a company...
NSA activities:
1) The 2009 court case ensured that we still have thumbholes and Dragunov stocks despite the 2012 Amendment.
[plus the much easier importation of 'sporting configuration' ARs - which continues even after the 'Pistol Grip' regulation]
2) The word 'firearm' was replaced with 'semi-auto' to limit application of regulations to semis
[revealed by NSA opperative]
3) Attempt was made via SOP 036 to extend rimfire to those less than .22LR
[Introduced by Richard Prosser NZ First MP but opposed by MOP Judith Collins and not adopted]
4) The 'semi-auto' definition loophole has been publicised as was the ability for an endorsement holder to swap configurations
5) 'Free-standing' has a Judicial definition
6) The lack of need for a P2P when 'manufacturing' an MSSA for personal use has been Judicially clarified
7) That the requirement for security to be installed before the issue of an endorsement is 'premature' has been established
[ a discretionary condition cannot be placed upon an endorsement prior to its issue]
8) A formal complaint has been laid with the Regulations Review Committee regarding the new 'Pistol Grip' regulation
9) Research into a Judicial Review of the 'Pistol Grip' (and other possible) regulations is in train
10) Ongoing investigation into 'blanket policy' transgressions underway
[this is a biggie - an attempt was made to get NSA to agree not to persue any more matters in this area - they continue]
[Already case law in this area - way back in 1990's PSI vs COP - some NSA 'oldies' were there too]
11) Information presented on this very website has been ongoing.
12) All 'authorities' efforts to obtain NSA membership lists and number of members have been resisted - It's a SECRET!
13) You can help by continuing to contribute to the advancement of your interests ... or not - that is your choice!
[Thank you for previous assistance]
That is the short list - add to that a considerable number of cases where NSA has given private assistance and been involved in serveral other matters in Court. Plus the NSA submission to the Law & Order Select Committee - and several individual NSA members submissions as well
From Gundoc:
The NSA exists to fight for the rights of firearms owners, particularly in regard to the government and its various departments acting within the law, and in accordance with the various rights that we have as NZ citizens. I use the words 'rights' advisedly!
The various people that set up the NSA originally, did so against a background of failed attempts to bring about change by the various shooting sports organisations. Their failure was due entirely to their 'give up something in exchange for something else' attitude, even with full knowledge that they were being shafted. Their attitude was one of 'not rocking the boat in case we lose everything' when in fact what they had could NOT be taken away.
Most of the original founders of the NSA had long history of refusing to back down in the face of strong opposition. These people, by their relatively singular efforts had achieved the following for NZ shooters; the introduction of IPSC and 3-gun shooting (against the NZ Pistol Assn. and the NZ Police), the introduction of Metallic Silhouette shooting (against the NZ Pistol Assn and the NZ Police), defining what constitutes the overall length of a firearm in the Courts (against NZ Police), taking the Commissioner of Police to Court over blanket ban policies and winning (a far-reaching decision that made legal history), etc.
Thus the NSA was formed to provide a single entity to pursue these goals, not by negotiating but by drawing a line in the sand. Since then the victories have mounted as outlined in a previous post by JayDee. These efforts have been partly member funded and partly by various NSA founders putting up the balance. The NSA is fortunate to have the services of Richard Lincoln who, despite still being a law student, has performed exceptionally well in Court on our behalf. The initial Court battle in Palmerston North saw the Crown Solicitor shake Richard's hand and warmly congratulate him on a very well presented case. That is not too bad for a student who only had completed one year of study at that stage. I was there in Court to assist with the technical aspects of firearms for the benefit of the Judge.
The NSA seldom meets face to face but uses email and phone calls when a decision needs to be made, takes the appropriate action, and slips back into the lair, watching and waiting. It is not an organisation that has regular meetings, puts out newsletters, etc. The various people who chew these things over all have other jobs to do to keep food on the table, and Richard is very busy with his studies. The NSA funding is used specifically and exclusively to fight these battles when they are identified, and our legal team has all their ducks in a row. Jaydee and I are both laymen but we both have a sharp eye for the written law (and a bit of Celtic fire in our blood), the others are qualified lawyers. First and foremost however, we are all shooters.
I would have define the NSA as a movement, rather than a club.
Here is the thing Efb.... your wrong again.... so capacity obviously is an issue for you...Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
I know Richard, but am not him... I am not a member of the NSA and have not been associated with their legal activities..
I am however a law student, the only bit you have right so far....
If you want to buy shares in a company you should do so.... if you wish to support activates that encourage accountability, that might be a different thing.
Applying your formulae of how to achieve end game results sounds like you are prescribing inactivity... Analysis of membership and representation is purely a red herring. I am far more interested in the aims, activities and capacity of the group that I am supporting. What are our choices here...? Listening to the likes of you or going with something that actually achieves something?
You do not need large membership to pursue legal remedy, you need funding streams. Large memberships are more often than not, inefficient and indecisive, just witness your own diversionary opinion.
We have an extremely diverse community within the recreation firearms users community and getting everybody on the same page will always seem to be an exercise in herding cats....
Thankfully some people just get on with it.... your should go and do some more memberships analysis...
By memory NSA threads have a tendency to go pear-shaped very quickly. Is this what this thread is about ?
Don't think so
Gosh Sidney, I bet you get a lot of dates
Are you on here looking for dates? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by 308