Thread: The anti gun lobby

Originally Posted by Moutere

Better check the bottom of the first page of the arms code.

The Arms Code is the Police's interpretation of the Arms Act, the Code itself has no legal standing. Privilege, implies that the police/government own our freedom and are fully entitled to restrict it for whatever reason they feel. People viewing firearm ownership as a privilege that we should be grateful for, is why we will get screwed each time the police want to enact more pointless gun laws.

Originally Posted by Banana

The Arms Code is the Police's interpretation of the Arms Act, the Code itself has no legal standing. Privilege, implies that the police/government own our freedom and are fully entitled to restrict it for whatever reason they feel. People viewing firearm ownership as a privilege that we should be grateful for, is why we will get screwed each time the police want to enact more pointless gun laws.

Fair enough, Are you insinuating firearm ownership is some right then?
Firearm ownership is a privilege exercised by being appropriately licenced.
You have to have one to get the other. Any one is 'free' to apply for a licence, thankfully there are measures to determine their suitability.
NZ has a good balance.

rubbish .banana firstly google
Regina vs R grant(palmy nth high court)Decision of Justice Mallon.J. In short Justice Mallon delivers a massive arsekick to Police over the freestanding pistol grips issue.THEY CANNOT BE JUDGE JURY&EXECUTIONER.i make noapologies for that emphasis because that is the axis of thecase.
Once youve digested that .google "prof gary mauser",specifically his peer revjew of research published by one Adjucnt prof Philip Alpers of sydney university fame(ytes alpers previous was TVNZ fairgo reporter). a froggy nuclear weapon is akin to a soggy jelly bean when you read this.
now bear in mind the twat above.
in my final reference John Howat of COLFO- the UN hosts a conference on ARMS control. The govt at the time (Herr Clucks mob_specifically the weak chinned Alliance MP minster of disarmament Matt???????? sends Alpers FFS.
The Outcome
after a 2week jawfest -a 2 sentence Press release. "noone can agree on anything"
the reality was half of them didnt have the remotest why they were there ,of that, half ,wanted to know when the coffee &cakes would be served -half of that didnt evenknow where the bloody tea lady was located.
oh the other half- most of them are living on under table payments from the worlds biggest arms retailers ,who like the annual civil war to showcase the latest means of shagging human beings.

have you finished laughing yet-sorry if you fell off your stool but theres more.The last time the wellington woolshed .mickey mouse politicians debated our arms issues guns were referred to as "Rambo ak47s" FFS.If i spoke those words in my maimai your average mallard would hoever and shit on me ,and it wouls be richly deserved.

dont take it my criticism is universal ,theres a lot who work for my targets who are good honest knowlegeable people for whom ive the greatest respect,but as for the body corporate ,in a lot of cases it simply shows the limitations of DNA.

youyr arms code statement is a red herring for its always made very clear itsa merely a police guide to relevant sections of the arms act no more.

Originally Posted by Moutere

Better check the bottom of the first page of the arms code.

A document produced by the police written from their perspective, and swallowed without apparent thought by those duped into believing that they should be grateful for such consideration.

This is not legally clarified as a privilege. Only by the police who want to make you dependant on their decision making.

The granting of permission for the ownership and use of a firearm is a regulatory function, and providing that you meet the legal criteria, the police have no right to deny your rights under the law.

The conditions that attach/control access to your rights are a lot harder to change or alter if we are talking about individual rights, as opposed to "privileges"

It would appear that the brainwashing is very successful... because we constantly hear this BS... and from our own fraternity...

We need to change the terminology....

Originally Posted by Moutere

I'll bite, what you suggest above is the exact system we have now. A licence holder can 'directly' supervise a licenced, or unlicenced individual. The idea is to mentor their approach to safety and proficiency. That person can be a father, a neighbour, a friend or club member. A simple system for us, the end user, with no need for additional controls. The arms code provides a crystal clear definition of immediate supervision.

A particular problem facing many new tyro FAL holders is that they simply don't have someone to mentor them in the correct (read: safe) use of a firearm. I would argue that competence in safe handling procedures should be proven before being issued a FAL, which is why I continue to advocate the introduction of a proficiency test as part of the FAL application process.

Totally agree, I grew up shooting and have just recently completed my licence. I though the course was well though out and well presented, with good applicable information, but was based to much in the theoretical. It would take bugger all more time and $ to include a portion of the test that includes actual handling and simulated firarms use, across a couple of common scenarios.
That being said, you will never completely remove human error from any activity, and in terms of injuries and deaths, hunting and shooting is still nowhere near as dangerous as many other common past times. And I do think at least in my experience, that the test does a good job of providing you with the right knowledge to be a safe/responable firearms owner.

The application of that knowledge is up to the end user. And you will always get those who are to arrogant/stupid to adhear to the rules even when dealing with something with such a high potential for danger as a firearm.
I just hope like hell we dont end up like ausi or the UK. No semi's and a million restrictions around every aspect of firearms.

Well said.

I am afraid I do not agree with the contention that firearms ownership in New Zealand is a right and find nothing in either of the above posts to convince me otherwise so will agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Rushy

I am afraid I do not agree with the contention that firearms ownership in New Zealand is a right and find nothing in either of the above posts to convince me otherwise so will agree to disagree and leave it at that.

If you have an argument, then make it.. the contention that it is a privilege has never been justified, and apparently you cannot either. If you can't make a logical argument then stop using the term.

If you "feel" that its a privilege, then I can't argue with that. Fortunately feelings don't mean squat in a court room. Feelings are not a legal concept and feelings have nothing to do with logic.

You are perfectly entitled to disagree Rushy and if it didn't matter what terminology we used, then I wouldn't give a flying f... But thats not the case here.

There is no legal argument for your position... there is no legal application of the word privilege in this context, and you are attempting to discuss legal principles...

It does harm to misunderstand the legal position, and the police are certainly motivated to minimise the strength of our position at law, but why are you?

Is it just to convey the seriousness of the responsibility? Can we do that some other way other than by denying our rights? Does the possession of legal rights minimise our legal responsibilities? If we have legal rights, are we suddenly no longer culpable? Are we only culpable if we have "privileges?"

What is the problem with having legal rights? Do we all need to go and beat ourselves with sticks or something to make ourselves feel better.. bit of self flagellation anyone?

Shooting ourselves in the foot, might not be "fit & proper" they could come and take away all of our "privileges."

The english language is a bitch..... I feel privileged to live in a country where the right to own and use firearms is recognised in law, while acknowledging that many people live in countries where that right does not exist in law, and those countries citizens are not privileged in the same way.. is that more helpful?

Semantics are important... the denial of rights, are usually the premise of authoritarian powers...

Also, if you guys want to insist on telling people what your rights are, it would help to convince others if you didn't froth at the mouth quite so much.

If you want to talk about a "fraternity" of firearms users I would put it to you that we all have a responsibility to at least appear to be rational, not like those Dads for justice guys.

Incoherent arguments, different coloured lettering and capslock speeches are the internet forum equivalent of driving a RAV4 with a personalised plate and a stick figure family on the back window whilst wearing crocs and participating in airsoft sports



There. That should do the trick.

Originally Posted by 308

Also, if you guys want to insist on telling people what your rights are, it would help to convince others if you didn't froth at the mouth quite so much.

If you want to talk about a "fraternity" of firearms users I would put it to you that we all have a responsibility to at least appear to be rational, not like those Dads for justice guys.

Incoherent arguments, different coloured lettering and capslock speeches are the internet forum equivalent of driving a RAV4 with a personalised plate and a stick figure family on the back window whilst wearing crocs and participating in airsoft sports



There. That should do the trick.

So a bit above your head huh?

Originally Posted by 308

Also, if you guys want to insist on telling people what your rights are, it would help to convince others if you didn't froth at the mouth quite so much.

If you want to talk about a "fraternity" of firearms users I would put it to you that we all have a responsibility to at least appear to be rational, not like those Dads for justice guys.

Incoherent arguments, different coloured lettering and capslock speeches are the internet forum equivalent of driving a RAV4 with a personalised plate and a stick figure family on the back window whilst wearing crocs and participating in airsoft sports



There. That should do the trick.

It's perfectly rational if you, y'know, read the words in the post

right
noun
a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something

Everyone is legally entitled to apply for a firearms license. Everyone who meets the criteria is legally entitled to a firearms license (police cannot refuse if criteria met). Everyone with a firearms license is legally entitled to buy, possess and use firearms.

You fail to convince me and for as long as there a single person who having the right to apply for a firearms license does not get that license for whatever reason (be it inability to pass a simple test process or having been determined to be an unfit individual) then you will not ever convince me that that individual or any of the rest of us have the right to own firearms as you assert.

I simply do not agree with you.

Do the rest of us a favour Rushy.... remain convinced internally....

The mind numbing number of times that the "privilege" crap comes out is not helpful.....