Thread: ARMS OFFICE NEWSLETTER WAIKATO DISTRICT

Originally Posted by mikee

Yep but the Police's job is to enforce the laws as written, not to interpret them and act accordingly. That job is for the courts.

It seems with the Arms Act there is a whole lot of "interpretation" going on by everyone especially some of the AOs round the country.

That is a very ignorant way of looking at it.

It is a judges job to judge on the laws as they are written, when not written clearly then they have to interpret. Same with Police, they have to interpret the law and enforce it when it isn't clear, yet the judge can interpret the law differently and overrule them.

A lot of law needs to be interpreted as it isn't sufficiently clear, Police couldn't do their job without interpreting law which hasn't been clarified in court.

People so often miss the forest for the trees when it comes to the Arms Act.

Originally Posted by Savage1

That is a very ignorant way of looking at it.

It is a judges job to judge on the laws as they are written, when not written clearly then they have to interpret. Same with Police, they have to interpret the law and enforce it when it isn't clear, yet the judge can interpret the law differently and overrule them.

A lot of law needs to be interpreted as it isn't sufficiently clear, Police couldn't do their job without interpreting law which hasn't been clarified in court.

People so often miss the forest for the trees when it comes to the Arms Act.

The problem arises when police become overzealous in their interpretation of the law and get it wrong. The legal system is weighted heavily in favour of the enforcement agents and they will sometimes use this to their advantage. The average citizen does not have the same level of understanding of the law as the enforcement agent, so is already at a disadvantage before their case even comes to court.

Once their case goes before court, the average citizen does not also have unlimited funds to spend on defending his / her actions and the veneer of "fairness" afforded by a court appointed legal representation isn't worth a hill of beans.

Laws apply to everyone and as such, it should in my opinion, be a legal requirement that everyone can understand them instead of the obfuscation that we currently have. Citizens, police, judges would all be able to understand it, time in court and legal fees would be reduced.

Originally Posted by Savage1

That is a very ignorant way of looking at it.

It is a judges job to judge on the laws as they are written, when not written clearly then they have to interpret. Same with Police, they have to interpret the law and enforce it when it isn't clear, yet the judge can interpret the law differently and overrule them.

A lot of law needs to be interpreted as it isn't sufficiently clear, Police couldn't do their job without interpreting law which hasn't been clarified in court.

People so often miss the forest for the trees when it comes to the Arms Act.

Agree with you that the Police have to interpret the law to enforce it on many occasions. But they also get that interpretation wrong often on many occasions and tend to bring a over zealous and poorly informed interpretation to the table.

The thumbhole fiasco was a incorrect interpretation on a previously incorrect pistol grip interpretation (high court decision). Kiwi shooters were abiding by the Police's incorrect pistol grip interpretation to keep the peace with the police and due to many not knowing it was a flawed/incorrect interpretation, but then the Police decided to change the interpretation again to include a thumbhole as a pistol grip-this was a incorrect interpretation too far and action was taken against that.

The interpretation then created a wedge and ill feeling between a section of law abiding shooters and the Police which I hope will be able to be fixed and the good feelings return.
The Police have since retracted the thumbhole interpretation and do seem at the local AO level to be making attempts to repair the ill feeling generated. However the management still seem to be tracking in the wrong direction on firearm safety/control.

I feel the biggest problem is that the laws themselves are written by people who don't know jack about firearms, and they are unwilling to listen to those who do. I think the rules could be a piece of piss to understand if they aimed for simplicity and deleted shit that is irrelevant. I think the E cat classification system should be trashed. The "features" on that list don't amount to anything. It was a copy and paste job done by people who don't really know how to classify what an MSSA is. For example, on the Sport Shooter board, there is a discussion about what exactly a flash suppressor is. If your muzzle brake also suppresses muzzle flash then...? What about your sound suppressor? If we don't know how is a cop expected to know?

Interesting reading. It's going to get so hard to have any weaponry at some stage. I can see it getting to the point that one day an 'E cat' storage will be required for anything larger than what's classed as a pistol. As for the Police, some cops are clued up on the paperwork and will have you sorted whereas some are not.

Congratulations everyone this is a great thread on a sensitive topic without delving too deeply into politics or personal attacks.

It's not only firearms. I'm in the electrical game and I ask questions to interprete standards concerning importation of electrical equipment, so I can electrically test and tag it. When I ask I get the roundabout, when I ask directly in black and white I just get ignored.
The first time I get it wrong I have no doubt every bastard concerned will know exactly what I got wrong. The long and the short of the problem is the government doesn't want to be sued, it is up to prosecution through the courts to sort.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Congratulations everyone this is a great thread on a sensitive topic without delving too deeply into politics or personal attacks.

Oh Fark sorry not being political it's just the system is court based

I really hope it doesn't become impossible for joe average to own an ar or semi of similar type, I'd hate to have to get rid of mine because it becomes to difficult to meet new license criteria ( it took me some hard work and saving to get a certain type of rifle I've always wanted and which is treated with respect and saftey I show to any firearm)

Makes me feel like getting another outa bloody mindeness,

Originally Posted by Maca49

It's not only firearms. I'm in the electrical game and I ask questions to interprete standards concerning importation of electrical equipment, so I can electrically test and tag it. When I ask I get the roundabout, when I ask directly in black and white I just get ignored.
The first time I get it wrong I have no doubt every bastard concerned will know exactly what I got wrong. The long and the short of the problem is the government doesn't want to be sued, it is up to prosecution through the courts to sort.

Dead right there, I'm in the process of applying for a temp firearms license in Australia, filled out the state police application form and when they issue the license they will also issue an import permit but aussie customs want a tree's worth of paperwork to fill out. Spent many hours on the phone to get sorted but can see if you get it wrong you lose your firearms and potentially get smacked a huge fine.

You can see a time when some Govt's want to de-firearm there citizens and we'll all be using clubs and bow and arrows.

Hello
I didn't emigrate from the country with the worlds most ill-thought and restrictive firearms laws to not get a semi automatic rifle here!
No way!
MARK

Yep, Read the editorial in the latest GUNS&GAME magazine. New South Wales has passed a Ammunition Control Legislation.

Found info on the legislation here: Firearms Amendment (Ammunition Control) Bill 2012 - NSW Parliament

In the Editors own words "quote" "This legislation is all about annoying and frustrating gun owners, making it harder to use firearms so that you just give up and go and do something else. It is another veiled attempt to try and force people to reduce the number of guns in society as a means of gun control" "unquote"

In summary the bill requires a permit to purchase ammunition, which proves you own a firearm that takes said ammunition and a paper trail to show for the distribution and purchase of the said ammunition.

I cant see what that achieves....unless its a way to make more money through getting the permit. Unless unlike us right now they dont need a FAL to buy ammo?

Likely to up the cost of ammo, coz someone isgoingtohave to pay for the paperwork and beaurocracy...